[House Report 109-611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-611

======================================================================
 
ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION 
                              ACT OF 2006

                                _______
                                

 July 28, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5656]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
5656) to provide for Federal energy research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application activities, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill............................................13
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................13
  IV. Summary of Hearings............................................14
   V. Committee Actions..............................................16
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported...........18
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section), as Reported18
VIII. Committee Views................................................22
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................26
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................27
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........29
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............29
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........29
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................29
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................29
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................29
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........30
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........30

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................35
  XX. Committee Correspondence.......................................36
 XXI. Additional Views...............................................38
XXII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................43

                              I. Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Research, Development, 
Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``biomass'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 932(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
        16232(a)(1));
          (2) the term ``cellulosic feedstock'' has the meaning given 
        the term ``lignocellulosic feedstock'' in section 932(a)(2) of 
        the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16232(a)(2));
          (3) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
          (4) the term ``engineering-scale'' means the minimum size 
        required to predict with confidence all physical processes 
        controlling the performance of a full-scale industrial 
        facility;
          (5) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a));
          (6) the term ``National Laboratory'' has the meaning given 
        the term ``nonmilitary energy laboratory'' in section 903(3) of 
        the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16182(3)); and
          (7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

SEC. 3. FUTUREGEN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a project of research, 
development, and demonstration designed to demonstrate the feasibility 
of the commercial application of advanced clean coal energy technology, 
including carbon capture and geological sequestration, for electricity 
generation.
  (b) Industry Involvement.--The Secretary may conduct the project 
through a financial assistance cooperative agreement with a consortium 
of coal-fired power producers, coal companies, and others.
  (c) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
          (1) a FutureGen demonstration facility is operating by 2012;
          (2) the FutureGen demonstration facility is designed to be 
        able--
                  (A) to achieve at least a 99 percent reduction in 
                sulfur dioxide emissions or, when burning coal 
                containing 3 pounds or less of sulfur per million 
                British thermal units, the project shall be able to 
                emit no more than 0.03 pounds of sulfur dioxide 
                emissions per million British thermal units;
                  (B) to emit no more than 0.05 pounds of nitrogen 
                oxide emissions per million British thermal units;
                  (C) to achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in 
                mercury emissions;
                  (D) to emit no more than 0.005 pounds of total 
                particulate emissions in the flue gas per million 
                British thermal units;
                  (E) to achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in 
                carbon dioxide emissions;
                  (F) to demonstrate that the technology can be applied 
                to a diversity of United States coal types; and
                  (G) to demonstrate the feasibility of electricity 
                generation from coal using advanced clean coal 
                technology with carbon capture and geological 
                sequestration at a cost not greater than 10 percent 
                higher than the average of all commercial integrated 
                coal gasification combined cycle electric generating 
                plants operating in the United States as of the date of 
                enactment of this Act.
  (d) System Integration.--To reduce technical risk and focus 
development efforts on system integration, the Secretary shall, to the 
extent practicable, ensure that the FutureGen demonstration facility is 
designed to utilize available advanced clean coal technology, as well 
as first-of-a-kind technology components, as appropriate.
  (e) Data Protection.--The Secretary may agree to protect FutureGen 
information to the same extent authorized for the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative pursuant to section 402(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(42 U.S.C. 16231(h)).
  (f) Contributions.--The Secretary may accept contributions from 
private and public sources, including foreign nations and international 
contributors, and use such contributions to offset a portion of the 
Federal share of the project costs.

SEC. 4. ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 
                    AND DEMONSTRATION PLAN.

  (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advanced recycling 
reactor'' means a nuclear reactor that is capable of significantly 
reducing the toxicity or radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel 
components.
  (b) Systems Analysis.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive 
        modeling and simulation capability to enable a thorough 
        analysis of possible advanced nuclear fuel cycle systems. The 
        modeling and simulation capability shall be capable of 
        examining--
                  (A) all of the components of each advanced nuclear 
                fuel cycle system analyzed, including--
                          (i) spent fuel separations technologies;
                          (ii) advanced recycling reactor technologies;
                          (iii) fuel fabrication technologies;
                          (iv) advanced thermal reactor technologies, 
                        including advanced thermal reactor designs that 
                        would be capable of reducing the toxicity or 
                        radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel components; 
                        and
                          (v) waste disposal technologies;
                  (B) the manner in which possible technology and 
                engineering choices for individual components might 
                affect the overall system, and how various system 
                components would interact with one another;
                  (C) quantitative mass flows of nuclear fuel and spent 
                nuclear fuel, including projected inventories and 
                transportation requirements for nuclear fuel and spent 
                nuclear fuel, for any examined system; and
                  (D) estimated costs associated with building and 
                operating the examined fuel cycle system, including a 
                comparison with the estimated costs of building and 
                operating a more conventional future fuel cycle system 
                that includes geologic sequestration of high-level 
                nuclear waste but that does not include recycling of 
                spent fuel components.
          (2) Advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies plan.--
                  (A) Analysis.--The Secretary shall conduct a thorough 
                analysis of more than 1 possible configuration of an 
                advanced nuclear fuel cycle system using the analytical 
                capability developed under paragraph (1). Each analysis 
                of a possible configuration of an advanced nuclear fuel 
                cycle system shall examine--
                          (i) the compatibility of fuel cycle system 
                        components, including each of the system 
                        component technologies described in paragraph 
                        (1)(A); and
                          (ii) the degree to which the examined system 
                        would--
                                  (I) minimize the toxicity and 
                                radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel;
                                  (II) increase the proliferation 
                                resistance of commercial nuclear power 
                                reactors and their associated fuel 
                                systems and infrastructure;
                                  (III) maximize the amount of useful 
                                energy that can be extracted from 
                                nuclear fuel; and
                                  (IV) minimize the costs of 
                                construction and operation of 
                                commercial nuclear power reactors and 
                                their associated fuel systems and 
                                infrastructure.
                  (B) Plan.--Using the results of the analyses 
                developed under subparagraph (A), and not later than 
                June 30, 2007, the Secretary shall develop a detailed 
                plan for research, development, and demonstration for 
                advanced nuclear fuel cycle system technologies, 
                including proposed technology options for each of the 
                system component technologies described in paragraph 
                (1)(A) and any proposed engineering-scale 
                demonstrations of such system component technologies. 
                The plan shall include an estimate of the design, 
                engineering, construction, and lifetime operating costs 
                of any proposed engineering-scale demonstration, 
                including decontamination and decommissioning costs. In 
                developing the plan, the Secretary shall consider the 
                integration into an advanced nuclear fuel cycle system 
                of advanced thermal reactors capable of reducing the 
                toxicity or radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel 
                components.
                  (C) Consultation.--In developing the plan under 
                subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall consult with--
                          (i) technical experts from United States and 
                        foreign companies that design or engineer 
                        nuclear power plants or nuclear fuel 
                        reprocessing facilities;
                          (ii) technical experts from United States 
                        electric utilities that operate nuclear power 
                        plants;
                          (iii) economists with expertise in nuclear 
                        power and electricity markets;
                          (iv) the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory 
                        Committee;
                          (v) the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
                        Commission; and
                          (vi) the Administrator of the Environmental 
                        Protection Agency.
          (3) National academy of sciences review.--The Secretary shall 
        enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences 
        to conduct a review of the plan developed under paragraph 
        (2)(B), including by reviewing the validity of the underlying 
        analyses required under paragraph (2)(A).
  (c) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2008, the Secretary shall 
transmit to Congress a report that includes--
          (1) the research, development, and demonstration plan 
        developed under subsection (b)(2)(B), and the report from the 
        National Academy of Sciences on the review conducted under 
        subsection (b)(3);
          (2) a revised research, development, and demonstration plan 
        that takes into account the findings, conclusions, and 
        recommendations of the report from the National Academy of 
        Sciences; and
          (3) an explanation of any instances where the Secretary does 
        not concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
        of the report from the National Academy of Sciences.
  (d) Prohibition.--The Secretary shall not initiate detailed design or 
construction of any demonstration facility that is capable of 
processing 750 kilograms or more per year of nuclear fuel or spent 
nuclear fuel and that is designed to demonstrate the advanced nuclear 
fuel system component technologies described in subsection 
(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii) until 90 days after the report under subsection 
(c) has been transmitted to Congress.

SEC. 5. ADVANCED BIOFUEL TECHNOLOGIES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application for production 
of motor and other fuels from biomass.
  (b) Objectives.--The Secretary shall design the program under this 
section to--
          (1) develop technologies that would make ethanol produced 
        from cellulosic feedstocks cost competitive with ethanol 
        produced from corn by 2012;
          (2) conduct research and development on how to apply advanced 
        genetic engineering and bioengineering techniques to increase 
        the efficiency and lower the cost of industrial-scale 
        production of liquid fuels from cellulosic feedstocks; and
          (3) conduct research and development on the production of 
        hydrocarbons other than ethanol from biomass.
  (c) Institution of Higher Education Grants.--The Secretary shall 
designate not less than 10 percent of the funds appropriated under 
subsection (d) for each fiscal year to carry out the program for grants 
to competitively selected institutions of higher education around the 
country focused on meeting the objectives stated in subsection (b).
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts authorized to be 
appropriated under section 931(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
U.S.C. 16231(c)), there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary to carry out this section--
          (1) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          (2) $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
          (3) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

SEC. 6. ADVANCED HYDROGEN STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application for technologies 
to enable practical onboard storage of hydrogen for use as a fuel for 
light-duty motor vehicles.
  (b) Objective.--The Secretary shall design the program under this 
section to develop practical hydrogen storage technologies that would 
enable a hydrogen-fueled light-duty motor vehicle to travel 300 miles 
before refueling.

SEC. 7. ADVANCED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC TECHNOLOGIES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application for advanced 
solar photovoltaic technologies.
  (b) Objectives.--The Secretary shall design the program under this 
section to develop technologies that would--
          (1) make electricity generated by solar photovoltaic power 
        cost-competitive by 2015; and
          (2) enable the widespread use of solar photovoltaic power.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section--
          (1) $148,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          (2) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
          (3) $165,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
          (4) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

SEC. 8. ADVANCED WIND ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application for advanced 
wind energy technologies.
  (b) Objectives.--The Secretary shall design the program under this 
section to--
          (1) improve the efficiency and lower the cost of wind 
        turbines;
          (2) minimize adverse environmental impacts; and
          (3) develop new small-scale wind energy technologies for use 
        in low wind speed environments.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section--
          (1) $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          (2) $48,400,000 for fiscal year 2008;
          (3) $53,240,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
          (4) $58,564,000 for fiscal year 2010.

SEC. 9. CONTINUING PROGRAMS.

  The Secretary shall continue to carry out the research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application activities authorized in 
sections 921(b)(1) (for distributed energy), 923 (for micro-
cogeneration technology), and 931(a)(2)(C), (D),and (E)(i) (for 
geothermal energy, hydropower, and ocean energy) of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.

SEC. 10. PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

  (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Plug-In Hybrid 
Electric Vehicle Act of 2006''.
  (b) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Battery.--The term ``battery'' means a device or system 
        for the electrochemical storage of energy.
          (2) E85.--The term ``E85'' means a fuel blend containing 85 
        percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline by volume.
          (3) Electric drive transportation technology.--The term 
        ``electric drive transportation technology'' means--
                  (A) vehicles that use an electric motor for all or 
                part of their motive power and that may or may not use 
                offboard electricity, including battery electric 
                vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid 
                electric vehicles, flexible fuel plug-in hybrid 
                electric vehicles, and electric rail; and
                  (B) related equipment, including electric equipment 
                necessary to recharge a plug-in hybrid electric 
                vehicle.
          (4) Flexible fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.--The term 
        ``flexible fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicle'' means a plug-
        in hybrid electric vehicle warranted by its manufacturer as 
        capable of operating on any combination of gasoline or E85 for 
        its onboard internal combustion or heat engine.
          (5) Hybrid electric vehicle.--The term ``hybrid electric 
        vehicle'' means a vehicle that--
                  (A) can be propelled using liquid combustible fuel 
                and electric power provided by an onboard battery; and
                  (B) utilizes regenerative power capture technology to 
                recover energy expended in braking the vehicle for use 
                in recharging the battery.
          (6) Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.--The term ``plug-in 
        hybrid electric vehicle'' means a hybrid electric onroad light-
        duty vehicle that can be propelled solely on electric power for 
        a minimum of 20 miles under city driving conditions, and that 
        is capable of recharging its battery from an offboard 
        electricity source.
  (c) Program.--The Secretary shall conduct a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application on technologies 
needed for the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and 
electric drive transportation, including--
          (1) high capacity, high efficiency batteries, to--
                  (A) improve battery life, energy storage capacity, 
                and power delivery capacity, and lower cost; and
                  (B) minimize waste and hazardous material production 
                in the entire value chain, including after the end of 
                the useful life of the batteries;
          (2) high efficiency onboard and offboard charging components;
          (3) high power drive train systems for passenger and 
        commercial vehicles and for supporting equipment;
          (4) onboard energy management systems, power trains, and 
        systems integration for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 
        flexible fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hybrid 
        electric vehicles, including efficient cooling systems and 
        systems that minimize the emissions profile of such vehicles; 
        and
          (5) lightweight materials, including research, development, 
        demonstration, and commercial application to reduce the cost of 
        materials such as steel alloys and carbon fibers.
  (d) Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        competitive grant pilot demonstration program to provide not 
        more than 25 grants annually to State governments, local 
        governments and public entities, metropolitan transportation 
        authorities, or combinations thereof to carry out a project or 
        projects for demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
          (2) Applications.--
                  (A) Requirements.--The Secretary shall issue 
                requirements for applying for grants under the 
                demonstration pilot program. The Secretary shall 
                require that applications, at a minimum, include a 
                description of how data will be--
                          (i) collected on the--
                                  (I) performance of the vehicle or 
                                vehicles and the components, including 
                                the battery, energy management, and 
                                charging systems, under various driving 
                                speeds, trip ranges, traffic, and other 
                                driving conditions;
                                  (II) costs of the vehicle or 
                                vehicles, including acquisition, 
                                operating, and maintenance costs, and 
                                how the project or projects will be 
                                self-sustaining after Federal 
                                assistance is completed; and
                                  (III) emissions of the vehicle or 
                                vehicles, including greenhouse gases, 
                                and the amount of petroleum displaced 
                                as a result of the project or projects; 
                                and
                          (ii) summarized for dissemination to the 
                        Department, other grantees, and the public.
                  (B) Partners.--An applicant under subparagraph (A) 
                may carry out a project or projects under the pilot 
                program in partnership with one or more private or 
                nonprofit entities, which may include institutions of 
                higher education, including Historically Black Colleges 
                and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 
                other minority-serving institutions.
          (3) Selection criteria.--
                  (A) Preference.--When making awards under this 
                subsection, the Secretary shall consider each 
                applicant's previous experience involving plug-in 
                hybrid electric vehicles and shall give preference to 
                proposals that--
                          (i) provide the greatest demonstration per 
                        award dollar, with preference increasing as the 
                        number of miles that a plug-in hybrid electric 
                        vehicle can be propelled solely on electric 
                        power under city driving conditions increases; 
                        and
                          (ii) maximize the non-Federal share of 
                        project funding and demonstrate the greatest 
                        likelihood that each project proposed in the 
                        application will be maintained or expanded 
                        after Federal assistance under this subsection 
                        is completed.
                  (B) Breadth of demonstrations.--In awarding grants 
                under this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure the 
                program will demonstrate plug-in hybrid electric 
                vehicles under various circumstances, including--
                          (i) driving speeds;
                          (ii) trip ranges;
                          (iii) driving conditions;
                          (iv) climate conditions; and
                          (v) topography,
                to optimize understanding and function of plug-in 
                hybrid electric vehicles.
          (4) Pilot project requirements.--
                  (A) Subsequent funding.--An applicant that has 
                received a grant in one year may apply for additional 
                funds in subsequent years, but the Secretary shall not 
                provide more than $10,000,000 in Federal assistance 
                under the pilot program to any applicant for the period 
                encompassing fiscal years 2007 through fiscal year 
                2011.
                  (B) Information.--The Secretary shall establish 
                mechanisms to ensure that the information and knowledge 
                gained by participants in the pilot program are shared 
                among the pilot program participants and are available 
                to other interested parties, including other 
                applicants.
          (5) Award amounts.--The Secretary shall determine grant 
        amounts, but the maximum size of grants shall decline as the 
        cost of producing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles declines or 
        the cost of converting a hybrid electric vehicle to a plug-in 
        hybrid electric vehicle declines.
  (e) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary shall carry out the program under 
this section in compliance with section 988(a) through (d) and section 
989 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352(a) through (d) 
and 16353).
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary--
          (1) for carrying out subsection (c), $250,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2007 through 2011, of which up to $50,000,000 may 
        be used for the program described in paragraph (5) of that 
        subsection; and
          (2) for carrying out subsection (d), $50,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

SEC. 11. PHOTOVOLTAIC DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Solar 
Utilization Now Demonstration Act of 2006'' or the ``SUN Act of 2006''.
  (b) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program of grants to 
States to demonstrate advanced photovoltaic technology.
  (c) Requirements.--
          (1) Ability to meet requirements.--To receive funding under 
        the program under this section, a State must submit a proposal 
        that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that 
        the State will meet the requirements of subsection (g).
          (2) Compliance with requirements.--If a State has received 
        funding under this section for the preceding year, the State 
        must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that it 
        complied with the requirements of subsection (g) in carrying 
        out the program during that preceding year, and that it will do 
        so in the future, before it can receive further funding under 
        this section.
          (3) Funding allocation.--Except as provided in subsection 
        (d), each State submitting a proposal that meets the 
        requirements under subsection (c) shall receive funding under 
        the program based on the proportion of United States population 
        in the State according to the 2000 census. In each fiscal year, 
        the portion of funds attributable under this paragraph to 
        States that have not submitted proposals that meet the 
        requirements under subsection (c) in the time and manner 
        specified by the Secretary shall be distributed pro rata to the 
        States that have submitted proposals that meet the requirements 
        under subsection (c) in the specified time and manner.
  (d) Competition.--If more than $80,000,000 is available for the 
program under this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
allocate 75 percent of the total amount of funds available according to 
subsection (c)(3), and shall award the remaining 25 percent on a 
competitive basis to the States with the proposals the Secretary 
considers most likely to encourage the widespread adoption of 
photovoltaic technologies. In awarding funds under this subsection, the 
Secretary may give preference to proposals that would demonstrate the 
use of newer materials or technologies.
  (e) Proposals.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and in each subsequent fiscal year for the life of the 
program, the Secretary shall solicit proposals from the States to 
participate in the program under this section.
  (f) Competitive Criteria.--In awarding funds in a competitive 
allocation under subsection (d), the Secretary shall consider--
          (1) the likelihood of a proposal to encourage the 
        demonstration of, or lower the costs of, advanced photovoltaic 
        technologies; and
          (2) the extent to which a proposal is likely to--
                  (A) maximize the amount of photovoltaics 
                demonstrated;
                  (B) maximize the proportion of non-Federal cost 
                share; and
                  (C) limit State administrative costs.
  (g) State Program.--A program operated by a State with funding under 
this section shall provide competitive awards for the demonstration of 
advanced photovoltaic technologies. Each State program shall--
          (1) require a contribution of at least 60 percent per award 
        from non-Federal sources, which may include any combination of 
        State, local, and private funds, except that at least 10 
        percent of the funding must be supplied by the State;
          (2) limit awards for any single project to a maximum of 
        $1,000,000;
          (3) prohibit any nongovernmental recipient from receiving 
        more than $1,000,000 per year;
          (4) endeavor to fund recipients in the commercial, 
        industrial, institutional, governmental, and residential 
        sectors;
          (5) limit State administrative costs to no more than 10 
        percent of the grant;
          (6) report annually to the Secretary on--
                  (A) the amount of funds disbursed;
                  (B) the amount of photovoltaics purchased; and
                  (C) the results of the monitoring under paragraph 
                (7);
          (7) provide for measurement and verification of the output of 
        a representative sample of the photovoltaics systems 
        demonstrated throughout the average working life of the 
        systems, or at least 20 years;
          (8) require that applicant buildings must have received an 
        independent energy efficiency audit during the 6-month period 
        preceding the filing of the application; and
          (9) encourage Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
        Hispanic Serving Institutions, and other minority-serving 
        institutions to apply for grants under this program.
  (h) Unexpended Funds.--If a State fails to expend any funds received 
under subsection (c) or (d) within 3 years of receipt, such remaining 
funds shall be returned to the Treasury.
  (i) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress 5 years after 
funds are first distributed to the States under this section--
          (1) the amount of photovoltaics demonstrated;
          (2) the number of projects undertaken;
          (3) the administrative costs of the program;
          (4) the amount of funds that each State has not received 
        because of a failure to submit a qualifying proposal, as 
        described in subsection (c)(3);
          (5) the results of the monitoring under subsection (g)(7); 
        and
          (6) the total amount of funds distributed, including a 
        breakdown by State.
  (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary for the purposes of carrying out this 
section--
          (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          (2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
          (3) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
          (4) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
          (5) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

SEC. 12. ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) Energy Efficient Building Pilot Grant Program.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a pilot 
        program to award grants to businesses and organizations for new 
        construction of energy efficient buildings, or major 
        renovations of buildings that will result in energy efficient 
        buildings, to demonstrate innovative energy efficiency 
        technologies, especially those sponsored by the Department.
          (2) Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants under this 
        subsection competitively to those applicants whose proposals--
                  (A) best demonstrate--
                          (i) likelihood to meet or exceed the 
                        standards referred to in subsection (b)(2);
                          (ii) likelihood to maximize cost-effective 
                        energy efficiency opportunities; and
                          (iii) advanced energy efficiency 
                        technologies; and
                  (B) maximize the leverage of private investment for 
                costs related to increasing the energy efficiency of 
                the building.
          (3) Consideration.--The Secretary shall give due 
        consideration to proposals for buildings that are likely to 
        serve low and moderate income populations.
          (4) Amount of grants.--Grants under this subsection shall be 
        for up to 50 percent of design and energy modeling costs, not 
        to exceed $50,000 per building. No single grantee may be 
        eligible for more than 3 grants per year under this program.
          (5) Grant payments.--
                  (A) Initial payment.--The Secretary shall pay 50 
                percent of the total amount of the grant to grant 
                recipients upon selection.
                  (B) Remainder of payment.--The Secretary shall pay 
                the remaining 50 percent of the grant only after 
                independent certification, by a professional engineer 
                or other qualified professional, that operational 
                buildings are energy efficient buildings as defined in 
                subsection (b).
                  (C) Failure to comply.--The Secretary shall not 
                provide the remainder of the payment unless the 
                building is certified within 6 months after operation 
                of the completed building to meet the requirements 
                described in subparagraph (B), or in the case of major 
                renovations the building is certified within 6 months 
                of the completion of the renovations.
          (6) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after 
        awarding the first grant under this subsection, the Secretary 
        shall transmit to Congress a report containing--
                  (A) the total number and dollar amount of grants 
                awarded under this subsection; and
                  (B) an estimate of aggregate cost and energy savings 
                enabled by the pilot program under this subsection.
          (7) Administrative expenses.--Administrative expenses for the 
        program under this subsection shall not exceed 10 percent of 
        appropriated funds.
  (b) Definition of Energy Efficient Building.--For purposes of this 
section the term ``energy efficient building'' means a building that--
          (1) achieves a reduction in energy consumption of--
                  (A) at least 30 percent for new construction, 
                compared to the energy standards set by the 2004 
                International Energy Conservation Code (in the case of 
                residential buildings) or ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004; or
                  (B) at least 20 percent for major renovations, 
                compared to energy consumption before renovations are 
                begun;
          (2) is constructed or renovated in accordance with the most 
        current, appropriate, and applicable voluntary consensus 
        standards, as determined by the Secretary, such as those listed 
        in the assessment under section 914(b), or revised or developed 
        under section 914(c), of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and
          (3) after construction or renovation--
                  (A) uses heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 
                systems that perform at no less than Energy Star 
                standards; or
                  (B) if Energy Star standards are not applicable, uses 
                Federal Energy Management Program recommended heating, 
                ventilating, and air conditioning products.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section $10,000,000 
for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 13. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

  Section 917 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16197) is 
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 917. ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTERS.

