Segment 5 Of 9 Previous Hearing Segment(4) Next Hearing Segment(6)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
4.2—SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
4.2(a)—H.R. 723: Civil Penalties for Nuclear Safety Violations by Nonprofit Department of Energy Contractors Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
March 22, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–33
Background
The hearing addressed proposed legislation to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to eliminate Department of Energy (DOE) nonprofit contractors' exemption from civil penalties related to violations of DOE rules, regulations, and orders related to nuclear safety.
The hearing panel witnesses included: (1) Mr. Eric J. Fygi, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Ms. Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO); (3) Mr. Guy Cunningham, Associate General Counsel, Battelle Memorial Institute; and (4) Mr. Robert L. Van Ness, Assistant Vice President for Laboratory Administration, University of California. In addition, the Subcommittee heard testimony from Representative Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and the author of H.R. 723.
Summary of Hearing
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Representative Barton testified on the importance of H.R. 723 to correct a long-standing problem in the management of DOE facilities. Under the 1988 Price-Anderson Amendments, the DOE cannot levy fines against non-profit contractors for safety violations. H.R. 723 would include non-profit contractors as entities liable to fines for safety violations. Mr. Fygi testified that several DOE nonprofit contractors indicated they could accept civil penalties if the amount of the civil penalties was limited to the amount of the fee the contractors received under their contracts with the Department. He commented on the lack of clarity in the definition of the ''discretionary fee,'' the time period covered by the fee, the effective date of the changes in law, and the repeal of automatic remission of civil penalties under H.R. 723. Ms. Jones testified that in a 1999 report on DOE's nuclear safety enforcement program, the GAO recommended that the civil penalty exemption be eliminated.(see footnote 2) GAO supported eliminating the exemption since the main reason for instituting it no longer exists. The purpose of the exemption under the 1988 Price Anderson Amendments was to ensure that nonprofit contractors operating DOE's laboratories, who were being reimbursed only for their costs, would not have their assets at risk for violating nuclear safety requirements. GAO had four specific comments on H.R. 723: (1) the definition of the amount of fee at risk is unclear; (2) if the Congress decides to limit the amount of fee at risk by specifying that ''discretionary fee'' means only the incentive fee portion of the total fee, the ability to impose penalties on nonprofit contractors may be limited; (3) under the proposed bill, limitations on payments for civil penalties would be extended to all tax-exempt nonprofit contractors, not just nonprofit educational institutions; and, (4) the penalty provisions specified in H.R. 723 would apply to contracts entered into only after the date of enactment. Mr. Cunningham expressed concern that the definition of ''nonprofit'' included in H.R. 723 may have the unintended consequence of excluding Battelle and the operating entities at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory from its coverage, even though all three are nonprofit organizations or composed entirely of nonprofit organizations. Mr. Van Ness testified that improvements have been made in integrating safety into labs under University of California management. He expressed support for civil liability for non-profit contractors as long as there was a cap set on those penalties.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
4.2(b)—Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
April 26, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–34
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to consider the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 request for the Department of Energy. DOE witnesses addressed the FY 2002 budget request for each of the six DOE Offices with programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction: (1) Office of Science; (3) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; (3) Office of Fossil Energy; (4) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; (5) Office of Environment, Safety and Health; and (6) Office of Environmental Management. Outside witnesses also addressed the FY 2002 request for the DOE Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
DOE's FY 2002 budget authorization request for its programs are included in the Science, Energy Supply, and Non-Defense Environmental appropriation accounts of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill; and in the Fossil Energy R&D, Energy Conservation R&D, and Clean Coal Technology appropriation accounts of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill.
First panel witnesses included: (1) Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science; (2) Mr. John Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management on behalf of Dr. Abraham E. Haspel, Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; (3) Mr. Bob Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; (4) Dr. Gail Marcus, Principal Deputy Director on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; (5) Mr. Steven V. Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health; and, (5) Mr. James M. Owendoff, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management. Second panel witnesses included: (1) Dr. George H. Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; (2) Dr. Scott W. Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin; (3) Dr. James A. Lake, President of the American Nuclear Society; and, (4) Mr. Michael L. Marvin, President of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Decker testified on DOE's budget for FY 2002, which includes $3,159,890,000 in the Science Appropriation to support their scientific user facilities and continue scientific achievements in the physical and life sciences, mathematics, computation, and environmental research. This budget included funding for the ''Genomes to Life'' program; improvements to the Stanford Linac; continued construction of the Spallation Neutron Source; and funding for increased supercomputing power to develop large-scale scientific simulation as a tool for the solution of complex scientific problems.
Mr. Sullivan, testifying on behalf of Mr. Haspel, talked about the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) mission to advance clean energy technologies, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, and how EERE will play an increasingly critical role in securing our energy future, improving our environment and maintaining our economic growth. The FY 2002 budget request for EERE programs within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction is $708,158,000, a decrease of $264,223,000 from FY 2001 enacted levels. He testified on changes within the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) designed ''to streamline and refocus this program to give greater flexibility to the automakers and even greater benefits to the taxpayer. The current program attempts to balance a portfolio of near-, mid-, and long-term technologies. In agreement with our industry partners, we will shift emphasis to a more long-term research portfolio that is aimed at overcoming fundamental obstacles to the vehicle technologies that offer the highest potential for significant benefits to this country.''
Mr. Kripowicz testified on the Office of Fossil Energy's $745,419,000 budget request for FY 2002, which included the $150 million Clean Coal Power Initiative. Other initiatives funded included carbon sequestration; advanced gas turbines; fuel R&D; resource reserve enhancement R&D; and gas hydrate research.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Dr. Gail Marcus, testifying on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, talked about the $223 million fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) to conduct nuclear research and development programs; to enhance the Nation's science, technology and education infrastructure; and to manage NE's federal nuclear facilities and materials and provide for a ''revitalization of nuclear power.''
Mr. Cary testified on the $140.1 million FY 2002 request for DOE's Environmental Safety and Health programs, which included enforcement of nuclear safety rules under Price Anderson and general environmental health and safety oversight and enforcement.
Mr. Owendoff testified that DOE's budget request of $5.913 billion for FY 2002 for the Environmental Management program would enable DOE to continue the cleanup of the contamination and wastes that resulted primarily from nuclear weapons research and production over the past 50 years.
On the second panel, Dr. Trilling testified on the imbalance between DOE research funding and rapidly increasing research funding at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Tinker testified on the importance of continued R&D in fossil fuels to improve resource recovery. He proposed a new center be established to conduct R&D in such areas as ultra deep water drilling. Dr. Lake testified on the role of nuclear energy in the U.S. energy portfolio and the need for continued DOE R&D. Mr. Marvin testified on the importance of R&D to both increase diversity of energy choices and reduce energy consumption.
4.2(c)—Energy Realities: Rates of Consumption, Energy Reserves, and Future Options
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
May 3, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–35
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine advanced technology options to provide additional energy in the future, since energy demand growth is outstripping current production and the Nation faces the increasing risk of energy shortages.
The witness panel included (1) Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder; (2) Dr. Suzanne D. Weedman, Program Coordinator, Energy Resources Programs, U.S. Geological Survey; (3) Dr. W. David Montgomery, Vice President, Charles River Associates; (4) Mr. Howard S. Geller, Executive Director Emeritus, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; (5) Mr. Henry A. Courtright, Vice President, Power Generation and Distributed Resources, Electric Power Research Institute; and, (6) Dr. Alexandra von Meier, Director, Environmental Technology Center, Sonoma State University.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Bartlett testified that the