  ``(a) Grants.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial 
Application Act of 2006, the Secretary shall make grants to nonprofit 
institutions, State and local governments, cooperative extension 
services, or universities (or consortia thereof), to establish a 
geographically dispersed network of Advanced Energy Efficiency 
Technology Transfer Centers, to be located in areas the Secretary 
determines have the greatest need of the services of such Centers. In 
establishing the network, the Secretary shall consider the special 
needs and opportunities for increased energy efficiency for 
manufactured and site-built housing, including construction, 
renovation, and retrofit. In making awards under this section, the 
Secretary shall--
          ``(1) give priority to applicants already operating or 
        partnered with an outreach program capable of transferring 
        knowledge and information about advanced energy efficiency 
        methods and technologies;
          ``(2) ensure that, to the extent practicable, the program 
        enables the transfer of knowledge and information--
                  ``(A) about a variety of technologies and
                  ``(B) in a variety of geographic areas; and
          ``(3) give preference to applicants that would significantly 
        expand on or fill a gap in existing programs in a geographical 
        region.
  ``(b) Activities.--Each Center shall operate a program to encourage 
demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and 
technologies through education and outreach to building and industrial 
professionals, and to other individuals and organizations with an 
interest in efficient energy use. Funds awarded under this section may 
be used for the following activities:
          ``(1) Developing and distributing informational materials on 
        technologies that could use energy more efficiently.
          ``(2) Carrying out demonstrations of advanced energy methods 
        and technologies.
          ``(3) Developing and conducting seminars, workshops, long-
        distance learning sessions, and other activities to aid in the 
        dissemination of knowledge and information on technologies that 
        could use energy more efficiently.
          ``(4) Providing or coordinating onsite energy evaluations, 
        including instruction on the commissioning of building heating 
        and cooling systems, for a wide range of energy end-users.
          ``(5) Examining the energy efficiency needs of energy end-
        users to develop recommended research projects for the 
        Department.
          ``(6) Hiring experts in energy efficient technologies to 
        carry out activities described in paragraphs (1) through (5).
  ``(c) Application.--A person seeking a grant under this section shall 
submit to the Secretary an application in such form and containing such 
information as the Secretary may require. The Secretary may award a 
grant under this section to an entity already in existence if the 
entity is otherwise eligible under this section. The application shall 
include, at a minimum--
          ``(1) a description of the applicant's outreach program, and 
        the geographic region it would serve, and of why the program 
        would be capable of transferring knowledge and information 
        about advanced energy technologies that increase efficiency of 
        energy use;
          ``(2) a description of the activities the applicant would 
        carry out, of the technologies that would be transferred, and 
        of any other organizations that will help facilitate a regional 
        approach to carrying out those activities;
          ``(3) a description of how the proposed activities would be 
        appropriate to the specific energy needs of the geographic 
        region to be served;
          ``(4) an estimate of the number and types of energy end-users 
        expected to be reached through such activities; and
          ``(5) a description of how the applicant will assess the 
        success of the program.
  ``(d) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
this section on the basis of the following criteria, at a minimum:
          ``(1) The ability of the applicant to carry out the proposed 
        activities.
          ``(2) The extent to which the applicant will coordinate the 
        activities of the Center with other entities as appropriate, 
        such as State and local governments, utilities, universities, 
        and National Laboratories.
          ``(3) The appropriateness of the applicant's outreach program 
        for carrying out the program described in this section.
          ``(4) The likelihood that proposed activities could be 
        expanded or used as a model for other areas.
  ``(e) Cost-Sharing.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
shall require cost-sharing in accordance with the requirements of 
section 988 for commercial application activities.
  ``(f) Duration.--
          ``(1) Initial grant period.--A grant awarded under this 
        section shall be for a period of 5 years.
          ``(2) Initial evaluation.--Each grantee under this section 
        shall be evaluated during its third year of operation under 
        procedures established by the Secretary to determine if the 
        grantee is accomplishing the purposes of this section described 
        in subsection (a). The Secretary shall terminate any grant that 
        does not receive a positive evaluation. If an evaluation is 
        positive, the Secretary may extend the grant for 3 additional 
        years beyond the original term of the grant.
          ``(3) Additional extension.--If a grantee receives an 
        extension under paragraph (2), the grantee shall be evaluated 
        again during the second year of the extension. The Secretary 
        shall terminate any grant that does not receive a positive 
        evaluation. If an evaluation is positive, the Secretary may 
        extend the grant for a final additional period of 3 additional 
        years beyond the original extension.
          ``(4) Limitation.--No grantee may receive more than 11 years 
        of support under this section without reapplying for support 
        and competing against all other applicants seeking a grant at 
        that time.
  ``(g) Prohibition.--None of the funds awarded under this section may 
be used for the construction of facilities.
  ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          ``(1) Advanced energy methods and technologies.--The term 
        `advanced energy methods and technologies' means all methods 
        and technologies that promote energy efficiency and 
        conservation, including distributed generation technologies, 
        and life-cycle analysis of energy use.
          ``(2) Center.--The term `Center' means an Advanced Energy 
        Technology Transfer Center established pursuant to this 
        section.
          ``(3) Distributed generation.--The term `distributed 
        generation' means an electric power generation technology, 
        including photovoltaic, small wind and micro-combined heat and 
        power, that is designed to serve retail electric consumers on-
        site.
          ``(4) Cooperative extension.--The term `Cooperative 
        Extension' means the extension services established at the 
        land-grant colleges and universities under the Smith-Lever Act 
        of May 8, 1914.
          ``(5) Land-grant colleges and universities.--The term `land-
        grant colleges and universities' means--
                  ``(A) 1862 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of 
                the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
                Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601));
                  ``(B) 1890 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of 
                that Act); and
                  ``(C) 1994 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of 
                that Act).
  ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated in section 911, there are 
authorized to be appropriated for the program under this section such 
sums as may be appropriated.''.

SEC. 14. GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION.

  (a) Definition.--For the purposes of this section:
          (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the National Science Foundation.
          (2) High performance building.--The term ``high performance 
        building'' has the meaning given that term in section 914(a) of 
        the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16194(a)).
  (b) Graduate Training in Energy Research and Development.--
          (1) Funding.--In carrying out research, development, 
        demonstration, and commercial application activities authorized 
        for the Department, the Secretary may contribute funds to the 
        National Science Foundation for the Integrative Graduate 
        Education and Research Traineeship program to support projects 
        that enable graduate education related to such activities.
          (2) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the 
        Secretary when preparing solicitations and awarding grants for 
        projects described in paragraph (1).
  (c) Curriculum Development for High Performance Building Design.--
          (1) Funding.--In carrying out advanced energy technology 
        research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
        application activities authorized for the Department related to 
        high performance buildings, the Secretary may contribute funds 
        to curriculum development activities at the National Science 
        Foundation for the purpose of improving undergraduate or 
        graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture 
        education related to the design and construction of high 
        performance buildings, including development of curricula, of 
        laboratory activities, of training practicums, or of design 
        projects. A primary goal of curriculum development activities 
        supported under this section shall be to improve the ability of 
        engineers, architects, and planners to work together on the 
        incorporation of advanced energy technologies during the design 
        and construction of high performance buildings.
          (2) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the 
        Secretary when preparing solicitations and awarding grants for 
        projects described in paragraph (1).
          (3) Priority.--In awarding grants with respect to which the 
        Secretary has contributed funds under this subsection, the 
        Director shall give priority to applications from departments, 
        programs, or centers of a school of engineering that are 
        partnered with schools, departments, or programs of design, 
        architecture, and city, regional, or urban planning, and due 
        consideration to applications from Historically Black Colleges 
        and Universities and other minority serving institutions.

SEC. 15. ARPA-E STUDY.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a detailed study of, and 
make further recommendations on, the October 2005 National Academy of 
Sciences recommendation to establish an Advanced Research Projects 
Agency-Energy (in this section referred to as ARPA-E).
  (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress the study described 
in subsection (a) and the Secretary's response to the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of that study.
  (c) Terms of Reference.--The Secretary shall ensure that the study 
described in subsection (a) addresses the following questions:
          (1) What basic research related to new energy technologies is 
        occurring now, what entities are funding it, and what is 
        preventing the results of that research from reaching the 
        market?
          (2) What economic evidence indicates that the limiting factor 
        in the market penetration of new energy technologies is a lack 
        of basic research on pathbreaking new technologies? What 
        barriers do those trying to develop new energy technologies 
        face during later stages of research and development?
          (3) To what extent is the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
        Agency an appropriate model for an energy research agency, 
        given that the Federal Government would not be the primary 
        customer for its technology and where cost is an important 
        concern?
          (4) How would research and development sponsored by ARPA-E 
        differ from research and development conducted by the National 
        Laboratories or sponsored by the Department through the Office 
        of Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
        Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office of Electricity 
        Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Office of Nuclear 
        Energy?
          (5) Should industry or National Laboratories be recipients of 
        ARPA-E grants? What institutional or organizational 
        arrangements would be required to ensure that ARPA-E sponsors 
        transformational, rather than incremental, research and 
        development?

SEC. 16. COAL METHANATION.

  (a) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application of coal 
gasification facilities that convert coal into pipeline quality gaseous 
fuels for direct use or subsequent chemical or physical conversion.
  (b) Procedures.--The program established under subsection (a) shall 
be carried out using procedures described in title XVII of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005.

SEC. 17. ALTERNATIVE BIOBASED FUELS AND ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL.

  (a) Alternative Fuel and ULSD Infrastructure and Additives Research 
and Development.--The Secretary, in consultation with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, shall carry out a program of 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of 
materials to be added to alternative biobased fuels and Ultra Low 
Sulfur Diesel fuels to make them more compatible with existing 
infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the 
point of final sale. The program shall address--
          (1) materials to prevent or mitigate--
                  (A) corrosion of metal, plastic, rubber, cork, 
                fiberglass, glues, or any other material used in pipes 
                and storage tanks;
                  (B) dissolving of storage tank sediments;
                  (C) clogging of filters;
                  (D) contamination from water or other adulterants or 
                pollutants;
                  (E) poor flow properties related to low temperatures;
                  (F) oxidative and thermal instability in long-term 
                storage and use;
                  (G) increased volatile emissions;
                  (H) microbial contamination;
                  (I) problems associated with electrical conductivity; 
                and
                  (J) increased nitrogen oxide emissions;
          (2) alternatives to conventional methods for refurbishment 
        and cleaning of gasoline and diesel tanks, including tank 
        lining applications; and
          (3) other problems as identified by the Secretary in 
        consultation with the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology.
  (b) Sulfur Testing for Diesel Fuels.--
          (1) Program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
        National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall carry out 
        a research, development, and demonstration program on portable, 
        low-cost, and accurate methods and technologies for testing of 
        sulfur content in fuel, including Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and 
        Low Sulfur Diesel.
          (2) Schedule of demonstrations.--Not later than 1 year after 
        the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall begin 
        demonstrations of technologies under paragraph (1).
  (c) Standard Reference Materials and Data Base Development.--Not 
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop a physical 
properties data base and standard reference materials for alternative 
fuels. Such data base and standard reference materials shall be 
maintained and updated as appropriate as additional alternative fuels 
become available.

SEC. 18. BIOENERGY.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 931 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16231) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v)'' after ``section 
        932(d)'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``, including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v)'' after ``section 
        932(d)''; and
          (3) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ``, including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v)'' after ``section 
        932(d)''.
  (b) Bioenergy Program.--Section 932(d)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16232(d)(1)(B)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
          (2) by adding after clause (iv) the following new clause:
                          ``(v) biodegradable natural plastics from 
                        biomass; and''.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, Development, 
Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2006, is to 
authorize energy research, development, and demonstration 
(RD&D) and commercial application programs, projects, and 
activities at the Department of Energy.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Affordable energy is essential to the Nation's continued 
prosperity. Volatile world oil markets, along with soaring 
natural gas and electricity prices, have replaced the 
relatively low energy prices enjoyed over most of the two 
decades before the turn of the century. Recent events have 
illustrated the important connections between energy policy and 
national security policy. In addition, there are increasing 
concerns about the environmental impact of energy use. 
Consequently, energy is once again on the front burner of the 
Nation's agenda.
    During the first session of the 109th Congress, the 
Committee on Science reported energy research, development, and 
demonstration (RD&D) authorizing legislation to the House that 
was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) 
(P.L. 109-58). Since enactment of EPACT, world events and 
changes in the global energy markets have heightened the need 
to develop alternatives to petroleum.
    In February 2006, President Bush announced the Advanced 
Energy Initiative (AEI) that would accelerate RD&D on non-
petroleum energy technologies, particularly clean coal 
technologies, advanced nuclear energy technologies, renewable 
energy technologies, and energy efficiency technologies. This 
legislation authorizes specific elements of the AEI and builds 
upon the President's proposal to accelerate the development of 
new energy technologies. For example, section 10 ramps up the 
RD&D on plug-in hybrid vehicle technology, a technology that 
has the potential to reduce oil demand by millions of barrels 
per day. Similarly, section 11 extends the reach of the 
President's Solar America Initiative (a portion of AEI) to 
demonstrate advanced solar photovoltaic technologies.
    The legislation addresses other opportunities for oil 
savings, such as energy consumption in buildings. According to 
Department of Energy (DOE) 2003 statistics, buildings consume 
more energy than any other sector of the economy, including 
industrial processes and transportation. Buildings consume 39 
percent of primary energy in the United States and 70 percent 
of electricity. Innovations in energy-efficient building 
technologies, materials, techniques and systems combined with 
advances in photovoltaic and other distributed clean energy 
technologies have the potential to dramatically transform the 
pattern of energy consumption associated with buildings. These 
technologies--coupled with a whole building approach that 
optimizes the interactions among building systems and 
components--enable buildings to use considerably less energy, 
while also helping to meet national goals for sustainable 
development, environmental protection, and energy security.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    During the 109th Congress, the House Committee on Science 
held the following hearings relevant to H.R. 5656:
    On February 15, 2006, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing on ``An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for Fiscal 
Year 2007.'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Dr. John H. 
Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology 
Policy; (2) Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, Department of 
Energy (DOE); (3) Dr. David A. Sampson, Deputy Secretary, 
Department of Commerce; (4) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, 
National Science Foundation; and (5) Dr. Charles E. McQueary, 
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of 
Homeland Security.
    On March 9, 2006, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
on ``Should Congress Establish `ARPA-E,' The Advanced Research 
Projects Agency--Energy?'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Dr. 
Steven Chu, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 
(2) Dr. David Mowery, Hasler Professor of New Enterprise 
Development, Haas School of Business, University of California 
at Berkeley; (3) Dr. Frank L. Fernandez, President, F.L. 
Fernandez, Inc; (4) Dr. Catherine Cotell, Vice President for 
Strategy, University and Early Stage Investment, In-Q-Tel; and 
(5) Ms. Melanie Kenderdine, Vice President of Washington 
Operations, Gas Technology Institute.
    During the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy of 
the House Committee on Science held the following hearings 
relevant to H.R. 5656:
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy held a 
hearing on ``Priorities in the Department of Energy Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2006.'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Dr. Raymond 
Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, DOE; (2) Mr. Douglas 
Faulkner, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE; (3) Mr. Mark Maddox, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, DOE; 
(4) Mr. Robert Shane Johnson, Deputy Director for Technology in 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, DOE; and 
(5) Mr. Kevin Kolevar, Director Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability, DOE.
    On June 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing 
on ``Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing.'' Appearing as witnesses were 
(1) Mr. Robert Shane Johnson, Acting Director of the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, and Deputy Director for 
Technology, DOE; (2) Dr. Phillip J. Finck, Deputy Associate 
Laboratory Director, Applied Science and Technology and 
National Security, Argonne National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Roger 
Hagengruber, Director of the Office for Policy, Security and 
Technology and Director of the Institute for Public Policy, 
University of New Mexico; and (4) Mr. Matthew Bunn, Senior 
Research Associate, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
Harvard University.
    On July 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing 
on ``Economic Aspects of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing.'' Appearing 
as witnesses were (1) Dr. Richard K. Lester, Director of the 
Industrial Performance Center and Professor of Nuclear Science 
and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (2) Dr. 
Donald W. Jones, Vice President of Marketing and Senior 
Economist, RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc; (3) Dr. 
Steve Fetter, Dean of the School of Public Policy, University 
of Maryland; and (4) Mr. Marvin Fertel, Senior Vice President 
and Chief Nuclear Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute.
    On July 20, 2005, the Subcommittees on Energy and Research 
held a joint hearing on ``Fueling the Future: On The Road To 
The Hydrogen Economy.'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Mr. 
Douglas Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE; (2) Dr. David Bodde, 
Director of Innovation and Public Policy, International Center 
for Automotive Research, Clemson University; (3) Mr. Mark 
Chernoby, Vice President of Advanced Vehicle Engineering, 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation; (4) Dr. George Crabtree, Director 
of the Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory; 
and (5) Dr. John Heywood, Director of the Sloan Automotive 
Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    On November 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy held a 
hearing on ``Winning Teams and Innovative Technologies from the 
2005 Solar Decathlon''. Appearing as witnesses were (1) Mr. 
Richard F. Moorer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology 
Development, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
DOE; (2) Mr. David G. Schieren, Graduate Student and Energy 
Team Leader, Energy Management, New York Institute of 
Technology; (3) Mr. Jeffrey R. Lyng, Graduate Student and Team 
Project Manager, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural 
Engineering, University of Colorado; (4) Mr. Jonathan R. 
Knowles, Professor and Team Advisor, Department of 
Architecture, Rhode Island School of Design; and (5) Mr. Robert 
P. Schubert, Professor and Team Advisor, Department of 
Architecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
    On April 6, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing 
on ``Assessing the Goals, Schedule and Costs of the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership.'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) 
Mr. Shane Johnson, Deputy Director for Technology, Office of 
Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, DOE; (2) Dr. Neil 
Todreas, Kepco Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Professor 
of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology; (3) Dr. Richard Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus, Thomas 
J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY; and (4) Mr. 
David Modeen, Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, 
Electric Power Research Institute.
    On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing 
on ``The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 
(Discussion Draft).'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Mr. Roger 
Duncan, Deputy General Manager, Austin Energy; (2) Dr. Mark 
Duvall, Technology Development Manager for Electric 
Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology 
Division, Electric Power Research Institute; (3) Dr. Andrew 
Frank, Professor of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, 
and the Director of the Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research 
Center, University of California, Davis; (4) Mr. John German, 
Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses, American Honda 
Motor Company; (5) Dr. Cliff Ricketts, Professor of 
Agricultural Education, School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, 
Middle Tennessee State University; and (6) Dr. Danilo Santini, 
Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division, Center for 
Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory.
    On June 5, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing 
on ``Assessing Progress in Advanced Technologies for Vehicles 
and Fuels.'' Appearing as witnesses were (1) Dr. James F. 
Miller, Manager of the Electrochemical Technology Program, 
Argonne National Laboratory; (2) Mr. Al Weverstad, Executive 
Director for Mobile Emissions and Fuel Efficiency, General 
Motors Public Policy Center; (3) Mr. Jerome Hinkle, Vice 
President of Policy and Government Affairs, National Hydrogen 
Association; (4) Dr. Daniel Gibbs, President, General Biomass 
Company; (5) Mr. Deron Lovaas, Vehicles Campaign Director, 
Natural Resources Defense Council; and (6) Mr. Philip G. Gott, 
Director for Automotive Custom Solutions, Global Insight.

                          V. Committee Actions

    On June 21, 2006, Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman of 
the Subcommittee of Energy, introduced H.R. 5656, the Energy 
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial 
Application Act of 2006, a bill to provide for Federal energy 
research, development, demonstration (RD&D) and commercial 
application activities, and for other purposes.
    The Full Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 5656 on 
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 and considered the following amendments 
to the bill:
    Mrs. Biggert offered a manager's amendment that made 
changes to various portions of the bill. The amendment, agreed 
to by voice vote, contained technical corrections and 
clarifying language, an amendment offered by Mr. Hall was 
included in the manager's amendment by unanimous consent, as 
well as the following substantive provisions:
     FutureGen--Revises this provision on the 
demonstration of a near zero-emissions coal-fired power plant 
by removing authorization of appropriations for funds already 
authorized in EPACT, while adding language on data protection 
and contributions from public and private sources.
     Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle--Focuses the provision 
on the analysis and plan for the advanced nuclear fuel cycle 
R&D program, and a report to Congress. It leaves intact the 
prohibition on certain large-scale demonstrations, while adding 
new language requiring cost analysis for the demonstration 
program, including for decommissioning and decontamination 
costs.
     Battery Technologies--Removes duplicative advanced 
battery technology language.
     Biofuel Technologies--Expands R&D on biofuels 
technology to include non-liquid motor fuels such as biobased 
methane, and requires a minimum 10 percent allocation for 
university research.
     Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Technologies--Broadens 
scope of R&D provision to include technologies for electric 
drive transportation and broadens list of eligible applicants 
and partners for the demonstration program, including partners 
such as minority-serving institutions and other universities.
     Photovoltaic Technology Demonstration--Encourages 
minority-serving institutions to apply for grants under this 
program.
     Energy Efficient Building Grant Program--Provides 
a preference for applicants that can maximize the leverage of 
private investment in energy efficiency and instructs the 
Department of Energy to give due consideration to awards for 
energy efficient buildings that would be likely to serve low- 
and moderate-income populations.
     Energy Extension--Merges the energy extension 
language in Section 13 with an existing provision from EPACT--
The Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers in 
Section 917--to avoid duplication and maximize program 
effectiveness.
    The following five amendments were considered en bloc and 
agreed to by a voice vote:
    (1) Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to authorize RD&D and 
commercial application on materials to make bio-based 
transportation fuels more compatible with existing fuel storage 
and delivery equipment and a program of RD&D on methods to test 
sulfur content in fuel.
    (2) Ms. Matsui offered an amendment to specify that the 
Secretary of Energy shall continue to carry out RD&D and 
commercial application on geothermal energy, hydropower, co-
generation, and distributed energy production authorized in 
EPACT.
    (3) Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to require a higher 
energy efficiency standard for energy efficient buildings.
    (4) Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment to specify that, 
in awarding grants under the Green Energy Education provision, 
the Director of the National Science Foundation shall give due 
consideration to applications from Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.
    (5) Mr. Green offered an amendment to amend Section 932 of 
EPACT to include production of certain bio-products from 
biomass as an authorized activity of the bioenergy 
demonstration program authorized in that Act.
    Mr. Baird offered an amendment to specify that the 
definition of an energy efficient building under Section 12 of 
the bill should require the use of heating, ventilation, and 
air conditioning systems that meet or exceed Energy Star 
efficiency standards. The amendment was agreed to by a voice 
vote.
    Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to authorize a revolving 
loan fund for the purposes of improving the energy efficiency 
of federal buildings and for demonstration and commercial 
application of innovative energy technologies in federal 
buildings. The amendment was subsequently withdrawn following a 
colloquy between Mr. Gordon and Chairman Boehlert.
    Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to establish an Advanced 
Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. The amendment 
was defeated by a voice vote.
    Mr. Costello offered an amendment as substitute for Section 
3 of the bill to give the Secretary of Energy authority to 
indemnify private sector participants in the FutureGen project 
and to reimburse private sector participants in the event of 
project termination. Mr. Costello asked for unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment and the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Costello offered an amendment to authorize RD&D and 
commercial application on coal gasification for ethanol 
production. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee 
favorably report the bill, H.R. 5656, as amended, to the House 
with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; that 
the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and 
make necessary technical and conforming changes; and that the 
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the 
House for consideration. The motion was agreed to by voice 
vote.

        VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill as Reported

    Authorizes a project for research, development, and 
demonstration (RD&D) on advanced clean coal technology, 
including carbon capture and geological sequestration; requires 
a comprehensive analysis, plan and report to Congress for DOE's 
program of RD&D on advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies; 
authorizes RD&D and commercial application programs on methane 
produced from coal, advanced biofuels technologies (including 
technologies for storage and delivery of biofuels, and 
biodegradable plastics from biomass to help advance bioenergy 
from cellulosic ethanol), advanced hydrogen storage 
technologies; advanced photovoltaic technologies; advanced wind 
energy technologies; and other renewable energy and energy 
efficiency technologies.
    Authorizes a program of RD&D on technologies for plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles; authorizes a program of grants to 
States for the demonstration of advanced photovoltaic solar 
energy technologies; authorizes a pilot program of grants for 
thedemonstration of advanced energy efficiency technologies for 
buildings; authorizes a program of grants for advanced energy 
technology transfer centers to increase the efficiency of energy use; 
authorizes DOE and the National Science Foundation to collaborate on 
the solicitation and funding of grants related to clean energy and 
high-performance buildings.
    Requires a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to 
elaborate on a 2005 NAS recommendation to establish an Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy.

        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill as Reported


Sec. 1. Short title

    ``The Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
Commercial Application Act of 2006''

Sec. 2. Definitions

    Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 3. FutureGen

    Requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a project to 
demonstrate the feasibility of the commercial application of 
advanced clean coal technology, including carbon capture and 
geological sequestration, for electricity generation.
    Requires the Secretary to design the project to meet 
specific emissions goals and to demonstrate electricity 
production using advanced clean coal technology with carbon 
capture and geological sequestration at a cost not greater than 
10 percent higher than current commercial integrated coal 
gasification combined cycle electric generating plants. Allows 
the Secretary to protect information associated with the 
project and allows the Secretary to accept contributions from 
public and private sources to offset the share of Federal cost.

Sec. 4. Advanced fuel cycle technologies research, development, and 
        demonstration plan

    Requires the Secretary to develop a comprehensive modeling 
and simulation capability to analyze advanced nuclear fuel 
cycle systems, to use this capability to analyze possible 
advanced nuclear fuel cycle systems, and to use this analysis 
to develop a plan for advanced nuclear power technology RD&D 
activities.
    Prohibits the Secretary from moving forward on some large-
scale advanced nuclear fuel cycle technology demonstration 
projects until the advanced nuclear power technology RD&D plan 
is reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), revised 
by the Secretary in light of the NAS findings and 
recommendations, and delivered to Congress.

Sec. 5. Advanced biofuel technologies

    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on motor and other fuels from biomass. 
Not less than 10 percent of funds appropriated to this program 
shall be competitively awarded to colleges and universities.
    Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary to carry out 
this section from sums already authorized to be appropriated 
for bioenergy programs in EPACT.

Sec. 6. Advanced hydrogen storage technologies

    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on technologies to enable practical 
onboard storage of hydrogen for use as a fuel for light-duty 
motor vehicles.

Sec. 7. Advanced solar photovoltaic technologies

    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on advanced solar photovoltaic 
technologies.
    Authorizes appropriations of $648 million over four years 
to the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 8. Advanced wind energy technologies

    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on advanced wind energy technologies.
    Authorizes appropriations of $204 million over four years 
to the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 9. Continuing programs

    Requires the Secretary to continue to carry out RD&D and 
commercial application on geothermal energy, hydropower, co-
generation, and distributed energy production, as authorized in 
EPACT.

Sec. 10. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology program

    Short Title: this section may be cited as the ``Plug-In 
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006''
    Defines terms used in this section.
    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on technologies needed to enable plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive transportation.
    Establishes a competitive grant pilot program to provide up 
to 25 grants annually for demonstration of plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles to State governments, local governments and 
public entities, metropolitan transportation authorities, or 
combinations thereof to carry out a project or projects for 
demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
    Authorizes appropriations of $1.5 billion over five years 
to the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 11. Photovoltaic demonstration program

    Short Title: this section may be cited as the ``Solar 
Utilization Now Demonstration Act of 2006'' or the ``SUN Act of 
2006''.
    Requires the Secretary to establish a grant program to 
States for the demonstration of advanced photovoltaic solar 
energy technology. All States that meet the requirements of the 
program are eligible to receive funding. States are required to 
award funds in a competitive allocation to eligible recipients 
and to require a contribution of at least 60 percent per award 
from non-Federal sources, with at least 10 percent provided by 
States. No award may be more than $1 million, and unexpended 
funds will be returned to the Treasury after three years. 
Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the costs and 
results of this program after five years.
    Authorizes appropriations of $800 million over five years 
to the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 12. Energy efficient building grant program

    Establishes an energy efficient building pilot program to 
award grants to business and organizations for new construction 
of energy efficient buildings, or major renovations of 
buildings that will result in energy efficient buildings, and 
to demonstrate innovative energy efficiency technologies. 
Grants may be for up to 50 percent of design and energy 
modeling costs, not to exceed $50,000 per building. Fifty 
percent of the grant is available to the recipient upon 
selection through a competitive process, and the remaining 50 
percent is available only after independent certification that 
operational buildings are energy efficient as defined in the 
bill. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress three years 
after first grant is awarded.
    Authorizes appropriations of $50 million over five years to 
the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 13. Energy technology transfer

    Amends Section 917 of EPACT which requires the Secretary to 
distribute grants to establish a network of Advanced Energy 
Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers for the transfer of 
advanced energy technologies and methods to a wide range of 
energy end-users, including individuals, businesses and 
building and industrial professionals. Amendment specifies 
types of activities that may be funded, minimum criteria and 
priorities for qualifying applications, duration of funding, 
and grantee evaluation requirements.
    Prohibits use of funds for construction of facilities.
    Authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 
to the Secretary to carry out this section.

Sec. 14. Green energy education

    Authorizes DOE's Office of Science and DOE's applied energy 
technology programs to contribute funds to the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research 
Traineeship (IGERT) program in support of projects related to 
the science and energy missions of the department.
    Authorizes DOE high performance building technology 
programs to contribute to NSF's ongoing curriculum development 
activities for the purpose of improving undergraduate and 
graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture 
education related to the design and construction of high 
performance buildings. Gives priority to applications from 
schools, departments or programs of engineering that are 
partnered with schools, departments or programs of design, 
architecture and city, regional, or urban planning and due 
consideration to applications from minority-serving 
institutions.

Sec. 15. ARPA-E study

    Requires the Secretary to enter into an arrangement with 
NAS to conduct a detailed study of, and make further 
recommendations on, the October 2005 NAS recommendation to 
establish an Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-
E).
    Requires the Secretary, not later than 12 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, to transmit a report to Congress 
containing the NAS study and the Secretary's response to the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of that study.

Sec. 16. Coal methanation

    Requires the Secretary to establish a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on facilities that convert coal into 
pipeline quality gaseous fuels for direct use or subsequent 
chemical or physical conversion.

Sec. 17. Alternative biobased fuels and ultra low sulfur diesel

    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D and 
commercial application on materials to be added to biobased 
fuels and ultra low sulfur diesel fuels to make them more 
compatible with existing fuel storage and delivery 
infrastructure.
    Requires the Secretary to carry out a program of RD&D on 
methods to test sulfur content in fuels.
    Requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
to develop a physical properties database and standard 
reference materials for alternative fuels.

Sec. 18. Bioenergy

    Amends Section 932 of EPACT to require the Secretary to 
carry out RD&D and commercial application on certain bio-
products from biomass.
    Authorizes appropriations of $75 million over three years--
FY07 to FY09--from within existing authorizations in EPACT.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    Section 3. FutureGen. The Committee believes that 
FutureGen, DOE's project to develop and demonstrate 
technologies for the capture and disposal of carbon dioxide, a 
greenhouse gas, from a commercial-scale coal-fueled power 
plant, is a critical element of DOE's Climate Change Technology 
Program. If successful, technology demonstrated by FutureGen 
could allow continued use of coal for electricity generation 
while significantly reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide 
emissions.
    The bill requires the Secretary to choose a project design 
that will demonstrate that it will be possible for future 
plants to generate electricity based on the design and lessons 
learned from this project at a cost, including carbon 
sequestration capability, that is no greater than 10 percent 
above standard integrated gasification combined cycle 
electricity costs. However, it is not the expectation of the 
Committee that FutureGen, a first-of-a-kind facility, will 
necessarily be able to produce electricity at this cost.
    The intent of the Committee is to support the FutureGen 
project without disturbing the negotiations currently underway 
between DOE and private-sector project participants. While the 
Committee was distressed to learn that DOE apparently 
circumvented normal competitive procurement procedures in this 
case by setting partnership criteria that only one organization 
could meet, this effort may be too important to the nation to 
require a new solicitation process and impose the associated 
delay. The Committee does not object to the Secretary selecting 
a design or site that would maximize the potential for future 
research projects on site upon completion of the demonstration.
    Section 4. Advanced Fuel Cycle Technologies for Nuclear 
Power. The Committee supports the President's vision for U.S. 
leadership in developing advanced nuclear power technologies. 
The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE's proposed RD&D 
activities for advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies 
included under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 
initiative are not sufficiently developed for Congress to act 
upon. In particular, the Committee is concerned that DOE has 
selected specific advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies for 
large-scale, expensive demonstrations, including fast reactors 
and fuel fabrication facilities, without conducting the 
necessary analysis and without consulting a sufficiently wide 
range of technical experts.
    A program of the size and scope that is proposed in DOE's 
fiscal year 2007 budget request requires rigorous justification 
of technology choices based on a comprehensive analysis of the 
entire fuel cycle. For example, DOE appears to have chosen a 
fast reactor to carry the entire transmutation burden in an 
advanced fuel cycle. Experts within and outside of DOE have 
estimated that such a fuel cycle could require one fast reactor 
to every three or four thermal reactors. The Committee has 
concerns about the commercial viability of such a reactor 
fleet. In addition to considering a range of fast reactor 
designs, the Committee expects DOE to consider the role of 
advanced thermal reactors that could be capable of carrying 
some of the transmutation burden at lower cost.
    The Committee believes that an open process of broad 
consultation is essential for a major initiative, such as the 
nuclear power technology RD&D components of the GNEP 
initiative, to succeed. A systematic process for seeking input 
from technical experts, industry, other entities and 
individuals interested in an expansion of domestic nuclear 
power would provide confidence to the Committees of 
jurisdiction in Congress that DOE's proposal for multi-billion 
dollar capital investments in large-scale engineering 
demonstration projects has been widely vetted.
    For the future, the Committee believes that DOE should 
develop an ongoing long-range planning and prioritization 
process for nuclear energy RD&D modeled on planning and 
prioritization processes used by the Office of Science and 
other Federal science agencies, for science programs that 
require large-scale, complex RD&D facilities. Any such planning 
process should include a periodic review by an independent 
body, such as the NAS. The Committee suggests that, at an 
appropriate time after the NAS review required by this 
legislation, DOE consider entering into an arrangement with the 
NAS toconduct a decadal survey, such as those conducted for 
astronomy and other physical sciences sub-disciplines, of RD&D 
priorities for nuclear energy.
    The Committee does not intend for the prohibition in 
subsection (d) to limit R&D or conceptual design work on any 
aspect of nuclear power technology. Nor does the Committee 
intend to slow or prevent progress on the Uranium Extraction 
plus (UREX+) demonstration facility, provided that such a 
demonstration is truly at engineering scale-that is, the 
minimum size required to predict with confidence all physical 
processes controlling the performance of a full-scale 
industrial facility. The Committee understands from a number of 
experts that an appropriate scale for such a facility is one 
with the capacity to process approximately 20-25 metric tons of 
spent nuclear fuel per year.
    Section 9. Continuing Programs. It is the intent of the 
Committee that the programs authorized in EPACT shall continue 
to be supported by the Secretary. In authorizing programs 
included in the President's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), 
the Committee did not intend to endorse all program 
eliminations in the budget request for DOE. The Committee is 
concerned about the elimination of several renewable energy 
programs, including geothermal, hydropower, and ocean energy, 
where significant potential remains for DOE's programs to 
expand their contribution to our national energy needs. The 
Committee is also concerned that distributed energy research 
and development programs, including microcogeneration 
technology, by being placed in the Office of Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability, will lose priority to the grid 
security mission that drives this Office. Distributed energy 
programs remain a priority for the Committee because of the 
potential of distributed energy technologies to better manage 
energy supply and demand.
    The Committee intends that DOE, as the central repository 
of information and expertise on energy matters with a national 
perspective, should continue to support federal, regional, and 
state efforts to develop and deploy the full range of renewable 
energy technologies. DOE should continue to make use of 
expertise at the National Laboratories to support these 
efforts. The Committee believes that DOE, in supporting future 
state and regional efforts, should continue to maintain key 
competencies in resource assessment, technology 
characterization, research coordination and planning, and 
similar activities needed to support federal, regional, and 
state efforts to develop and transfer new technologies.
    Section 10. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology 
Program. The Committee's objective in this section is to 
encourage the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 
and related advanced vehicle technologies to a sufficient 
degree to enable their entry into the consumer marketplace. 
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can reduce demand for oil by 
transferring some of the energy demand for transportation to 
the electric grid, typically at night, when the grid is 
operating well below capacity. As the number of plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles on the road increases, the demand for 
petroleum consumed by cars will decrease, as will U.S. 
dependence on foreign sources of oil. The R&D portion of this 
section will help advance the development of technology 
components required for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 
including battery technologies, power electronics, and charging 
components. In addition, these technologies may be able to 
serve a variety of transportation needs and other purposes, 
including medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and a variety of 
special-purpose vehicles. The authority granted in the 
legislation is intended to be broad enough to allow the 
Secretary to pursue promising R&D identified by DOE as offering 
significant potential for future oil savings.
    The Committee has defined a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 
as a light-duty vehicle capable of traveling a minimum of 
twenty miles on a single recharge, under city driving 
conditions, using energy solely from the battery; this can also 
be referred to as twenty ``electric-only'' miles. This 
definition was necessary to create a minimum threshold of 
eligibility for the demonstration program. The Committee 
understands that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles capable of 
traveling for twenty miles on battery power alone may not be 
operated that way and that other modes of operation could offer 
greater potential for oil savings.
    The Committee recognizes the significant advances in 
battery technology that have been achieved through DOE's 
Advanced Vehicle Battery Technology program, and understands 
that there is a technical continuum between hybrid electric 
vehicle batteries and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 
batteries. Therefore, the Committee encourages DOE to maintain 
and expand its current programs with the objective of 
efficiently managing both hybrid electric vehicle and plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicle programs in a manner that will optimize 
synergies and avoid duplication.
    To create an incentive for the demonstration of plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicle technologies with the greatest 
potential for oil savings, the bill specifies a preference for 
grant applications that propose to demonstrate a higher 
``electric-only'' range. However, in addition to advancing 
technologies needed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the 
Committee believes that the objective of the demonstration 
program is to gather data on real-world operation of vehicles 
that consumers would like to drive. Therefore, the Committee 
intends for DOE to select projects for demonstration that will 
use vehicles with standard features and characteristics that 
would make the vehicles attractive to consumers absent the 
equipment being demonstrated.
    The Committee also expects that the program will focus 
funding on technologies capable of achieving greater than 30 
percent power capture from regenerative braking.
    The Committee believes that the lightweight materials RD&D 
and commercial application program authorized in this section 
should focus on materials that will reduce vehicle weight and 
increase fuel economy while maintaining safety. Similar to the 
program in subsection (d), the Committee expects that other 
vehicles, including medium and heavy-duty vehicles, will 
benefit from the lightweight materials RD&D program.
    While the Secretary is provided the discretion to determine 
the grant amount needed, the Committee expects that the grant 
amount will equal no more than the marginalamount needed to 
provide sufficient incentive for State and local governments to 
participate in the demonstration program.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to require that 
information and knowledge gained by the participants in the 
pilot program be summarized and provided to any interested 
party. The Committee expects that DOE will be the central 
clearinghouse and repository for that data.
    Section 11. Photovoltaic Demonstration Program. The 
Committee has a strong interest in solar technologies and feels 
that the benefits of using photovoltaics are worthy of 
significant increases in Federal investment, especially in 
light of foreign competition. With the level of funding 
authorized in this section, the Secretary should be able to 
demonstrate an aggregate of at least 300 megawatts of power. 
The benefits of the solar demonstration program include the 
production of electricity at periods of peak demand, which 
could reduce the price of electricity for all customers, with 
minimal environmental impact, and the reduction of natural gas 
consumption. By conducting the demonstration program through 
the States, the Committee believes that individual 
demonstrations can best be targeted to specific needs and 
opportunities in each region of the country.
    The States are required to submit proposals to be eligible 
for the program, which along with the required 10 percent State 
cost-share, ensures that the States are committed to the goals 
of the program. For those States failing to submit qualifying 
proposals, the unclaimed funds will be distributed pro rata to 
those States that have submitted qualifying proposals. If 
sufficient funds are appropriated, then the Secretary shall 
allocate 25 percent of the available funds through a national 
competition, based on the quality of the proposals submitted by 
the States that qualify for the program. The Secretary should 
support demonstrations that focus on newer materials and 
technologies in the devices; the Committee expects that the 
program will be used by the Secretary to fund various types of 
solar photovoltaic technologies, such as wafer-based silicon 
(single- and multi-crystalline) photovoltaic modules and thin-
film (polycrystalline cadmium telluride, copper indium gallium 
di-selenide, and amorphous silicon) photovoltaic modules.
    Section 12. Energy Efficient Building Grant Program. The 
Committee views the pilot energy efficient building grant 
program in this section as a means to promote demonstration and 
commercial application of innovative energy technologies, to 
encourage energy efficiency in buildings, and to inform the 
building design, construction, and real estate sectors about 
opportunities for energy efficiency. The Committee expects that 
the Secretary will establish guidelines for this program within 
six months of enactment of this Act, and will issue the first 
solicitation for grant proposals within one year. Furthermore, 
the Committee intends for the Secretary to consider a broad 
range of applicants, including owners of commercial, 
institutional, public, and residential buildings. Finally, in 
paragraph (4)(B), the Committee expects that the independent 
certification organization will have procedures for obtaining 
data, and that a summary of such procedures will be appended to 
the report to Congress required in paragraph (5). The Committee 
expects the Secretary to ensure, to the extent practicable, 
that program funds are targeted to participants that would 
otherwise not incorporate energy efficient design in their 
buildings.
    Section 13. Energy Extension. The Committee is concerned 
that the Federal government does not sufficiently assist in 
helping to transfer and provide education on energy efficiency 
and distributed clean energy technologies, developed by DOE and 
at the National Laboratories, to energy end-users. This section 
is not intended to create a new entity or bureaucracy within 
DOE but to encourage DOE to partner with existing community 
outreach networks, including, but not limited to, cooperative 
extension services and State Energy Offices that have a history 
of transferring knowledge and technologies through educational 
activities, to achieve the aforementioned objective. The 
Committee intends that DOE not fund the creation of entirely 
new outreach networks under this Act, although the Committee 
does recognize that existing networks may need to be expanded 
to bring in appropriate energy expertise and partners. Grantees 
are encouraged, for example, to work with, and through, 
utilities to carry out informational activities for energy end-
users.
    With respect to subsection 13(g), the Committee intends 
that the construction prohibition apply only to the 
construction of buildings for the purpose of housing the 
Centers. Nothing in this subsection should be construed to 
prohibit leasing of facilities for Centers, nor the interior 
build-out, renovation, or adaptation of leased space to meet 
the needs of a Center. For example, the Committee intends that 
it would be permissible to build a wall for an educational 
exhibit showing high energy efficiency windows.
    Section 14. Green Energy Education. The Committee intends 
this section to promote broad collaboration between 
universities and DOE applied energy technology programs. The 
Committee expects that the funding DOE provides to NSF for 
IGERT, authorized under this section, will come primarily from 
the fossil, nuclear, electricity delivery and energy 
reliability, and energy efficiency and renewable energy 
programs. The Committee does not intend for the energy 
technology offices to shift their responsibility of partnering 
with universities to cultivate the next generation of energy 
technology experts to the Office of Science.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and 
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 5656 contains new budget authority and new credit 
authority but does not include changes in revenues or tax 
expenditures. Assuming that the sums authorized under the bill 
are appropriated, H.R. 5656 does authorize additional 
discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional 
Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in Section 
X of this report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                     July 12, 2006.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5656, the Energy 
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial 
Application Act of 2006.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                          Donald B. Marron,
                                                   Acting Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5656--Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial 
        Application Act of 2006

    Summary: H.R. 5656 would authorize appropriations for 
various research and development activities at the Department 
of Energy (DOE). Most of those activities would be related to 
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
    Assuming appropriation of the specified and estimated 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5656 would cost 
$311 million in 2007 and about $3.2 billion over the 2007-2011 
period. Enacting H.R. 5656 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues.
    H.R. 5656 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 
the bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments, 
and any costs they incur would result from complying with 
conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 5656 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250 
(general science, space, and technology) and 270 (energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Energy Efficiency, Renewable
 Energy Technology, and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology Programs:
    Budget Authority............................................     672       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     618     348      97      34       0       0
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level...............................       0     692     773     853     749     610
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0     311     625     763     790     698
Spending Under H.R. 5656 for Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy
 Technology, and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology Programs:
    Authorization Level.........................................     672     692     773     853     749     610
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     618     659     721     796     790     698
Memorandum:
    Amounts Authorized for Bioenergy Programs...................       0     213     251     274       0       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
5656 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2007. We 
also assume that amounts authorized and estimated to be 
necessary will be appropriated for each fiscal year and that 
spending will follow historical patterns for ongoing or similar 
activities.
    CBO estimates that H.R. 5656 would authorize the 
appropriation of $692 million in 2007 and nearly $3.7 billion 
over the 2007-2011 period for various research and development 
activities at DOE. Nearly all of those amounts would be 
specifically authorized for research, development, and 
demonstration activities related primarily to energy efficiency 
and renewable energy technologies. The bill would specify that 
a portion of amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
current law for bioenergy programs be used to support projects 
to develop certain fuels from biomass. The amounts authorized 
for such programs under H.R. 5656 would exceed current 
authorization levels, and we have included those amounts in 
this estimate.
    CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $311 
million in 2007 and nearly $3.2 billion over the next five 
years. Those amounts include:
           $136 million in 2007 and almost $1.3 billion 
        over the 2007-2011 period for programs to develop 
        technologies related to plug-in hybrid vehicles;
           $67 million in 2007 and $613 million over 
        the 2007-2011 period to expand the use of solar 
        photovoltaic power;
           $23 million in 2007 and $598 million over 
        the 2007-2011 period for grants to states to 
        demonstrate advanced photovoltaic technology;
           $68 million in 2007 and $476 million over 
        the 2007-2011 period to develop technologies to produce 
        certain fuels from biomass;
           $20 million in 2007 and $193 million over 
        the 2007-2011 period to expand the use of wind energy 
        technology;
           $33 million over the 2008-2011 period for 
        grants to businesses and other organizations to enhance 
        the energy efficiency of certain buildings, 
        particularly those used by low and moderate income 
        populations;
           $2 million in 2007 to analyze and report on 
        alternative systems for processing spent nuclear fuel; 
        and,
           $1 million in 2007 for DOE to study and 
        recommend whether to establish an agency to oversee 
        research on advanced energy projects.
    The bill would authorize specific amounts for the first six 
items above; the last two were estimated by CBO.
    Based on information from DOE and other affected agencies, 
CBO estimates that implementing other provisions of H.R. 5656 
would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Those 
provisions would:
           Amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
        specify certain bioenergy projects that would qualify 
        for funds already authorized to be appropriated under 
        that act;
           Clarify DOE's existing authority to issue 
        loan guarantees to support projects designed to produce 
        methane from coal;
           Specify new requirements for ongoing DOE 
        programs related to coal gasification, advanced 
        technologies for storing hydrogen, public outreach, and 
        curriculum development; and,
           Require the National Institute of Standards 
        and Technology to prepare reference materials related 
        to certain alternative fuels.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5656 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would authorize research activities 
and grant funds that would primarily benefit institutions of 
higher education. Any costs they or state, local, or tribal 
governments might incur, including matching funds, would result 
from complying with conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis .

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 5656 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    The goal of H.R. 5656 is to advance research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application of a broad suite of 
energy technologies that have the potential to enhance energy 
security, to reduce the environmental impact of energy use, and 
to improve our balance of trade by reducing our dependence on 
foreign fuels.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5656.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 5656 does not create any advisory committees.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 5656 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

      XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

      XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle A--Energy Efficiency

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 917. ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTERS.

  [(a) Grants.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make grants to 
nonprofit institutions, State and local governments, or 
universities (or consortia thereof), to establish a 
geographically dispersed network of Advanced Energy Efficiency 
Technology Transfer Centers, to be located in areas the 
Secretary determines have the greatest need of the services of 
such Centers. In establishing the network, the Secretary shall 
consider the special needs and opportunities for increased 
energy efficiency for manufactured and site-built housing.
  [(b) Activities.--
          [(1) In general.--Each Center shall operate a program 
        to encourage demonstration and commercial application 
        of advanced energy methods and technologies through 
        education and outreach to building and industrial 
        professionals, and to other individuals and 
        organizations with an interest in efficient energy use.
          [(2) Advisory panel.--Each Center shall establish an 
        advisory panel to advise the Center on how best to 
        accomplish the activities under paragraph (1).
  [(c) Application.--A person seeking a grant under this 
section shall submit to the Secretary an application in such 
form and containing such information as the Secretary may 
require. The Secretary may award a grant under this section to 
an entity already in existence if the entity is otherwise 
eligible under this section.
  [(d) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants 
under this section on the basis of the following criteria, at a 
minimum:
          [(1) The ability of the applicant to carry out the 
        activities described in subsection (b)(1).
          [(2) The extent to which the applicant will 
        coordinate the activities of the Center with other 
        entities, such as State and local governments, 
        utilities, and educational and research institutions.
  [(e) Cost-Sharing.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall require cost-sharing in accordance with the 
requirements of section 988 for commercial application 
activities.
  [(f) Advisory Committee.--The Secretary shall establish an 
advisory committee to advise the Secretary on the establishment 
of Centers under this section. The advisory committee shall be 
composed of individuals with expertise in the area of advanced 
energy methods and technologies, including at least one 
representative from--
          [(1) State or local energy offices;
          [(2) energy professionals;
          [(3) trade or professional associations;
          [(4) architects, engineers, or construction 
        professionals;
          [(5) manufacturers;
          [(6) the research community; and
          [(7) nonprofit energy or environmental organizations.
  [(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          [(1) Advanced energy methods and technologies.--The 
        term ``advanced energy methods and technologies'' means 
        all methods and technologies that promote energy 
        efficiency and conservation, including distributed 
        generation technologies, and life-cycle analysis of 
        energy use.
          [(2) Center.--The term ``Center'' means an Advanced 
        Energy Technology Transfer Center established pursuant 
        to this section.
          [(3) Distributed generation.--The term ``distributed 
        generation'' means an electric power generation 
        facility that is designed to serve retail electric 
        consumers at or near the facility site.
  [(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated in section 911, there 
are authorized to be appropriated for the program under this 
section such sums as may be appropriated.]

SEC. 917. ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTERS.

  (a) Grants.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, 
and Commercial Application Act of 2006, the Secretary shall 
make grants to nonprofit institutions, State and local 
governments, cooperative extension services, or universities 
(or consortia thereof), to establish a geographically dispersed 
network of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer 
Centers, to be located in areas the Secretary determines have 
the greatest need of the services of such Centers. In 
establishing the network, the Secretary shall consider the 
special needs and opportunities for increased energy efficiency 
for manufactured and site-built housing, including 
construction, renovation, and retrofit. In making awards under 
this section, the Secretary shall--
          (1) give priority to applicants already operating or 
        partnered with an outreach program capable of 
        transferring knowledge and information about advanced 
        energy efficiency methods and technologies;
          (2) ensure that, to the extent practicable, the 
        program enables the transfer of knowledge and 
        information--
                  (A) about a variety of technologies and
                  (B) in a variety of geographic areas; and
          (3) give preference to applicants that would 
        significantly expand on or fill a gap in existing 
        programs in a geographical region.
  (b) Activities.--Each Center shall operate a program to 
encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced 
energy methods and technologies through education and outreach 
to building and industrial professionals, and to other 
individuals and organizations with an interest in efficient 
energy use. Funds awarded under this section may be used for 
the following activities:
          (1) Developing and distributing informational 
        materials on technologies that could use energy more 
        efficiently.
          (2) Carrying out demonstrations of advanced energy 
        methods and technologies.
          (3) Developing and conducting seminars, workshops, 
        long-distance learning sessions, and other activities 
        to aid in the dissemination of knowledge and 
        information on technologies that could use energy more 
        efficiently.
          (4) Providing or coordinating onsite energy 
        evaluations, including instruction on the commissioning 
        of building heating and cooling systems, for a wide 
        range of energy end-users.
          (5) Examining the energy efficiency needs of energy 
        end-users to develop recommended research projects for 
        the Department.
          (6) Hiring experts in energy efficient technologies 
        to carry out activities described in paragraphs (1) 
        through (5).
  (c) Application.--A person seeking a grant under this section 
shall submit to the Secretary an application in such form and 
containing such information as the Secretary may require. The 
Secretary may award a grant under this section to an entity 
already in existence if the entity is otherwise eligible under 
this section. The application shall include, at a minimum--
          (1) a description of the applicant's outreach 
        program, and the geographic region it would serve, and 
        of why the program would be capable of transferring 
        knowledge and information about advanced energy 
        technologies that increase efficiency of energy use;
          (2) a description of the activities the applicant 
        would carry out, of the technologies that would be 
        transferred, and of any other organizations that will 
        help facilitate a regional approach to carrying out 
        those activities;
          (3) a description of how the proposed activities 
        would be appropriate to the specific energy needs of 
        the geographic region to be served;
          (4) an estimate of the number and types of energy 
        end-users expected to be reached through such 
        activities; and
          (5) a description of how the applicant will assess 
        the success of the program.
  (d) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants 
under this section on the basis of the following criteria, at a 
minimum:
          (1) The ability of the applicant to carry out the 
        proposed activities.
          (2) The extent to which the applicant will coordinate 
        the activities of the Center with other entities as 
        appropriate, such as State and local governments, 
        utilities, universities, and National Laboratories.
          (3) The appropriateness of the applicant's outreach 
        program for carrying out the program described in this 
        section.
          (4) The likelihood that proposed activities could be 
        expanded or used as a model for other areas.
  (e) Cost-Sharing.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall require cost-sharing in accordance with the 
requirements of section 988 for commercial application 
activities.
  (f) Duration.--
          (1) Initial grant period.--A grant awarded under this 
        section shall be for a period of 5 years.
          (2) Initial evaluation.--Each grantee under this 
        section shall be evaluated during its third year of 
        operation under procedures established by the Secretary 
        to determine if the grantee is accomplishing the 
        purposes of this section described in subsection (a). 
        The Secretary shall terminate any grant that does not 
        receive a positive evaluation. If an evaluation is 
        positive, the Secretary may extend the grant for 3 
        additional years beyond the original term of the grant.
          (3) Additional extension.--If a grantee receives an 
        extension under paragraph (2), the grantee shall be 
        evaluated again during the second year of the 
        extension. The Secretary shall terminate any grant that 
        does not receive a positive evaluation. If an 
        evaluation is positive, the Secretary may extend the 
        grant for a final additional period of 3 additional 
        years beyond the original extension.
          (4) Limitation.--No grantee may receive more than 11 
        years of support under this section without reapplying 
        for support and competing against all other applicants 
        seeking a grant at that time.
  (g) Prohibition.--None of the funds awarded under this 
section may be used for the construction of facilities.
  (h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          (1) Advanced energy methods and technologies.--The 
        term ``advanced energy methods and technologies'' means 
        all methods and technologies that promote energy 
        efficiency and conservation, including distributed 
        generation technologies, and life-cycle analysis of 
        energy use.
          (2) Center.--The term ``Center'' means an Advanced 
        Energy Technology Transfer Center established pursuant 
        to this section.
          (3) Distributed generation.--The term ``distributed 
        generation'' means an electric power generation 
        technology, including photovoltaic, small wind and 
        micro-combined heat and power, that is designed to 
        serve retail electric consumers on-site.
          (4) Cooperative extension.--The term ``Cooperative 
        Extension'' means the extension services established at 
        the land-grant colleges and universities under the 
        Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914.
          (5) Land-grant colleges and universities.--The term 
        ``land-grant colleges and universities'' means--
                  (A) 1862 Institutions (as defined in section 
                2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
                Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601));
                  (B) 1890 Institutions (as defined in section 
                2 of that Act); and
                  (C) 1994 Institutions (as defined in section 
                2 of that Act).
  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated in section 911, there 
are authorized to be appropriated for the program under this 
section such sums as may be appropriated.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      Subtitle C--Renewable Energy

SEC. 931. RENEWABLE ENERGY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Bioenergy.--From the amounts authorized under subsection 
(b), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
section 932--
          (1) $213,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which 
        $100,000,000 shall be for section 932(d), including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v);
          (2) $251,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which 
        $125,000,000 shall be for section 932(d), including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v); and
          (3) $274,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which 
        $150,000,000 shall be for section 932(d), including 
        $25,000,000 for section 932(d)(1)(B)(v).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 932. BIOENERGY PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        program to demonstrate the commercial application of 
        integrated biorefineries. The Secretary shall ensure 
        geographical distribution of biorefinery demonstrations 
        under this subsection. The Secretary shall not provide 
        more than $100,000,000 under this subsection for any 
        single biorefinery demonstration. In making awards 
        under this subsection, the Secretary shall encourage--
                  (A) the demonstration of a wide variety of 
                lignocellulosic feedstocks;
                  (B) the commercial application of biomass 
                technologies for a variety of uses, including--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (iii) substitutes for petroleum-based 
                        feedstocks and products; [and]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (v) biodegradable natural plastics 
                        from biomass; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XIX. Committee Recommendations

    On June 27, 2006, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported H.R. 5656, as amended, by a voice 
vote, and recommended its enactment.



                         XXI. Additional Views

                              ----------                              


                  Additional Views of Hon. Bart Gordon

                           SECTION 15. ARPA-E

    Section 15 of the bill as amended calls for the Secretary, 
through the National Academies of Science, to revisit the 
recommendation to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency 
for Energy (ARPA-E) set out in the October 2005 National 
Academies Report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and report 
back to Congress on the findings and recommendations. It is 
important to compile a body of information and guidance to aid 
in the deliberative process of creating an ARPA-E. But reports 
are not action, and giving the Secretary another year to think 
about it will get us no closer to solving looming energy 
problems.
    The language in H.R. 5656 raises valid questions about 
systemic gaps in the current energy R&D structure and how new 
efforts might augment the work in existing programs. I believe 
there is a fundamental disconnect between basic, generic energy 
research conducted largely by universities and government 
entities, and actual energy technology commercialization which 
is the prerogative of private industry. Basic research done in 
hopes of providing breakthroughs for future technology 
development entails high cost and a risk of failure that all 
but the largest private companies are unwilling to assume. 
ARPA-E is the third party that assumes a substantial part of 
that risk.
    Program managers are the heart of DARPA. ARPA-E should have 
similar flexible authority to hire the right personnel, for 
specified tenures, that are conversant in both basic research 
and technology commercialization. Guided by broad strategic 
challenges, these program managers must be able to identify 
scientific discoveries, know how these can be translated into 
breakthroughs for energy technology, and then lay the 
groundwork between these areas. As a bare-bones organization 
with no in-house research capabilities of its own, Program 
Managers will look to government labs, universities and 
industry as operative components of the mission. There is no 
evidence that a similar integrative capability for energy 
technology exists anywhere in the government or industry.
    DARPA is an organizational model; not a rigid framework 
that ARPA-E must adhere to. Indeed, the mission of ARPA-E and 
the structure and culture of the Department of Energy may prove 
parts of the DARPA model to be inapplicable. Therefore, I 
believe it is unwise for Congress to be highly prescriptive 
here. Though, there are elements of the DARPA model that are 
key to the success of ARPA-E, and one in particular that 
diverges from the recommendations in the National Academies 
report. The Director of ARPA-E should answer directly to the 
Secretary of Energy, not to the Undersecretary for Science. 
Just as DARPA remained independent of the service branches, the 
role of ARPA-E would be compromised if it is beholden to the 
research needs of any one particular office within DOE. ARPA-E 
will be successful if it is an agile, risk-tolerant, malleable 
organization with the resources, authority and flexibility to 
respond quickly to great technical challenges within the long-
term mission of building a more energy self-reliant nation.

   SECTION 17. ALTERNATIVE BIOBASED FUELS AND ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL

    I offered this amendment, based on my bill H.R. 5658, and 
it was accepted in the committee markup. The next generation of 
fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, will present a number of 
economic and environmental benefits. But the physical and 
chemical properties of these advanced fuels are fundamentally 
different than those of conventional petroleum-based fuels. 
When introduced into the existing infrastructure, these fuels 
can experience a number of compatibility issues such as 
corrosion of tank and pipeline materials, increased sediment 
buildup, clogging of filters, water and microbial 
contamination, varying flow properties, thermal and oxidative 
instability, and emissions volatility.
    Fuel retailers and distributors will have to have to 
undertake expensive reconditioning or installation of new 
infrastructure to accommodate ethanol and biodiesel, thus 
delaying market introduction of these important fuels. This 
section requires the Secretary, in consultation with the 
National Institutes of Standardsand Technology, to research 
fuel additives, blend stocks, materials and alternative methods which 
can mitigate or preclude such infrastructure modifications.
    This section also instructs the Secretary, in consultation 
with NIST, to develop portable, low-cost, and accurate methods 
for testing sulfur content in fuels. Federal requirements for 
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel go into effect this year. As ULSD moves 
from the refinery through pipelines, tanks and trucks it 
absorbs residual sulfur left throughout the distribution 
infrastructure, resulting in fuel that exceeds EPA sulfur 
limits for ULSD. With ready access to sulfur testing equipment 
retailers and distributors will be able to verify that the fuel 
they receive and sell is compliant with these regulations.
    This section also instructs NIST to develop for alternative 
fuels the same physical properties database and standard 
reference material that it does for any conventional fuel.

             INNOVATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FUND AMENDMENT

    I offered and withdrew in Committee an amendment to 
establish at the Department of Energy a program to provide 
funding to DOE and other agencies to install and utilize 
innovative technologies that would reduce energy consumption 
and save the taxpayers money, especially those technologies 
developed with federal-funding. Under my program DOE could not 
only use funds from the program for qualified projects but also 
loan money to other agencies on better-than-market terms and 
conditions to assist them in meeting energy reduction goals 
that were established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    This year I have either offered or had included an 
amendment to the appropriations bill that simply directs the 
agencies to adhere to buildings performance goals and reporting 
requirements of two public laws and one executive order. Its 
purpose is to bring attention to the priority Federal agencies 
should make in meeting their responsibilities to significantly 
reduce energy use in Federal buildings at a time when energy 
prices are soaring, and to put the Executive Branch on notice 
that the Congress expects it to undertake a serious effort in 
Fiscal year 2007 and future years to move aggressively to save 
energy in Federal buildings.
    Adoption of the Science Committee amendment would have 
provided an additional means to sist federal agencies in 
meeting their energy reduction goals--goals that become harder 
to achieve as progress is made in reducing energy consumption. 
At some point the tried and proven methods, if properly 
implemented, will have achieved almost all of the energy 
savings possible. It's time to begin now to demonstrate 
innovative technologies that can produce additional savings in 
the next few years and see if they work. Not all new 
technologies will be successful, but there is great potential 
in finding and demonstrating new ones that can result in 
substantial additional savings in energy and taxpayer money.
    I hope we will be able to agree on satisfactory language to 
establish Innovative Energy Technology Funds that can be 
included in any legislation that is enacted by the Congress 
this year.
                                                       Bart Gordon.

               Additional Views of Hon. Jerry F. Costello

    In the Committee's markup of H.R. 5656, I offered two 
amendments to improve the bill. My first amendment replaces the 
existing FutureGen authorization language in Section 3 with new 
language supported by the FutureGen Alliance, to authorize the 
FutureGen Initiative according to the goals and objectives set 
forth by the Department of Energy's plan submitted to Congress.
    The reason I offered my amendment is because the FutureGen 
authorization, including the corrections made in the manager's 
amendment, deviates from the plan DOE sets forth and attempts 
to side-track the performance and economic goals of the 
project. I have been closely involved with FutureGen since the 
project was first proposed in 2003, and it is progressing well. 
While we worked hard to reach an agreement, there is serious 
concern on behalf of those involved in the project that the 
current language will impede our ability to ensure FutureGen 
reaches its goals and objectives. Developing the technologies 
to burn coal as cleanly as natural gas is extremely important 
for our future energy independence, and we must get this right.
    I realize there was a good faith effort from the beginning 
to work through this language. However, the changes 
incorporated from the manager's amendment did not go far 
enough. For example, the DOE and the Alliance encouraged this 
Committee to include a section on insurance and indemnification 
because the DOE needs the authority to enter into contract 
agreements regarding the legal liability of the carbon 
sequestration portion of the project. This language was not 
accepted--not because there was disagreement over the policy--
but instead, because it would trigger a referral to the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. Shying away from issues that are 
critical to the success of the project because of 
jurisdictional concerns does a disservice to those involved in 
trying to make this project succeed. Remaining silent and not 
taking any action, as this authorization does or even waiting 
for a period of time, increases the chances of schedule delays 
and confusion down the road. Given the goals and objectives 
FutureGen seeks to achieve and the potential benefits to 
consumers through cheaper energy and cleaner air, we should not 
be afraid to debate and discuss these tough issues.
    The project is continuing along the roadmap DOE set forth, 
with the support of Congress, the FutureGen Alliance, and 
international contributors, and the benefit to the public 
stands to be significant. By eliminating environmental issues 
as barriers to coal use through the use of efficient generation 
technologies and carbon sequestration, FutureGen will enable 
the continued use of secure, domestic coal resources for our 
future energy needs. I remain committed to the FutureGen 
Initiative and am pleased with the progress in the past three 
years since President Bush proposed this initiative. I believe 
FutureGen will be a stepping stone toward a cleaner, more 
energy-secure future.
    The second amendment I offered provides grants to states to 
research, develop, and demonstration the feasibility of using 
coal gasification technology as the fuel source for ethanol 
production. There has been record growth in the U.S. ethanol 
industry over the past several years. Currently, the bulk of 
energy used to produce ethanol comes from natural gas and 
electricity. Coal, however, has the potential to significantly 
contribute to the process and deliver a wide array of benefits. 
Right now, barriers exist that limit the use of coal 
gasification as a fuel source in ethanol production. Research 
is needed to develop the knowledge base that will be needed to 
use coal gasification technology to power ethanol plants. While 
several companies are using coal fired co-generation plants in 
ethanol production, no company in the U.S. is using coal 
gasification technology. There is a legitimate need for my 
amendment in the coal and ethanol industries, and I encourage 
the Committee to embrace opportunities to further the 
applications for coal gasification, and its use in powering 
ethanol plants is a great fit for this technology.
    We must maintain our efforts in critical research and 
development and demonstration programs through continued 
support of the federal government. Advancements in clean coal 
technologies and renewable fuels, such as ethanol, will improve 
the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
                                                Jerry F. Costello.


  XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5656, ENERGY 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACT OF 
                                  2006

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006

                  House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Science,
                                                  Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Committee on Science 
will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to 
consider the following measure: H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 
2006. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with the 
opening statements, and I shall begin.
    I want to welcome everyone here for this markup on the 
Science Committee's energy package, which has been skillfully 
assembled by our Energy Committee Chair, Mrs. Biggert.
    As I think everyone knows, having reliable, affordable, 
clean domestic sources of energy is a must if our nation is to 
remain safe and prosperous in the future. To do that, we must 
invest in a balanced portfolio of energy research and 
development now, so that we have a balanced portfolio of energy 
sources in the future. And at the same time, we need to develop 
and promote ways to use these sources more wisely--an aspect of 
dealing with energy that once again will be conspicuously 
absent on the House Floor this week.
    As usual, this committee is a model of what we should be 
doing. We have been working for weeks, negotiating on both 
sides of the aisle, to put forward a sensible comprehensive 
package that includes investments in clean coal, nuclear 
energy, and a variety of renewable energy sources, as well as 
energy efficiency.
    I am going to highlight a few aspects of the bill and the 
manager's amendment now, so I won't have to say much later. We 
want to be done with this markup, hopefully, by noon.
    The first several sections of the bill were originally 
introduced by Mrs. Biggert, and they are designed to embrace, 
build on, and guide the implementation of the President's 
Advanced Energy Initiative.
    The language on FutureGen, which supports the project and 
also aims to ensure that the taxpayers will be getting 
something for their investments, will be revised in the 
manager's amendment by language negotiated with Mr. Costello 
and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    On the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the bill gives an 
amber light--embracing research, but requiring more analysis 
before large-scale demonstrations of fast reactors or a fuel 
test facility can proceed. The manager's amendment strips the 
language down to its bare essentials. This language will 
probably end up moving on the Floor separately from the rest of 
the bill, but we thought it was important to put the Committee 
on record on this program.
    The biofuels section emphasizes the need to develop 
feedstocks other than corn, and the manager's amendment 
includes language suggested by Mr. Calvert to ensure university 
participation.
    The plug-in hybrid section began as a bill introduced by 
Mr. Smith of Texas, and he is to be applauded for bringing 
forward this sensible R&D and demonstration program. Plug-ins 
have the potential to significantly increase auto and light 
truck mileage, and those vehicles account for about 40 percent 
of annual U.S. oil consumption.
    Mr. Smith is also responsible for the solar energy 
demonstration program in the bill, which would help increase 
the use of that renewable source. The manager's amendment 
includes language suggested by Ms. Johnson to encourage 
participation by minority institutions.
    Mrs. Biggert introduced the green building design grants 
and the energy extension portions of the bill, both of which 
should improve energy efficiency. The manager's amendment 
includes extension language negotiated with Mr. Miller to make 
the program consistent with language this committee included in 
last year's Energy Act.
    Mr. McCaul, a very active freshman on this committee, 
introduced the language on green buildings education. We need 
to be sure we are training engineers and architects not to 
unthinkingly build buildings the same old way, when buildings 
could be so much more energy efficient.
    Finally, the bill includes language to, in effect, send 
back to the National Academy of Sciences for further study the 
proposal to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for 
Energy, or ARPA-E. We just don't think we know enough yet to 
determine whether an ARPA-E would contribute usefully to our 
energy future and, if so, how. The questions we raised at our 
hearing back in March remain unresolved after repeated meetings 
on the subject.
    While ARPA-E is being studied, we will hardly be standing 
still with the programs in this bill and other efforts already 
underway. I urge support for the bill and the manager's 
amendment, which are models of balance and thoughtful policy.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I want to welcome everyone here for this markup on the Science 
Committee's energy package, which has been skillfully assembled by our 
Energy Subcommittee Chairman, Mrs. Biggert.
    As I think everyone knows, having reliable, affordable, clean 
domestic sources of energy is a must if our nation is to remain safe 
and prosperous in the future. To do that, we must invest in a balanced 
portfolio of energy research and development (R&D) now so that we have 
a balanced portfolio of energy sources in the future. And at the same 
time we need to develop and promote ways to use those sources more 
wisely--an aspect of dealing with energy that once again will be 
conspicuously absent on the House Floor this week.
    As usual, this committee is a model of what we should be doing. 
We've been working for weeks, negotiating on both sides of the aisle, 
to put forward a sensible comprehensive package that includes 
investments in clean coal, nuclear energy and a variety of renewable 
energy sources, as well as energy efficiency.
    I'm going to highlight a few aspects of the bill and the manager's 
amendment now, so I don't need to say much later. We want to be done 
with this markup by noon.
    The first several sections of the bill were originally introduced 
by Mrs. Biggert, and they are designed to embrace, build on, and guide 
the implementation of, the President's Advanced Energy Initiative.
    The language on FutureGen, which supports the project and also aims 
to ensure that the taxpayers will get something for their investment, 
will be revised in the manager's amendment by language negotiated with 
Mr. Costello and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    On the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the bill gives an 
amber light--embracing research, but requiring more analysis before 
large-scale demonstrations of fast reactors or a fuel test facility can 
proceed. The manager's amendment strips the language down to its bare 
essentials. This language will probably end up moving on the Floor 
separately from the rest of this bill, but we thought it was important 
to put the Committee on record on this program.
    The biofuels section emphasizes the need to develop feedstocks 
other than corn, and the manager's amendment includes language 
suggested by Mr. Calvert to ensure university participation.
    The plug-in hybrid section began as a bill introduced by Mr. Smith, 
and he is to be applauded for bringing forward this sensible R&D and 
demonstration program. Plug-ins have the potential to significantly 
increase auto and light truck mileage, and those vehicles account for 
about 40 percent of annual U.S. oil consumption.
    Mr. Smith also is responsible for the solar energy demonstration 
program in the bill, which would help increase the use of that 
renewable source. The manager's amendment includes language suggested 
by Ms. Johnson to encourage participation by minority institutions.
    Mrs. Biggert introduced the green building design grants and the 
energy extension portions of the bill, both of which should improve 
energy efficiency. The manager's amendment includes extension language 
negotiated with Mr. Miller to make the program consistent with language 
this committee included in last year's Energy Act.
    Mr. McCaul, a very active freshman on this committee, introduced 
the language on green building education. We need to be sure we are 
training engineers and architects not to unthinkingly build buildings 
the same old way, when buildings could be so much more energy 
efficient.
    Finally, the bill includes language to, in effect, send back to the 
National Academy of Sciences for further study the proposal to create 
an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. We just 
don't think we know enough yet to determine whether an ARPA-E would 
contribute usefully to our energy future and, if so, how. The questions 
we raised at our hearing back in March remain unresolved after repeated 
meetings on the subject.
    While ARPA-E is being studied, we will hardly be standing still 
with the programs in this bill and other efforts already under way. I 
urge support for the bill and the manager's amendment, which are models 
of balance and thoughtful policy.

    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair is now pleased to recognize 
the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 
consider this important legislation.
    Whether we are speaking of increasing reliance on foreign 
sources of energy, looming environmental concerns, or the high 
cost of gas and electricity, Congress should respond with 
forward-looking, aggressive, and sensible energy legislation. 
The bill and manager's amendment before us today contain many 
important provisions, several from Democratic Members, and I 
thank the Chairman for working with us to include them.
    I believe we have crafted provisions that accurately 
reflect our Members' concerns, while staying true to the intent 
and scope of the bill.
    There are still issues left unresolved at this point, and I 
hope we can come to an agreement on how to handle them before 
the bill is considered on the Floor.
    For example, Mr. Costello has sincere concerns about the 
way the FutureGen project is authorized in the bill.
    And I personally believe that the Committee should be 
sending a stronger message than the bill contains today about 
the future of energy research, specifically, the establishment 
of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.
    This follows direct recommendations of the National 
Academies of Science in the Gathering Storm report, which we 
all applauded, and I believe will be essential to the future of 
energy in the United States. We must begin to rethink and re-
energize the way we approach energy, R&D, and technological 
development.
    Mr. Chairman, with the Senate also including an ARPA-E 
provision in their competitiveness package, this will not be 
the last word you hear on the ARPA-E, and I look forward to 
future conversations with you in hopes that I might be able to 
change your enlightened mind on this important issue.
    We on the Democratic side look forward to this markup, and 
working with you to move this legislation through Congress.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to consider this 
important legislation.
    Whether we are speaking of our increasing reliance on foreign 
sources of energy, looming environmental concerns, or the high cost of 
gas and electricity, Congress should respond with forward-looking, 
aggressive, and sensible energy legislation.
    The bill and manager's amendment before us today contain many 
important provisions, several from Democratic Members, and I thank the 
Chairman for working with us to include them.
    I believe we have crafted provisions that accurately reflect our 
Members' concerns, while staying true to the intent and scope of the 
bill.
    There are still issues left unresolved at this point, and I hope we 
can come to an agreement on how to handle them before the bill is 
considered on the Floor.
    For example, Mr. Costello has sincere concerns about the way the 
FutureGen project is authorized in this bill.
    And, I personally believe the Committee should be sending a 
stronger message than the bill contains today about the future of 
energy research--specifically, the establishment of an Advanced 
Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.
    This follows direct recommendations of the National Academies of 
Science in the Gathering Storm report--which we all applauded--and I 
believe will be essential to the future of energy in the U.S.
    We must begin to re-think and re-energize the way we approach 
energy R&D and technology development. Just yesterday the Energy Daily 
ran my op-ed calling for an ARPA-E, which I believe has the capacity to 
aid in major technological advancements, and possibly revolutionize 
energy as we know it.
    Mr. Chairman, with the Senate also including an ARPA-E provision in 
their competitiveness package, this will not be the last word you hear 
on ARPA-E and I look forward to future debate in hopes that I might 
change your mind on this one.
    We on the Democratic side look forward to this markup and to 
working with you to move this legislation through Congress.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon, and 
without objection, Members may place statements in the record 
at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this markup on the Energy 
Research, Development, Demonstration and Commercial Application Act of 
2006.
    This legislation contains two bills I have introduced: The Plug-In 
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 and the Solar Utilization Now (SUN) 
Act of 2006.
    Americans want lower gas prices, less dependence on foreign oil and 
a cleaner environment. These bills help achieve all three goals.
    The ``Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Act'' establishes a partnership 
between private and public entities to focus on electric drive 
technology.
    The ``SUN Act,'' is needed because part of the answer to our energy 
needs comes up every morning. Solar power is clean, plentiful, and 
generates zero emissions and zero waste.
    The ``SUN Act'' encourages State governments and private industry 
to team up to apply for federal grants.
    These two bills are good for our energy security, national security 
and environmental security and I appreciate their being included in 
this legislative package.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    Investments in energy research and the development of new 
technologies are strategies that will save America from its dependence 
on foreign oil.
    What a sense of freedom we would have if our automobiles operated 
off hydrogen, ethanol, or some other renewable resource.
    What money would be saved if all building construction incorporated 
solar panels, insulating glass and even more energy-saving features.
    Our environment would certainly be better. The air would have less 
hydrocarbon pollution and greenhouse gases. Our oceans would not be 
subjected to oil spills or drilling.
    It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that forward-thinking plans such as 
H.R. 5656 will help America reach that ideal faster than any other 
strategy.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the staff on both sides 
of the aisle for your work to consider and include several changes I 
suggested for this legislation.
    For the section of the bill regarding Plug-In Hybrid vehicles, I 
thank you for adopting language specifying the inclusion of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, or other Minority Serving Institutions as partners for 
the applicants in the demonstration program.
    A second provision, which was also accepted, is in the photovoltaic 
demonstration program section of the bill. After some negotiations, I 
am pleased to know that the manager's amendment will include language 
indicating that the Secretary may give preference to minority-serving 
institutions.
    A third change that was requested involved the Energy Efficient 
Building Pilot Grant Program.
    This provision, which was also accepted into the manager's 
amendment, would specify that energy-efficient buildings designed to 
serve low and moderate income populations would be given ``due 
consideration'' by the Secretary. My thinking on this provision is that 
designs for subsidized housing and other such buildings should include 
the most cutting-edge energy efficiency technology. Those features will 
only save taxpayer dollars in the long run. I am happy to know that the 
Committee will accept this provision.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I saw the Green Energy Education section of 
the bill as an opportunity to again specify that Black, Hispanic, and 
other minority-serving institutions should receive priority 
consideration for these education grants.
    As you may know, these institutions produce a high percentage of 
minority students receiving advanced degrees in the sciences. For this 
reason, minority-serving institutions are worthy of extra attention by 
this committee and by the science policy community overall. My 
colleague, Representative Jackson Lee, has been an ardent advocate for 
these institutions, and she had a similar idea for an amendment to this 
section. I lend my support to that provision.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your word that you would work 
with me, particularly on issues regarding minority participation in 
science, technology, engineering and math. I also thank the Ranking 
Member, who has always been an eager advocate and a good partner on 
this committee.
    Over all, I am extremely pleased at the Committee's inclusion of my 
suggestions and feel a great victory has been won today for under-
represented minorities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I yield back the 
balance of my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. And before we proceed, I would like to 
take just a few seconds to acknowledge that Mr. McCaul has 
requested to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 5656, and we will make 
sure that happens before the report is filed. And if anybody 
else wants to jump aboard, you can.
    We will now consider H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 
2006. And I recognize Mrs. Biggert to describe her bill.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this markup of H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act.
    Last year, Congress passed, and the President signed into 
law, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPACT, the first 
comprehensive energy package enacted in well over a decade. 
Now, regardless of what my Science Committee colleagues might 
have thought of this bill in its entirety, I think it is safe 
to say that the bill's research and development provisions, 
crafted by this committee, were comprehensive and innovative, 
and therefore enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Congress. 
The bill's R&D provisions are one of the major reasons I 
supported EPACT. I believe they put the United States on a path 
towards a more secure energy future by diversifying our energy 
supplies, improving efficiency, and reducing consumption 
through research and the use of technology.
    That bill was just a first step, and nobody should expect 
our nation's energy problems to disappear overnight. High 
natural gas prices and the recent spike in gasoline prices 
serve as a stark reminder that the path to energy independence 
is a long and arduous one. To make significant progress down 
this path requires a steadfast commitment from Congress and the 
Federal Government to support the development of advanced 
energy technologies and alternative fuels that will help end 
our addiction to oil and gasoline.
    The bill we are considering today includes provisions that 
do just that by building on the excellent R&D provisions this 
committee included in EPACT. As a matter of fact, some of the 
sections of this bill should be very familiar, as they were 
approved by this committee and the full House, as part of 
EPACT, but were not included in the final conference report 
enacted last August.
    This is the case for section 11, creating an Advanced Solar 
Demonstration Program, and section 12, creating a grant program 
to encourage the design of energy efficient buildings. The 
remaining provisions reflect the latest research, the emergence 
of innovative technologies, and new ways of thinking about our 
power problems.
    Sections 1 through 9 represent the fundamental components 
of the Advanced Energy Initiative, which the President outlined 
during this year's State of the Union address. They include 
sections to advance the development of biofuels from cellulosic 
feedstocks, or feedstocks other than corn, technologies for 
hydrogen storage onboard vehicles, new materials to enable the 
widespread use of solar power, and technologies that minimize 
the cost and environmental impact, and maximize the efficiency 
of harnessing the power of wind.
    This bill also addresses two other major components of the 
President's Advanced Energy Initiative, FutureGen and the 
advanced fuel cycle R&D that is critical to the President's 
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. With respect to 
FutureGen, section 3 of this bill codifies the emissions goals 
established by DOE for the project. It also directs the 
Secretary of Energy to use his judgment and discretion to 
strike the right balance between the use of experimental and 
readily available components in FutureGen. This will reduce the 
risk of the project, and ensure that FutureGen can be a model 
for the coal-fired power plant of the future.
    As for advanced fuel cycle R&D, section 4 of this bill 
gives the Department some much-needed direction. As someone who 
supports the President's vision to revitalize the domestic 
nuclear power industry, and recognizes the many potential 
benefits of the advanced fuel cycle, I also recognize that it 
is a complex system with complex technologies. As the DOE 
proceeds with its research, it must be certain that all of the 
pieces of the complex system fit together and provide the 
benefits intended. The future of safe, efficient, and 
emissions-free nuclear power depends on it.
    I believe it is only prudent to prohibit the DOE from 
constructing certain demonstration facilities until it has 
provided Congress the additional modeling, analysis, and 
planning necessary to us to make an informed decision about how 
best to proceed.
    The rest of H.R. 5656 represents a compilation of a number 
of bipartisan bills introduced by Members of the Science 
Committee. I, too, want to join the Full Committee Chairman in 
commending our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Smith and Mr. McCaul, 
for their tremendous contributions to this bill.
    Finally, section 15 of the bill requires the National 
Academy of Sciences to clarify its October 2005 Gathering Storm 
report recommendation that a DARPA-like entity be created at 
the DOE. I hope the Committee today will agree that we should 
not rush to create yet another possible duplicate of 
bureaucracy within DOE before getting more details from the NAS 
about its recommendation.
    With that, I again thank the Chairman for holding this 
markup, and I would yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this markup of 
H.R. 5656, the Energy Research Act.
    Last year, Congress passed and the President signed into law the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPACT, the first comprehensive energy 
package enacted in well over a decade. Now, regardless of what my 
Science Committee colleagues might have thought of the bill in its 
entirety, I think it's safe to say that the bill's research and 
development provisions--crafted by this committee--were comprehensive 
and innovative and therefore enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in the 
Congress.
    The bill's R&D provisions are one of the major reasons I supported 
EPACT. I believe they put the United States on a path toward a more 
secure energy future by diversifying our energy supplies, improving 
efficiency, and reducing consumption through research and the use of 
technology.
    That bill was just the first step, and nobody should expect our 
nation's energy problems to disappear overnight. High natural gas 
prices and the recent spike in gasoline prices serve as a stark 
reminder that the path to energy independence is a long and arduous 
one. To make significant progress down this path requires a steadfast 
commitment from Congress and the Federal Government to support the 
development of advanced energy technologies and alternative fuels that 
will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline.
    The bill we are considering today includes provisions that do just 
that, by building on the excellent R&D provisions this committee 
included in EPACT. As a matter of fact, some of the sections of this 
bill should be very familiar, as they were approved by this committee 
and the full House as part of EPACT, but were not included in the final 
conference report enacted last August. This is the case for Section 11, 
creating an advanced solar demonstration program, and Section 12, 
creating a grant program to encourage the design of energy efficient 
buildings.
    The remaining provisions reflect the latest research, the emergence 
of innovative technologies, and new ways of thinking about our power 
problems.
    Sections 1 through 9 represent the fundamental components of the 
Advanced Energy Initiative, which the President outlined during this 
year's State of the Union address. They include sections to advance the 
development of:

          Biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks, or feedstocks 
        other than corn,

          Technologies for hydrogen storage onboard vehicles,

          New materials to enable the widespread use of solar 
        power, and

          Technologies that minimize the cost and environmental 
        impact and maximize the efficiency of harnessing the power of 
        the wind.

    This bill also addresses two other major components of the 
President's energy initiative, FutureGen and the advanced fuel cycle 
R&D that is critical to the President's Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership, or GNEP.
    With respect to FutureGen, Section 3 of this bill codifies the 
emissions goals established by DOE for the project. It also directs the 
Secretary of Energy to use his judgment and discretion to strike the 
right balance between the use of experimental and readily available 
components in FutureGen. This will reduce the risk of the project and 
ensure that FutureGen can be a model for the coal-fired power plant of 
the future.
    As for advanced fuel cycle R&D, Section 4 of this bill gives the 
Department some much needed direction. As someone who supports the 
President's vision to revitalize the domestic nuclear power industry 
and recognizes the many potential benefits of the advanced fuel cycle, 
I also recognize that it is a complex system with complex technologies. 
As the DOE proceeds with its research, it must be certain that all the 
pieces of this complex system fit together and provide the benefits 
intended. The future of safe, efficient, and emissions free nuclear 
power depends on it. I believe it is only prudent to prohibit the DOE 
from constructing certain demonstration facilities until it has 
provided Congress the additional modeling, analysis, and planning 
necessary for us to make an informed decision about how best to 
proceed.
    The rest of H.R. 5656 represents a compilation of a number of 
bipartisan bills introduced by Members of the Science Committee. I, 
too, want to join the Full Committee Chairman in commending our 
colleagues from Texas, Mr. Smith and Mr. McCaul, for their 
contributions to this bill.
    Finally, Section 15 of the bill requires the National Academy of 
Sciences to clarify its October 2005 Gathering Storm report 
recommendation that a DARPA-like entity be created at the DOE. I hope 
the Committee today will agree that we should not rush to create yet 
another, possibly duplicative bureaucracy within DOE before getting 
more details from the NAS about its recommendation.
    With that, I again want to thank the Chairman for holding this 
markup today. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5656, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Smith. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for 
yielding me time, and I thank her for introducing this great 
piece of legislation, and I also thank the Chairman for having 
this markup on the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, 
and Commercial Application Act of 2006.
    As the Chairman mentioned, this legislation contains two 
bills that I introduced, the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 
Act of 2006, and the Solar Utilization Now Act of 2006.
    Mr. Chairman, Americans want lower gas prices, less 
dependence on foreign oil, and a cleaner environment. These 
bills help achieve all three goals. The Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle 
Act establishes a partnership between private and public 
entities to focus on electric drive technology. The SUN Act is 
needed because part of the answer to our energy needs, in fact, 
comes up every morning. Solar power is clean, plentiful, and 
generates zero emissions and zero waste.
    The SUN Act encourages State governments and private 
industry to team up to apply for federal grants. These two 
bills are good for our energy security, national security, and 
environmental security, and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, their 
being included in this legislative package, and I will yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee for her 
outstanding explanation.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller for any remarks he 
might care to deliver.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do want to seize this opportunity to celebrate my 
frequent agreements with the Chair of this committee, and with 
the Members of the majority of this committee.
    I originally introduced as an amendment to the Energy Bill, 
what is now section 917 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 
Chairman accepted that amendment originally, and then made it 
part of the base bill the next time that it came through this 
committee.
    This bill, with the manager's amendment, makes improving 
changes to section 917, to make it an even more effective 
program. The purpose of the program is to encourage the real 
use, the use in the real world, of energy efficiency 
technologies that have been developed with, often, federally-
funded research, the Department of Energy, but that has sat 
unused on the shelf.
    Using those energy efficiency technologies offers the 
promise of immediate help with our problems, with our energy 
needs, our dependency, and we should be using every effort to 
try to make ourselves more energy independent. This would 
extend those ways of delivering energy conservation and 
efficiency programs to include cooperative extension services, 
which is a definite improvement, and important, that these 
energy efficiency technologies make their way into rural 
America.
    And again, these improving changes came from the Republican 
side. There has never been a partisan divide over this 
position, over this program, but this program is now truly a 
bipartisan program. And I hope that these improving amendments 
that really do make the program much more comprehensive will 
send a message, will get the attention of the Department of 
Energy, and to the appropriators, that this program has to be 
funded.
    The President's budget request failed to request funding 
for this program this year. The appropriators failed to include 
funding in this year's spending bills, despite my best efforts 
and many efforts to tug at someone's sleeve and get their 
attention, to try to include it in the appropriations bill. And 
I hope with a strong bipartisan effort next year, this program 
can be funded, and we can begin to make sure we get into 
practical use the energy efficiency technologies that we have 
developed.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for working with me and 
working with others on this committee.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller, and I 
just want you to know what a pleasure it is to work with you.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to add Mr. Green of 
Texas as a co-sponsor of H.R. 5656. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    And it just makes me wonder how come Texans are so smart--
Mr. McCaul and Mr. Green on a bipartisan basis have joined this 
love-in. Thank you very much. We do appreciate that.
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point, and that Members proceed 
with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without 
objection, that is so ordered.
    Ms. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The first amendment on the roster is the 
manager's amendment, offered by the gentlelady from Illinois, 
Mrs. Biggert.
    The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Ms. Biggert 
of Illinois.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. To explain the manager's amendment.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In addition to making a number of technical corrections to 
H.R. 5656, this manager's amendment also makes a number of 
improvements suggested by various Members of the Committee.
    After insightful input from Mr. Costello and the FutureGen 
Alliance, which represents the private sector partners in the 
FutureGen project, this amendment substitutes section 3 of the 
bill with language that addresses their interests and concerns, 
and puts the project on a strong foundation.
    More specifically, the amendment adds a provision to 
protect data collected as part of the FutureGen project, and 
authorizes contributions to the project from a wide variety of 
sources, including foreign nations and international companies, 
to offset the government's share of the total project costs.
    At the suggestion of Ms. Johnson, this amendment clarifies 
that Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority-
serving institutions, and Hispanic Serving Institutions may be 
included in the State applications for the Solar Demonstration 
Program. The manager's amendment also clarifies that these 
institutions and other nonprofit organizations can partner with 
cities and states to demonstrate plug-in hybrid vehicles.
    At the suggestion of Mr. Calvert, this amendment includes a 
provision requiring the DOE to engage university researchers in 
the development of advanced biofuels technologies, by requiring 
not less than 10 percent of the program's funding to be 
competitively awarded to colleges and universities. At the 
suggestion of Ms. Johnson, this amendment would modify the 
green buildings grant program to encourage DOE to fund projects 
that would serve low and moderate income populations.
    At the suggestion of Mr. Miller of North Carolina, this 
amendment integrates section 917 of EPACT, which authorizes the 
creation of advanced energy efficiency technology transfer 
centers, with section 13 of this bill, which uses existing 
cooperative extension services and other outreach networks to 
encourage market adoption of the advanced energy technologies. 
The result of combining these programs will be far more likely 
to improve technology transfer than either program would on its 
own.
    Finally, at the suggestion of Mr. Baird, this amendment 
clarifies that a professional engineer or other qualified 
professional may certify that a project meets the requirements 
of the green buildings grant program, thus making it eligible 
for the remainder of the grant payment.
    I want to thank my colleagues for great ideas that make a 
good bill even better. I urge adoption of the manager's 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Making a good bill even better prompted 
Mr. Green to come aboard, and thank you very much.
    We have a late addition to the manager's amendment. Mr. 
Hall has an amendment, #12 on the roster, that he would like to 
include in the manager's amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that Mr. Hall's amendment be considered part of the manager's 
amendment, and without objection, so ordered.
    And it is my understanding that Mr. Hall would like a 
moment or two to explain it.
    Mr. Hall. Or three.
    Mr. Chairman, first, of course, I want to thank you, and I 
do want to strike the last word, and speak on a portion of the 
manager's amendment, which I, of course, support.
    Thank you and the staff for working with me and with my 
staff to include my amendment into the manager's amendment. My 
amendment is simple. It simply ensures that gas, that coal 
gasification projects that produce methane, which is pipeline 
quality natural gas, are eligible for equal treatment under the 
loan guarantee provisions of the Energy Policy Act. And the Act 
currently covers other coal gasification projects.
    The loan guarantee provisions of the Energy Policy Act 
clearly specify that they are intended to be useful to expedite 
the demonstration of coal gasification projects that produce 
syngas, which is composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon 
monoxide. Now, that is good, but we need to make sure also that 
projects that demonstrate the commercial application of 
technology that convert coal into natural gas are also eligible 
for the benefit and the very beneficial treatment provided in 
EPACT.
    These technologies are capable of gasifying coals of many 
different types, Eastern coal, Western coal, bituminous coal, 
lignite, and others. All are good feedstocks for these plants. 
This technology can play an important role in making more of 
our nation's abundant coal resource a significant part of our 
energy future, which it should be.
    From a guy from the oil patch in Bush's energy of every 
type, I certainly recognize the value of coal, and this will be 
a good amendment.
    I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall

Mr. Chairman,

    I would like to thank you and the Committee staff for working with 
me to include my amendment into the manager's amendment.
    My amendment is simple. It will ensure that coal gasification 
projects that produce methane, which is pipeline quality natural gas, 
are eligible for equal treatment under the loan guarantee programs of 
the Energy Policy Act. The act currently covers other coal gasification 
projects.
    The loan guarantee provisions of the Energy Policy Act clearly 
specify that they are intended to be useful to expedite the 
demonstration of coal gasification projects that produce syngas which 
is composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
    That is good, but we need to make sure that projects that 
demonstrate the commercial application of technology that converts coal 
into natural gas are also eligible for the beneficial treatment 
provided in EPACT.
    These technologies are capable of gasifying coals of many different 
types--eastern coal, western coal, bituminous coal, lignite and 
others--are all good feedstock for these plants.
    This technology can play an important role in making more of our 
nation's abundant coal resource a significant part of our energy 
future.
    Thank you and I yield back my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
    Is there any further discussion of the manager's amendment, 
including the Hall amendment?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. If not, the vote--Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me just--I want to thank the 
Chairman and Chairwoman Biggert, and their staff, for working 
with the Democratic Members to incorporate language they feel 
makes the bill better.
    Mr. Honda is satisfied that his concerns about cost 
implementations of the GNEP program would be fully considered 
in the Department's plan.
    Mr. Baird sought to ensure private dollars are leveraged 
and professional energy audits are conducted in the building 
grant program. Ms. Johnson, working closely with Ms. Jackson 
Lee, fought for participation of historic black colleges and 
Hispanic and minority-serving institutions in several programs.
    Mr. Miller stated very articulately earlier his concerns 
and improvements to the bill. And some of the concerns of Mr. 
Costello are addressed, but I do not believe it is adequate, 
and I will let him speak to that later.
    Overall, the manager's amendment makes major improvements 
to the bill, and I support this adoption.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    And the vote occurs on the manager's amendment. All in 
favor, say ``aye.'' Aye. No, ``no.'' The ``aye's'' have it, and 
the manager's amendment is agreed to.
    Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Gordon and others in the 
minority, I propose that we vote on several amendments, which 
the Chair supports, en bloc. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that the following, that following discussion on the 
amendments, the Committee vote on the following five 
amendments, which the Chair supports, en bloc: amendment #2, 
offered by Mr. Gordon; amendment #3, offered by Mrs. Matsui; 
amendment #4, offered by Ms. Woolsey; amendment #5, offered by 
Ms. Jackson Lee; and amendment #6, offered by Mr. Green. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    We will proceed with the second amendment on the roster, 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. Are you 
ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me first say 
that I think----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Gordon of 
Tennessee.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    And the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment and the following four amendments from the 
Democratic Members were carefully negotiated by both Committee 
staffs, and I believe they accurately represent the goals of 
the Committee Democrats we can all agree with.
    Our Members can speak for themselves, so I won't take that 
time. Let me quickly say a little about my amendment.
    It addresses a looming problem with major economic 
implications. The physical properties of bio-based fuels, such 
as ethanol and biodiesel, are fundamentally different than 
petroleum-based fuels, for which the entire country's 
infrastructure is based.
    When introduced into the existing infrastructure, these 
fuels experience a number of compatibility issues, such as 
corrosion of tank, pipeline materials, dislodging of sediment, 
and clogging filters, water contamination of fuels, and poor 
flow properties. The list of potential problems is actually 
quite long. Instead of asking fuel retailers and distributors 
to renovate or install new infrastructures to accommodate 
biofuels, research into fuel additives and alternative methods 
may show that such expensive changes may be mitigated or 
avoided altogether.
    This amendment also instructs the Secretary, in 
consultation with NIST, to develop portable, low cost, and very 
accurate methods for testing sulfur content in fuels. Federal 
requirements for ultra-low sulfur diesel go into effect this 
year, and retailers and distributors should have a way to 
verify that the fuel they receive and sell is compliant with 
these regulations.
    The amendment also instructs NIST to develop for 
alternative fuels the same physical properties database and 
standard reference material that it does for any conventional 
fuel.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. I want to thank Mr. Gordon for his 
amendment. The Chair supports the amendment.
    Next, we will proceed with the third amendment on the 
roster, offered by the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Matsui. 
Mr. Gordon, would you care to comment on that?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Matsui 
presently is on the Floor dealing with a rule right now.
    Her amendment is to ensure that the Department of Energy 
continues to--should I ask for a----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will designate the amendment, 
please?
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Ms. Matsui of 
California.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Continue, please, with your explanation.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
    This amendment is to ensure that the Department of Energy 
continues to maintain core competencies in the range of 
renewable energy technologies, not just those mentioned 
specifically in this bill.
    While this bill covers biomass, solar, wind, it does not 
mention other renewables, including geothermal, hydropower, and 
others. These important forms of energy production are already 
in use. They are not aspirational. So, it is essential that DOE 
be able to support their application at the regional, State, 
and local level.
    These research and support capabilities should be housed 
within the National Lab System, so they can be assessed by the 
organizations and people that are on the ground developing and 
deploying these important technologies.
    I understand the Chairman supports the amendment, and has 
agreed to work with Ms. Matsui on report language that will 
clarify the full intent of this amendment. I know she 
appreciates your willingness to do so, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. I want to thank 
Mrs. Matsui. I mean, she has hit the ground running. She is a 
new Member of the Committee, with other important 
responsibilities in the Congress as a Member of the Rules 
Committee, but she has been immersed from the beginning in 
this, and I thank her for the amendment. The Chair supports the 
amendment.
    Next, we will proceed with the fourth amendment on the 
roster, offered by the gentlelady from California, Mrs. 
Woolsey. Are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Ms. Woolsey 
of California.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    And the gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
include all of my remarks into the record.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Woolsey. And I am going to go very quickly and shortcut 
it.
    As we know on this committee, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005, requires new federal buildings deemed energy efficient 
to exceed 30 percent of the latest efficiency standards. The 
base standard is one, by the way, that was set by the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning 
Engineers.
    However, this bill before us requires buildings to exceed 
the standard by only 25 percent, which of course, is a decrease 
over last year's energy bill, so my amendment would simply 
increase the definition of an energy efficient building from 25 
percent to 30 percent, in accordance with the same standards.
    And I hope the Committee will accept this amendment. I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn Woolsey
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to the bill.
    Thank you, Chairman Boehlert. I appreciate the Committee holding 
this markup today.
    It is of critical importance that we promote a national energy 
policy that emphasizes clean, renewable technologies.
    The people of the Bay Area district I represent--Marin and Sonoma 
counties, right across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco--are 
keenly aware of the need to re-examine our national energy priorities.
    For too long the U.S. has made shortsighted decisions about our 
energy future, putting our faith in fossil fuels as our primary energy 
source.
    H.R. 5656 does much to promote national programs that develop 
alternative sources of energy, rather than continued reliance on 
petroleum.
    My amendment to H.R. 5656 would actually augment federal support 
for energy efficiency in buildings, by changing the definition of 
``energy efficiency'' in the Energy Efficient Grants Program.
    As Members of this committee know, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, requires new federal buildings deemed ``energy efficient'' to 
exceed by 30 percent the latest efficiency standards. (The base 
standard is the one set by the American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers.)
    However, the bill before us today requires buildings to exceed this 
standard by only 25 percent--a marked decrease from last year's energy 
bill.
    My amendment would simply increase the definition of an energy 
efficient building from 25 percent efficient to 30 percent efficient in 
accordance with this same standard.
    I hope the Committee will accept this amendment, which has been 
discussed with the Majority in advance.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. I want to thank Mrs. Woolsey for her 
amendment. The Chair, indeed, does support the amendment.
    Next, we will proceed with the fifth amendment on the 
roster, offered by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 
Are you ready to proceed?
    The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    And the gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been very impressed, and I ask unanimous consent 
that my entire statement be submitted into the record.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. By the interests of this committee in 
ensuring that the issues of science are broad-based, and that 
the constituency is broad-based.
    Therefore, my amendment deals with awarding grants under 
the Green Energy and Education Provision, the Director of the 
National Science Foundation, to give due consideration to the 
broad-based numbers of minority institutions to ensure that 
they are both training new leaders in alternative fuel, as well 
as educating the population in the utilization of alternative 
fuel.
    And I would ask for my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and the gentlelady 
is right. We do support her amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank my colleague, Mrs. 
Johnson, for working with me on her amendment that was included in the 
manager's amendment.
    I have enjoyed working on this committee in large part because of 
the bipartisan efforts to encourage scientific innovation, as well as 
widen access to the science, engineering, technical, and mathematic 
fields for Americans who are underprivileged or disadvantaged.
    Today I am introducing an amendment that will designate 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other Minority Serving 
Institutions as priority applicants for grant awards to undergraduate 
and graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture education 
related to the design and construction of high performance building. 
This ``Green Energy Education'' programming will teach young 
professional and students the important of design efficiency in 
addition to functionality. In addition, we must pursue this provision 
to continue to safeguard equal opportunities in fields of study and 
professions that have far too low of a minority ratio.
    According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 
Americans who are African-American, Hispanic, and Native American make 
up only 9.7 percent of the science and engineering workforce, compared 
to 16.8 percent of the entire U.S. labor force.
    The National Science Foundation contends that although the 
proportions of women, blacks, and Hispanics in science and engineering 
occupations have continued to grow over time, there are still fewer 
numbers in science than their proportions of the population. In 
addition, the representation of African-Americans in science and 
engineering occupations increased from 2.6 percent in 1980 to 6.9 
percent in 2000. The representation of Hispanics increased from 2.0 
percent to 3.2 percent. However, for Hispanics, this is proportionally 
less than their increase in the population.
    With these provisions, the door should be opened a few more inches. 
We want America's youth to find their way to engineering and the 
sciences.
    I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, an I encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my 
time.

    Chairman Boehlert. Next, we will proceed with the 
amendment, the sixth amendment on the roster, offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Green. I am, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Green of 
Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Ranking 
Member for your leadership on this most important piece of 
legislation. I would also like to thank our staffs for the 
outstanding effort that they have given to help us bring this 
piece of legislation to fruition.
    Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be a part of this bipartisan 
effort to actively spearhead opportunities to diversify our 
energy portfolio, and to reduce our energy consumption through 
research, innovation, and implementation.
    Today, we are taking great strides in achieving this 
mission, by moving forward H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 
2006.
    My amendment seeks to enhance the potential economic 
benefits of biofuel refining, specifically, within the process 
of transforming switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol, a 
remarkable process, I might add.
    Recently, scientists have been able to bioengineer 
biodegradable natural plastics in certain plants, and with 
additional federal assistance, there may come a time in the 
near future when these natural products, these plastics, can be 
engineered to grow in switchgrass. My amendment would 
specifically designate $25 million in funds from preexisting 
EPACT bioproducts authorizations for the research, development, 
demonstration, and commercialization of biodegradable natural 
plastics from switchgrass.
    The co-production of natural plastics and ethanol from 
switchgrass will include the currently cost-prohibitive nature 
of cellulosic ethanol, lowering the price of cellulosic ethanol 
potentially, and by an estimated $0.30 to $0.40.
    The American people are suffering an economic burden from 
our daily oil production and refinery deficits. The American 
people support our goals to supplement our fuel needs with 
renewable biofuels production. Corn ethanol may not meet all of 
these needs, and the onus is on us to ensure that corn ethanol 
production is supplemented by the production of cellulosic 
ethanol from materials such as switchgrass.
    With the passage of my amendment, we are one step closer to 
reducing the CO2 emissions and plastics pollutions 
in the environment. With the passage of my amendment, we are 
enhancing the capability to potentially expand ethanol supplies 
by as much as 14 billion gallons per year, which would save us 
370 million barrels of oil per year, the equivalent of $26 
billion spent annually on oil from overseas. With the passage 
of my amendment, we are fortifying our commitment to energy 
independence and affordability for the American people.
    The time has come for us to actively work towards ensuring 
that the American people will never again feel the pain at the 
pumps they currently feel today. And I am proud that this 
committee is an active participant in striving for this relief.
    I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Al Green
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you and the Ranking 
Member for your leadership on this important piece of legislation. I 
would also thank our staffs for their efforts to bring this to 
fruition.
    I am honored to be a part of this bipartisan effort to actively 
spearhead opportunities to diversify our energy portfolio and reduce 
our energy consumption through research innovation and implementation.
    Today we are taking great strides in achieving this mission by 
moving forward H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, Development, 
Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2006.
    My amendment seeks to enhance the potential economic benefits of 
biofuel refining, specifically within the process of transforming 
switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol--a remarkable accomplishment.
    Recently, scientists have been able to bioengineer biodegradable 
natural plastics in certain plants, and with additional federal 
assistance, there may come a time in the near future when these natural 
plastics can be engineered to grow in switchgrass.
    My amendment would specifically designate $25 million in funds from 
a pre-existing EPACT bioenergy authorization for the research, 
development, demonstration, and commercialization of biodegradable 
natural plastics from switchgrass.
    The co-production of natural plastics and ethanol from switchgrass 
will improve the currently cost prohibitive nature of cellulosic 
ethanol, lowering the price of cellulosic ethanol potentially by an 
estimated 30-40 cents.
    The American people are suffering an economic burden from our daily 
oil production and refinery deficits.
    The American people support our goals to supplement our fuel needs 
with renewable biofuel production.
    Corn ethanol may not meet all of these needs and the onus is on us 
to ensure that corn ethanol production is supplemented by the 
production of cellulosic ethanol from materials such as switchgrass.
    With the passage of my amendment, we are one step closer to 
reducing certain CO2 emissions and plastics pollution in the 
environment.
    With the passage of my amendment we are enhancing the capability to 
potentially expand ethanol supplies by as much as 14 billion gallons 
per year, which would save us 370 million barrels of oil per year--the 
equivalent of $26 billion spent annually on oil from overseas.
    With the passage of my amendment, we are fortifying our commitment 
to energy independence and affordability for the American people.
    The time has come for us to actively work towards ensuring that the 
American people will never again have to feel the pain at the pumps as 
they do today, and I am proud that this committee is an active 
participant in striving for this relief.
    I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. I want to thank Mr. Green for his 
amendment. The Chair does, indeed, support that amendment.
    As noted earlier, the Chair supports each of the five 
amendments just discussed. Is there further discussion on any 
of these amendments? If no----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I just wanted to make sure that at the 
time that we discussed the Jackson Lee amendment, it was 
brought up. I didn't hear the Clerk, but I just wanted to make 
sure it was before us.
    Chairman Boehlert. It was. We are all set.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. We would not forget the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendments, #2, 3, 4, 5, and 
6, including the Jackson Lee amendment. All in favor, say 
``aye.'' Aye. Opposed, ``no.'' The ``aye's'' have it, and the 
amendments are agreed to.
    The seventh amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Washington. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment, Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Baird of 
Washington.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Washington is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chair, I will be very brief.
    I want to begin by thanking you and Ranking Member Gordon 
for working with me on this bill, and of course, Congresswoman 
Biggert for introducing a bill to establish an energy efficient 
building grant program. I am an original co-sponsor of that 
bill, and appreciate her willingness to work with us on this.
    Essentially, as I looked at the bill, and we have spent a 
great deal of time also studying energy efficient buildings, I 
became aware that we can improve the provisions for heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning provisions, which consume, at 
least in many residential facilities, as much as 50 percent of 
energy, and therefore, this bill would address that problem, 
urge that Energy Star efficient heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning material be included in green buildings. It has 
strong support, bipartisan support, and it has also been 
supported by the Sheet Metal, Air Conditioning, and Contractors 
Association.
    I appreciate the gentlelady's willingness to include it, 
and would urge its passage.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
    I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon 
for working with me on this common-sense amendment to H.R. 5656 and 
supporting its swift passage. I would also like to thank Congresswoman 
Biggert for introducing a bill to establish an ``Energy Efficient 
Building Grant Program.'' I am an original co-sponsor of that bill and 
I appreciate her willingness to support my efforts to strengthen it 
today.
    The energy efficient building grant program that this bill 
establishes will provide no more than $50,000 per building to help 
offset energy modeling and design costs often absorbed in constructing 
or renovating a building to meet ``green'' standards. Since it is 
possible to meet the energy efficiency targets set by this program 
while still not upgrading inefficient heating, ventilating and air-
conditioning (HVAC) systems, I believe that it is important to 
emphasize that such systems are worth investing in.
    My amendment is simple and straightforward. It states that under 
the terms of the ``Energy Efficient Building Grant Program'' 
established in this bill, any new construction or renovation of a 
residential or commercial building must include an energy efficient 
HVAC system. These include products that are no less than 25 percent 
more energy efficient than current, standard systems.
    The amendment stipulates that ``ENERGY STAR'' HVAC systems should 
be used in all cases, except where these products do not exist. Such 
examples include large commercial chillers and boilers. In the larger 
commercial projects awarded through this program, we stipulate that the 
Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 
specifications for these products should be used. These are products 
that are in the upper 25 percent of energy efficiency in their class.
    Increasing incentives for energy efficient building and building 
systems, particularly high-efficiency energy systems for facility 
heating and air conditioning, is an area where considerable attention 
should be given. Efficiency improvements in this area impact air 
quality in the home and workplace, directly improving the health of 
families and workers, and a homeowner or business owner's utility bill.
    In fact, the Department of Energy reports that if just one 
household in ten bought ENERGY STAR heating and cooling equipment, the 
change would keep over 17 billion pounds of pollution out of our air.
    It would also save folks a lot of money. The average home spends 
$1,900 on utility bills every year--with more than half going to 
heating and cooling. It's expected that using Energy Star systems can 
cut heating and cooling bills in a home by as much as 20 percent.
    Additionally, energy use represents the single largest operating 
expense in an office property. Reducing energy use 30 percent lowers 
operating costs for businesses by $25,000 per year for every 50,000 
square feet of typical office space.
    I am pleased that this amendment is supported by the Sheet Metal 
and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA) as well 
as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
    I applaud the Science Committee's leadership on this issue. It is 
my hope that we continue legislative efforts to incentivize energy 
efficiency in this country in the years to come.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. I want to thank Mr. Baird for his 
amendment. The Chair supports the amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the 
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say ``aye.'' Aye. 
Opposed, ``no.'' The ``aye's'' have it, and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    The eighth amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon, are you ready 
to proceed? The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Gordon of 
Tennessee.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    And the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a 
revolving loan program within the Department of Energy, to 
agencies, to carry out demonstration and commercially 
applicable, applications of federally funded energy 
technologies in federal buildings.
    Now, let me tell you what we have got here. Right now, 
there is about, it is estimated, $250 million a year is wasted 
in energy costs through federal buildings alone, and it is 
wasted by those buildings not using current technologies that 
they are required to by law, or by specific Presidential 
requirements. And so, what this bill does is say simply follow 
the law, and do what the law says or what various Presidential 
requirements are.
    Now, part of the reason that various agencies say that they 
are not doing it is well, we don't, you know, we have tight 
budgets, and so, we don't have the money to make these various 
energy efficiency type improvements. Well, what we do here is 
set up a revolving fund, so that they can go in, make those 
changes, and then, whatever the capital costs will be paid for 
over a fifteen year period by the savings in energy, water, you 
know, whatever it might be. And geothermal, for example, they 
will probably save it in about three years.
    Now, I understand that the Chairman has jurisdictional 
concerns here, and for that reason, I know that his heart is 
right on these types of matters, and I will ask unanimous 
consent for this amendment to be withdrawn, in hopes that it 
will be a freestanding amendment that will come before Congress 
when this bill comes forth, and if not, that we will deal with 
it in conference.
    So, I do ask unanimous consent for it to be withdrawn.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, I appreciate the gentleman working 
with us on this, and good idea. Good ideas should be embraced 
by all, but you recognize and appreciate the jurisdictional 
problems this presents.
    So, I think it is a good idea, but we need to work on some 
of the substantive details and jurisdictional concerns, and I 
am confident we can sort of iron those out.
    We will have time to do that before the bill comes to the 
Floor, and I hope and expect that we will add language on the 
Floor to accomplish the gentleman's goals.
    How is that?
    Mr. Gordon. Good.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Thank you.
    Without objection, the gentleman's request to have his 
amendment withdrawn is agreed to.
    The ninth amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Gordon of 
Tennessee.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    And the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I won't belabor this, but let me 
just bring us up to date.
    This amendment concerns ARPA-E. My amendment would replace 
the current ARPA-E language in the bill with the text of H.R. 
4435, my bill establishing an ARPA-E at the Department of 
Energy. Now, what Ms. Biggert has done is, her term in her 
statement was to clarify the ARPA-E language. Well, I am not 
sure we need much clarity, in that the National Academies have 
already spoken very, I think, clearly and loudly with the 
Rising Above the Gathering Storm. When every member of that 
commission except the Chairman of Exxon said this was a good 
idea, some might think that is a good endorsement of the ARPA-E 
proposal.
    The problem that we have is that there is oftentimes a 
disconnect between basic research, technology development, and 
commercialization. And what we are doing with ARPA-E really is 
taking the success DARPA has had within the Department of 
Defense, where, because of its unique sort of ``no strings 
attached'' and multi-discipline approach, we were able to 
develop the Internet, stealth technologies, and many other 
things for our country.
    My hope is that we can use that same type of model within 
the Department of Energy, and bring together our national labs, 
our universities, the private sector, take on some, you know, 
some very cutting edge, serious types of technology that could 
make a revolutionary change in our energy production and 
independence in this country.
    I think ARPA-E is the place to be. You know, you are just 
sending it back for them then to send it back to you, so I 
don't think that really is the right approach.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do with his 
amendment, but I am not prepared, at least at this juncture, to 
support the creation of an ARPA-E yet. I think that before we 
create a new government agency, and allocate several billion 
dollars to it, we need to be more sure that the agency is 
necessary and set up in the right way to accomplish its goals.
    Let me give a parenthetical thought here. One of the things 
we didn't do in the right way was set up the Department of 
Homeland Security, and we are all living with that today. With 
you, I requested the Academy, that they write the Gathering 
Storm report, and like you, I am a big fan of its conclusions. 
In fact, my colleagues are sick of hearing me talk about the 
American Competitiveness Initiative, which stems, in part, from 
that report. But the report was written on paper, not chiseled 
on stone tablets, and its proposals are rightly labeled 
recommendations, not commandments.
    We asked that the report be done quickly, and it was. And 
the panel, quite honestly, did not have as much experience or 
expertise, or as many studies to draw on in the energy area as 
it did in some of the other realms. The ARPA-E recommendation 
was the most controversial one among the panelists themselves, 
and not just one person, but several, I would add.
    And so, I pointed out at a hearing in March, there are a 
lot of unanswered questions about ARPA-E. Is a lack of 
fundamental research our primary energy problem? If so, why 
couldn't it be handled by the Department of Energy programs? 
And if these programs are off track, how can we make sure they 
get back on track? What should the relative priority for ARPA-E 
be, compared to other DOE programs in allocating funding?
    Is DARPA a good analogue for the energy area, where the 
government is not a primary customer, and price matters? What 
role should industry play in ARPA-E programs? What role should 
the National Labs play? To what extent will participation by 
industry or the Labs enable the program to be both pathbreaking 
and market-oriented? Should we be focusing more, instead, on 
applied research or technology transfer, or providing more 
capital for commercialization? What good will any additional 
research program do if we don't take the policy steps we need 
to create a new market for new technologies?
    And I think these are pretty fundamental questions. And 
what I am saying, Mr. Gordon, is we need more analysis to have 
trustworthy answers to guide us. So the bill language says, let 
us go back to the source. Let us have the Academy, for whom I 
have the greatest respect, pull together a panel with the right 
expertise to sort through these questions, and let us see where 
they end up.
    As I said in my opening statement, we will still be funding 
plenty of research in the meantime. So, based on all that 
reasoning, I urge defeat of the amendment, but without 
prejudice, because there will be another day.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do with this 
amendment, but I just am not prepared to support the creation of an 
ARPA-E at this point. I think that before we create a new government 
agency and allocate several billion dollars to it, we need to be more 
sure that the agency is necessary and set up in the right way to 
accomplish its goals.
    With you, I requested the Academy write the Gathering Storm report, 
and like you, I am generally a big fan of its conclusions. In fact, my 
colleagues are sick of hearing me talk about the American 
Competitiveness Initiative, which stems, in part, from the report. But 
the report was written on paper, not chiseled on stone tablets, and its 
proposals are rightly labeled ``recommendations'' not ``commandments.''
    We asked that the report be done quickly, and it was, and the panel 
did not have as much experience or expertise, or as many studies to 
draw on, in the energy area as it did in some other realms. The ARPA-E 
recommendation was the most controversial one among the panelists 
themselves, I would add.
    And so, as I pointed out at our hearing in March, there are a lot 
of unanswered questions about ARPA-E. Is a lack of fundamental research 
our primary energy problem? If so, why couldn't it being handled by 
current Department of Energy (DOE) programs? And if those programs are 
off-track, how can we make sure that this program works differently? 
What should the relative priority for ARPAnE be, compared to other DOE 
programs, in allocating funding? Is DARPA a good analogue for the 
energy area, where the government is not a primary customer and price 
matters?
    What role should industry play in ARPA-E programs? What role should 
the National Labs play? To what extent will participation by industry 
or the labs enable the program to be both pathbreaking and market-
oriented? Should we be focusing more instead on applied research or 
tech transfer or providing more capital for commercialization? What 
good will any additional research program do if we don't take the 
policy steps we need to create a market for new technologies?
    These are pretty fundamental questions, and we need more analysis 
to have trustworthy answers to them.
    So the bill language says, ``Let's go back to the source.'' Let's 
have the Academy pull together a panel with the right expertise to sort 
through these questions, and then let's see where we end up. As I said 
in my opening statement, we'll still be funding plenty of research in 
the meantime.
    I urge the defeat of this amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Is there anyone else who seeks to speak? 
Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Oil today is over $72 a barrel. If that is because, as many 
people suspect, we are approaching or have reached peak oil, it 
means that oil will not be less on any sustained basis than $72 
a barrel in the future, but the supply will be less as we go 
down the other side of Hubbard's Peak, and the price will go 
up.
    The Department of Energy, supported by SAIC, funded a 
company report called the Hirsch Report, which made the 
observation that the world has never faced a problem like this. 
They said that the mitigation consequences will be 
unprecedented. Business as usual won't be adequate to address 
the problems that we face, if in fact, we are at peak oil. What 
we will have to do, indeed, what the world will have to do, is 
to have a crash program in conservation so that we free up some 
energy to invest in alternatives. Now, there is no excess 
energy to invest in alternatives. If there were, oil wouldn't 
be $72 a barrel.
    Once we have bought some time by an aggressive conservation 
effort, we then must make decisions as to how to spend our time 
and our money wisely. It may very well be that an ARPA-E will 
be an essential part of this, but Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
emphasize that business as usual and the marketplace signals 
will not solve this problem, and I hope that the National 
Academy of Sciences can very quickly address the question that 
we are giving to them, so that we can come back to this issue 
sooner rather than later, because I think that time is running 
out. Indeed, if we are at peak oil, time has, in effect, run 
out.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. And thank you very much. Is there anyone 
else?
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I probably should just say amen 
to Dr. Bartlett. I think he was more eloquent than I can be, so 
I will say amen.
    Business as usual, status quo, won't get the job done. We 
have had enough of that. It is time to move forward. This issue 
has been studied. ARPA-E needs to--you know, every day we 
waste, every year we waste on more studies, we get further 
behind. Now is the time to move.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Is there anyone 
else who seeks recognition? Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been moving 
along so nicely, that--but it should come as no surprise that I 
oppose this amendment to create a DARPA-like entity at DOE.
    When the Committee held a hearing in March on this 
proposal, I raised a number of questions that I don't think 
have yet been answered, and concerns that have yet to be 
addressed. I still don't see how the creation of a new agency, 
a new bureaucracy, achieves the goal of supporting 
transformational research that could lead to new ways of 
fueling the Nation and its economy, the stated purpose of the 
ARPA-E envisioned by the NAS.
    And why am I so skeptical? Well, first, I think it is not 
clear what problems we are trying to solve with the creation of 
an ARPA-E. Is it a lack of private sector investment in long-
term or basic research? If so, how do we solve the problem by 
creating a new, brand-new agency to distribute scarce federal 
resources to companies to conduct research that they would 
otherwise conduct? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 
Academy's version of ARPA-E put the Federal Government in the 
position of picking what companies are winners?
    Is it a lack of federal funding for high-risk 
transformational research? If so, how would you characterize 
DOE's current FreedomCAR and hydrogen initiatives? How about 
the President's GNEP, or our U.S. participation in ITER? I 
don't know about my colleagues, but I would put these in the 
category of high-risk transformational research.
    Is it a failure of the Department of Energy to effectively 
transfer new energy technologies from the laboratory to the 
market? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to closely examine 
the legal and policy obstacles to the transfer of technology 
from our universities, national laboratories, and other 
research institutions? In short, is this a solution in search 
of a problem?
    And secondly, this proposal to create an ARPA-E is largely 
based on the mythology of the agencies, namely, the myths that 
DARPA can't do anything wrong, and the DOE can't do anything 
right. Well, I know from personal experience that DARPA has its 
failings.
    And third, we tried to replicate DARPA at the Department of 
Homeland Security, and did it work? Not according to most 
accounts. And fourth, where exactly are we going to get the 
money for ARPA-E? Many of my colleagues here advocating for the 
creation haven't stopped criticizing the Administration for 
failing to adequately fund such energy programs as energy 
efficiency and renewable energy.
    And finally, I think it is important to note that ARPA-E 
was one of the twenty recommendations, and it was the one that 
opposition came from one of the Committee Members, with 
arguably the most expertise in energy markets and the energy 
industry.
    I think--but we need to find the right solutions, and not 
just any solution, and to get, I think, to get the right 
solution, we need more information, and I need answers to my 
questions. Section 15 of the bill attempts to get the 
information we need to make an informed decision, I think, 
directing the National Academy of Sciences to provide more 
details and further clarification.
    So, I think this is the right approach, and I would urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment, and support section 15 of 
the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    I would yield at this time to my friend, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
    Ms. Biggert has asked a very legitimate question. Where do 
we get the money? I think that, quite frankly, with every bill 
that comes before us, that is why I support ``pay as you go.'' 
You know, where do we get the money? Well, I will tell you 
where we get the money. We get the money by repealing the tax 
credits and benefits that we gave the oil companies to drill 
for oil that is $70 a barrel. You know, we will take a little 
bit of that, and give the rest back to the Treasury, and we 
will all be better off. So, getting the money, that will be an 
easy matter.
    Chairman Boehlert. I almost want to call a vote on the last 
suggestion, because I would vote ``aye.'' Thank you. Anyone 
else?
    If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
``aye.'' Aye. No, ``no.'' The ``no's'' appear to have it, and 
the amendment is not passed.
    Let us see. The ninth--where are we? The--now, we are on 
10. Yeah, after 9 comes 10. That is correct. The tenth 
amendment on the roster is offered by the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Are you ready to 
proceed?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, the Clerk will report the 
amendment, and then, we need to see the amendment. That would 
be very helpful----
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
    Chairman Boehlert.--to all of us.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Costello 
of Illinois.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading by the Clerk, so that we can have distribution, so 
all the Members can know what the amendment contains. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    Now, as the amendment is being passed out.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. So, to expedite matters.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I do not intend to go 
forward with the amendment. I intend to withdraw it, but I 
would like to explain the purpose of the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means. The gentleman is 
recognized.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment to strike section 3 
of the Authorizing the Future Generation project from this 
legislation with a more comprehensive approach to the FutureGen 
project. However, I do intend to withdraw the amendment.
    I want to thank the Chairman, his staff, Ms. Biggert, and 
others for addressing some of my concerns in the manager's 
amendment. As you know, both your staff and our staff have been 
working with the Department of Energy and the FutureGen 
Alliance on this project. Some of the concerns, I believe, have 
been addressed in the manager's amendment. I think there are 
some other issues that we need to take a look at, and I am 
hopeful that with the letter that we received today, addressed 
to the Chairman from the FutureGen Alliance, bringing up 
several issues, I hope that the Chairman will continue with 
work with us on both sides of the aisle to address some of 
these issues as we go through the process of getting the bill 
to the Floor and to conference.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment strikes 
section 3, the section authorizing FutureGen from H.R. 5656 and 
replaces it with a more comprehensive approach to the FutureGen 
project, a public/private partnership to build the world's first coal-
based, zero emissions electricity and hydrogen production facility.
    I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the Chairman's good 
faith efforts to work with me on this legislation. However, we have not 
been able to reach an agreement on a variety of points, and I do 
believe we can do better than what we have before us today.
    I am offering my amendment because the FutureGen authorization in 
H.R. 5656 deviates from the plan DOE sets forth and would to side-track 
the performance and economic goals of the project. Mr. Chairman, I was 
copied on a letter sent to you by the FutureGen Alliance. As you know, 
it is a consortium of ten coal and utility companies that pledged their 
financial contribution toward the project. I would like to submit their 
letter for the record. The letter states that while the Alliance is 
pleased the Science Committee is supportive of FutureGen, the current 
authorization is incomplete. It could do more harm than good.
    It has been made clear by those involved in the FutureGen project 
that important changes need to be made to the authorization in the bill 
to ensure the project moves forward successfully in cooperation with 
the Department of Energy (DOE).
    We have made significant progress in the past three years since 
President Bush proposed this initiative. Congress has approved $45 
million for the project, the FutureGen Alliance was formed by DOE, the 
Illinois delegation--including Congresswoman Biggert and Congressman 
Johnson--have signed letters to support FutureGen, and the President 
continues to show his support for the project. It is unfortunate that 
this authorization detracts from those milestones.
    For the past three years, I have worked with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to ensure investment in clean coal technology that 
meets the energy and environmental challenges of the future. As a 
senior Member of the Science Committee, I believe it is important to 
lead the way--not stand in the way--of completing the FutureGen 
project. FutureGen will bring us a step closer to protecting our 
national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and 
delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy.
    It is evident that FutureGen is an ambitious undertaking that 
requires careful planning, strong scientific and technological 
expertise, and a solid commitment from the government and industry. 
Therefore, a comprehensive FutureGen authorization is required and I 
encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    Just let me say I support the FutureGen program, and I have 
got eloquent words here to verify that support, but I think we 
have to work some more on the specifics of your one amendment, 
so without objection, my entire statement will be included in 
the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I support the FutureGen program, and I think we have good language 
in this bill--language negotiated with the gentleman from Illinois--to 
get this project moving forward in the appropriate way.
    But our fundamental goal in Congress has to be to protect the 
taxpayer. And I don't think adding this language will help us do that.
    It may or may not make sense to offer government indemnification 
for the carbon sequestration aspects of this project. One would have to 
see studies of the legal risks from that activity, the availability of 
private insurance, etc. We haven't done our homework on this issue, so 
it's premature to decide on it.
    Moreover, the Department of Energy (DOE) and industry have not yet 
tried to negotiate an indemnification agreement. That will hardly be a 
negotiation between equally matched parties if Congress has already 
weighed in on one side.
    If DOE comes to us in the future with an indemnification proposal 
and a rationale for it, I'll be happy to listen to them. But this issue 
is simply not ripe yet.
    Moreover, the industry does not say it must have this language now. 
Other advocates for the coal industry are no longer pushing for this 
provision. So, again, this issue is not ripe for Congressional action.
    The same, and more, can be said to argue against the termination 
proposal. Industry isn't claiming it has to have this now, negotiations 
over the issue haven't even begun, we haven't examined the issue's 
implications, the time is not ripe.
    But in addition to those arguments, this language is just a 
terrible deal for taxpayers. If industry pulls out of the project, the 
government gets stuck with a white elephant, but if the government 
pulls out of the project, industry gets back all of its greenbacks. 
It's a kind of ``heads I win, tails you lose'' deal that industry is 
offering the government.
    So if we ever decide we need termination language, it shouldn't be 
this language.
    The bill has all the language needed to get FutureGen off the 
ground in an effective matter. These other matters should wait until 
the parties can negotiate, and we can think through what they come up 
with.
    I urge the defeat of this amendment.

    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 
that the FutureGen Alliance, the letter to this committee, be 
entered into the record.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Boehlert. Before we proceed, I want to welcome 
Mrs. Matsui back from her Floor responsibilities as a Member of 
the Rules Committee. In your absence, our heart was in the 
right place. We passed your amendment. Thank you so much for 
your contribution.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much, and I thank Ranking 
Member Gordon for offering my amendment, and you for working 
with me on that. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you so much.
    The eleventh amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois. Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Costello. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5656, offered by Mr. Costello 
of Illinois.
    Chairman Boehlert. Now, here is another one, a mystery 
amendment, so we ask that it be distributed while I ask for 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    And as the amendment is being passed out, so we can all 
appreciate what the gentleman is going to say so eloquently, I 
will recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Chairman, 
let me say that both of these amendments, we have discussed 
these amendments with your staff in an ongoing discussion over 
the past several days, if not the last couple of weeks, so this 
amendment and the last amendment should not have come as any 
surprise, and in fact, I think in the manager's amendment, you 
address several issues with the first amendment that I offered.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides grants to 
states to research, develop, and demonstrate the feasibility of 
using coal gasification technology as the fuel source for 
ethanol production. As you know, there has been record growth 
in the U.S. ethanol industry over the past few years just in my 
State of Illinois alone. There have been six ethanol facilities 
come online, and there are thirty more that are either planned 
or under construction at this time.
    Some of those facilities use coal, but none of them, in 
Illinois or in the country, use the cleaner coal gasification 
process. Ethanol production requires significant amounts of 
energy. The bulk of energy used to produce ethanol comes from 
natural gas and electricity. Coal has the potential to 
significantly contribute to the process, and deliver a wide 
array of benefits. Coal is less expensive per BTU than natural 
gas. The Energy Industry Administration predicts that the 
industrial cost of natural gas will continue to rise, and 
actually be triple the cost of coal in the not too distant 
future.
    Coal is our most price consistent fossil fuel, whereas 
natural gas is unpredictable, and as we saw last summer, with 
the price increases due to the hurricane in the Gulf Coast 
region, the prices of natural gas certainly are unpredictable. 
Coal is a domestic fuel. There have been substantial coal 
reserves and growing production in the United States. In fact, 
there is about a 250-year supply of coal in the United States. 
Natural gas supply is dependent on the ever-increasing imports, 
and production is declining. Coal is reliable. It gives ethanol 
producers the opportunity to sign long-term contracts. Few 
long-term contracts, if any, for natural gas are available to 
small producers.
    Last, national security--as the Governors Ethanol Coalition 
noted--increased ethanol production is an important step toward 
improved national security, utilizing coal as a major fuel 
source for ethanol production reduces the need to import 
natural gas for the process.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Energy Bill that was signed 
by the President in 2005 sets forth the goals to rapidly 
increase ethanol production, but this growth will depend on the 
availability of an economic fuel source. Events over the past 
years have painfully demonstrated that natural gas is not that 
fuel. Coal should be the preferred fuel to produce ethanol.
    Given the high price of natural gas, it makes good economic 
sense to use coal as the fuel source to power ethanol plants. 
Research is needed to develop the knowledge base to use coal 
gasification technology to power these ethanol plants. While 
several companies, including ADM and others, are using coal-
fired coal generation plants in ethanol production, no company 
is using coal gasification technology.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Members of this committee 
support the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment 
provides grants to states to research, develop, and demonstrates the 
feasibility of using coal gasification technology as the fuel source 
for ethanol production. There has been record growth in the U.S. 
ethanol industry over the past several years. In Illinois, we have six 
ethanol facilities, and there are thirty more that are planned or in 
the construction phase. Ethanol production requires significant amounts 
of energy. Currently, the bulk of energy used to produce ethanol comes 
from natural gas. Coal, however, has the potential to significantly 
contribute to the process and deliver a wide array of benefits.
    Stability--Coal is less expensive per million Btu than natural gas. 
The Energy Industry Administration (EIA) predicts the industrial cost 
of natural gas will continue to rise, tripling the cost of coal.
    Availability--Coal is our most price-consistent fossil fuel, 
whereas natural gas is volatile and unpredictable, as seen last summer 
with price spikes due to the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region.
    Reliability--Coal is a domestic fuel. The U.S. has substantial coal 
reserves and growing production, whereas natural gas supply is 
dependent on ever-increasing imports and production is declining.
    National Security--Coal gives ethanol producers the opportunity to 
sign long-term contracts. Few, if any, long term contracts for natural 
gas are available to small producers.
    Socioeconomic Benefit--Increased ethanol production is an important 
step toward improved national security. Utilizing coal as a major fuel 
source for ethanol production eliminates the need to import natural gas 
for the process.
    Accelerated Ethanol Production--Using domestic coal to produce 
ethanol will create jobs, spur new businesses and generate tax revenues 
for local communities.
    Accelerated Ethanol Production--The enactment of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 sets forth ambitious goals to rapidly increase ethanol 
production, but the scale of this growth will depend on the 
availability of an economical fuel source. Events over the past years 
have painfully demonstrated that natural gas is not that fuel. Coal 
should be the preferred fuel to produce ethanol.
    In the Midwest, coal and corn are two abundant natural resources. 
Illinois leads the Nation in corn and ethanol production. In addition, 
Illinois has more than 100 billion tons of coal reserves, enough to 
supply the needs of the entire Nation for 100 years. Given the high 
price of natural gas, it makes good economic sense to use coal as the 
fuel source to power ethanol plants.
    Right now, barriers exist that limit the use of coal gasification 
as a fuel source in ethanol production. Research is needed to develop 
the knowledge base that will be needed to use coal gasification 
technology to power ethanol plants. While several companies are using 
coal fired co-generation plants in ethanol production, no company is 
using coal gasification technology. There is a legitimate need for my 
amendment in the coal and ethanol industries, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Costello.
    I have to oppose the amendment. It is a solution looking 
for a problem. We already know how to use coal as a fuel source 
for ethanol production. Almost half of Archer Daniels Midland's 
existing ethanol plants--and they are the biggest of the 
bunch--are fueled by coal. About one-third of the currently 
planned new ethanol plants will be fueled by coal, and we know 
how to use coal in all its guises for this purpose. So there is 
nothing to research.
    But while this amendment is a solution looking for a 
problem, it is not a solution looking for a recipient. This is, 
rather, a recipient looking for some more money. It seems 
pretty clear that this amendment is just designed to give money 
to one particular entity that wants government help to do what 
others do without it.
    That is not a good use of the taxpayers' money. I oppose 
this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I have to oppose this amendment. It is a solution looking for a 
problem. We already know how to use coal as a fuel source for ethanol 
production. Almost half of ADM's existing ethanol plants are fueled by 
coal. About one-third of the currently planned new ethanol plants will 
be fueled by coal. And we know how to use coal in all its guises for 
this purpose. So there's nothing to research.
    But while this amendment is a solution looking for a problem; it's 
not a solution looking for a recipient. This is, rather, a recipient 
looking for some money. It seems pretty clear that this amendment is 
just designed to give money to one particular entity that wants 
government help to do what others do without it. That's not a good use 
of the taxpayers' money.
    I oppose this amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Is there any other dialogue on that? So, 
without----
    Mr. Gordon. If there is no one on your side, I ask to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon is recognized.
    Mr. Gordon. And I yield my time.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, you are correct in the fact 
that there are a number of coal ethanol projects that are 
online now, both in my state and in other parts of the country. 
But the point that I am making is that there are no coal 
gasification facilities anywhere in the State of Illinois or in 
the United States.
    I have to tell you that we have been in contact with 
Archer-Daniels-Midland, as you said, the largest producer of 
ethanol, and we have talked to many small suppliers, as well as 
the industry throughout the country, and various parts of the 
country, and I would just ask the Chair if you are aware of any 
ethanol facility that has a gasification process to produce 
ethanol, because we are not aware of one facility in the United 
States.
    Chairman Boehlert. Gasified coal is not currently used in 
ethanol production, because the scale of integrated coal 
gasification combined cycle facilities is significantly larger 
than the energy needs of a typical ethanol production plant. 
So, with that understanding, as presented to me, I maintain my 
position that we don't need to pursue this, but I thank you for 
offering it, and now, I think we should vote on it.
    All in favor of the Costello amendment, say ``aye.'' 
Opposed, ``nay.'' Nay. The ``nay's'' appear to have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Continuing on, are there any other amendments? Hearing 
none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 
2006, as amended. All in favor, say ``aye.'' Aye. Opposed, say 
``no.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the ``aye's'' have it.
    I recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 5656, as amended, to the House, with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass.
    Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare 
the legislative report, and make necessary technical and 
conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary 
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion 
will signify by saying ``aye.'' Aye. Opposed, ``no.'' The 
``aye's'' have it, and the bill is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar 
days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional 
views on the measure.
    I move, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 22 of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to adopt and pass H.R. 5656, the Energy Research, Development, 
Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2006, as 
amended. Without objection, so ordered.
    I want to thank the Members. I think we have had a good 
discussion, but more important, leading up to today's activity, 
there was a lot of hard work on the part of both sides of the 
aisle, their very able professional staffs, and we worked out 
something that makes us all proud, and let us move to the Floor 
united.
    Without objection, the Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


 H.R. 5656, Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 5656, Summary of H.R. 
  5656, Amendment Roster, Section-by-Section Description of Manager's 
                Amendment, Additional Views of H.R. 5656






               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 5656,
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application 
                              Act of 2006
    The bill covers a wide range of energy technologies, including 
coal, nuclear, batteries, biofuels, hydrogen, solar, wind, and plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles, as well as energy programs such as green 
buildings and green energy education. For these technologies and 
programs, H.R. 5656 specifically authorizes appropriations of 
approximately $4.7 billion over six years for energy research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application; of this total, 
$485 million comes from existing authorizations for advanced biofuel 
technologies (see table for details).

Section 1--Short Title:

          ``Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
        Commercial Application Act of 2006''

Section 2--Definitions:

          Defines terms used in the text.

Section 3--FutureGen:

          Authorizes $537 million for fiscal years 2007-2012 
        for FutureGen, a project to demonstrate the feasibility of the 
        commercial application of advanced clean coal technology, 
        including carbon capture and geological sequestration, for 
        electricity generation.

          Requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 
        design FutureGen to meet specific emissions goals and to cost 
        no more than 110 percent of the average cost of all commercial 
        U.S. integrated coal gasification combined cycle electric 
        generating plants.

Section 4--Advanced Fuel Cycle Technologies for Nuclear Power:

          Authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
        this section for fiscal years 2007-2009 from sums already 
        authorized to be appropriated for nuclear fuel cycle technology 
        in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L. 109-58).

          Authorizes additional appropriations of such sums as 
        may be necessary to carry out this section for fiscal years 
        2010-2012 (since EPACT does not contain authorizations of 
        appropriations for nuclear fuel cycle technology for these 
        years).

          Requires DOE to carry out a program of research, 
        development, demonstration, and commercial application on 
        advanced nuclear power technologies with the goal of minimizing 
        the production of nuclear waste to the extent that the Yucca 
        Mountain waste repository would be sufficient for storing all 
        of the nuclear waste generated by U.S. commercial nuclear power 
        reactors during this century.

          Requires DOE to develop a comprehensive plan for 
        advanced nuclear technology R&D and prohibits DOE from moving 
        forward on some large-scale nuclear technology demonstration 
        projects until the plan is reviewed by the National Academy of 
        Sciences (NAS) and the plan and the NAS review are delivered to 
        Congress.

Section 5--Advanced Battery Technologies:

          Authorizes approximately $144 million for fiscal 
        years 2007-2010 to carry out a program of research, 
        development, demonstration, and commercial application on 
        advanced battery technologies for use in motor vehicles, 
        particularly for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Section 6--Advanced Biofuel Technologies:

          Authorizes $485 million for fiscal years 2007-2009, 
        from sums already authorized to be appropriated for bioenergy 
        programs in EPACT, to carry out a program of research, 
        development, demonstration, and commercial application for 
        production of liquid fuels from biomass.

Section 7--Advanced Hydrogen Storage Technologies:

          Authorizes $211 million for fiscal years 2007-2010 to 
        carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, 
        and commercial application for technologies to enable practical 
        onboard storage of hydrogen for use as a fuel for light-duty 
        motor vehicles.

Section 8--Advanced Solar Photovoltaic Technologies:

          Authorizes $648 million for fiscal years 2007-2010 to 
        carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, 
        and commercial application for advanced solar photovoltaic 
        technologies.

Section 9--Advanced Wind Energy Technologies:

          Authorizes approximately $204 million for fiscal 
        years 2007-2010 to carry out a program of research, 
        development, demonstration, and commercial application for wind 
        energy technologies.

Section 10--Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology Program:

          Authorizes $1.25 billion for fiscal years 2007-2011 
        to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, 
        and commercial application on technologies needed for the 
        development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

          Authorizes $250 million for fiscal years 2007-2011 to 
        establish a competitive grant pilot program for demonstration 
        of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to State governments, local 
        governments, and/or metropolitan transportation authorities.

Section 11--Photovoltaic Demonstration Program:

          Authorizes $800 million for fiscal years 2007-2011 to 
        establish a grant program to States for the demonstration of 
        advanced photovoltaic solar energy technology. States are 
        required to award funds in a competitive allocation to eligible 
        recipients and to require a contribution of at least 60 percent 
        per award from non-federal sources, with at least ten percent 
        provided by States.

Section 12--Energy Efficient Building Grant Program:

          Authorizes $50 million for fiscal years 2008-2012 to 
        establish an energy efficient building pilot program to award 
        grants to business and organizations for new construction of 
        energy efficient buildings, or major renovations of buildings 
        that will result in energy efficient buildings, and to 
        demonstrate innovative energy efficiency technologies. Grants 
        may be for up to 50 percent of design and energy modeling 
        costs, not to exceed $50,000 per building.

Section 13--Energy Extension:

          Authorizes approximately $151 million to carry out a 
        program to award competitive, merit-based grants to conduct 
        activities to transfer knowledge and information about advanced 
        energy technologies that increase efficiency of energy use to 
        individuals, businesses, nonprofit entities and public 
        entities; requires federal cost-sharing of 50 percent and 
        allows for extension of grants beyond initial five-year period.

Section 14--Green Energy Education:

          Authorizes DOE's Office of Science and its applied 
        energy technology programs to contribute funds to National 
        Science Foundation's (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and 
        Research Traineeship (IGERT) program in support of projects 
        related to the science and energy missions of the department.

          Authorizes DOE's high performance building technology 
        programs to contribute to NSF's ongoing curriculum development 
        activities for the purpose of improving undergraduate and 
        graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture 
        education related to the design and construction of high 
        performance buildings. Gives priority to applications from 
        schools, departments or programs of engineering that are 
        partnered with schools, departments or programs of design, 
        architecture and city, regional, or urban planning.

Section 15--ARPA-E Study:

          Requires DOE to enter into an arrangement with NAS to 
        conduct a detailed study of, and make further recommendations 
        on, the October 2005 NAS recommendation to establish an 
        Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).

          Requires DOE to transmit a report to Congress 
        containing the NAS study and DOE's response to the findings, 
        conclusions, and recommendations of that study.
        
        
Summary of H.R. 5656, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
                   Commercial Application Act of 2006
 (Introduced by Mrs. Biggert for herself, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Hall, Mr. 
   Smith of Texas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Inglis, and Mr. Wamp)

          This bill authorizes the President's Advanced Energy 
        Initiative, a research and development (R&D) and technology 
        demonstration initiative at the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
        develop advanced clean energy technologies. The bill goes 
        further and authorizes a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle R&D 
        and demonstration program, a solar photovoltaic R&D and 
        demonstration program, a cooperative extension program for 
        energy technology and energy efficiency information, a program 
        to provide incentives to design and construct energy efficient 
        buildings, and energy technology and energy efficiency 
        education and outreach programs.

Specifically, the bill:

          Endorses the President's vision of:

                  a near-zero emissions coal-fired power plant and 
                stipulates environmental performance requirements for 
                the FutureGen demonstration facility;

                  an advanced nuclear power technology R&D program, 
                but slows development of some technologies proposed 
                under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 
                initiative until a more comprehensive R&D and 
                demonstration plan is developed by DOE and reviewed by 
                the National Academy of Sciences;

                  accelerated development of hybrid electric vehicles 
                by authorizing research on advanced battery technology 
                and an R&D and demonstration program for plug-in hybrid 
                electric vehicles;

                  accelerated development of advanced solar 
                photovoltaic power technology by authorizing 
                photovoltaic R&D and demonstration;

                  accelerated development of advanced biofuel 
                technologies by authorizing R&D and demonstration on 
                ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks;

          Establishes a cooperative extension program for 
        energy and efficiency technologies;

          Provides incentives for the design and construction 
        of energy efficient buildings; and

          Authorizes education and outreach relating to energy 
        technologies that improve energy supply and improve the 
        efficiency of energy utilization.

The bill is endorsed, in whole or in part, by:
    Alliance to Save Energy, American Chemical Society, American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, American Honda Motor Company, 
American Institute of Architects, American Public Power Association, 
Association of American Universities, Dow Corning, DuPont, Johnson 
Controls, Inc., National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.


                     Additional Views of H.R. 5656
             Submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello
    In the Committee's markup of H.R. 5656, I offered two amendments to 
improve the bill. My first amendment replaces the existing FutureGen 
authorization language in Section 3 with new language supported by the 
FutureGen Alliance, to authorize the FutureGen Initiative according to 
the goals and objectives set forth by the Department of Energy's plan 
submitted to Congress.
    The reason I offered my amendment is because the FutureGen 
authorization, including the corrections made in the manager's 
amendment, deviates from the plan DOE sets forth and attempts to side-
track the performance and economic goals of the project. I have been 
closely involved with FutureGen since the project was first proposed in 
2003, and it is progressing well. While we worked hard to reach an 
agreement, there is serious concern on behalf of those involved in the 
project that the current language will impede our ability to ensure 
FutureGen reaches its goals and objectives. Developing the technologies 
to burn coal as cleanly as natural gas is extremely important for our 
future energy independence, and we must get this right.
    I realize there was a good faith effort from the beginning to work 
through this language. However, the changes incorporated from the 
manager's amendment did not go far enough. For example, the DOE and the 
Alliance encouraged this committee to include a section on insurance 
and indemnification because the DOE needs the authority to enter into 
contract agreements regarding the legal liability of the carbon 
sequestration portion of the project. This language was not accepted--
not because there was disagreement over the policy--but instead, 
because it would trigger a referral to the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. Shying away from issues that are critical to the success of 
the project because of jurisdictional concerns does a disservice to 
those involved in trying to make this project succeed. Remaining silent 
and not taking any action, as this authorization does or even waiting 
for a period of time, increases the chances of schedule delays and 
confusion down the road. Given the goals and objectives FutureGen seeks 
to achieve and the potential benefits to consumers through cheaper 
energy and cleaner air, we should not be afraid to debate and discuss 
these tough issues.
    The project is continuing along the roadmap DOE set forth, with the 
support of Congress, the FutureGen Alliance, and international 
contributors, and the benefit to the public stands to be significant. 
By eliminating environmental issues as barriers to coal use through the 
use of efficient generation technologies and carbon sequestration, 
FutureGen will enable the continued use of secure, domestic coal 
resources for our future energy needs. I remain committed to the 
FutureGen Initiative and am pleased with the progress in the past three 
years since President Bush proposed this initiative. I believe 
FutureGen will be a stepping stone toward a cleaner, more energy-secure 
future.
    The second amendment I offered provides grants to States to 
research, develop, and demonstration the feasibility of using coal 
gasification technology as the fuel source for ethanol production. 
There has been record growth in the U.S. ethanol industry over the past 
several years. Currently, the bulk of energy used to produce ethanol 
comes from natural gas and electricity. Coal, however, has the 
potential to significantly contribute to the process and deliver a wide 
array of benefits. Right now, barriers exist that limit the use of coal 
gasification as a fuel source in ethanol production. Research is needed 
to develop the knowledge base that will be needed to use coal 
gasification technology to power ethanol plants. While several 
companies are using coal fired co-generation plants in ethanol 
production, no company in the U.S. is using coal gasification 
technology. There is a legitimate need for my amendment in the coal and 
ethanol industries, and I encourage the Committee to embrace 
opportunities to further the applications for coal gasification, and 
its use in powering ethanol plants is a great fit for this technology.
    We must maintain our efforts in critical research and development 
and demonstration programs through continued support of the Federal 
Government. Advancements in clean coal technologies and renewable 
fuels, such as ethanol, will improve the environment and reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.

                                  
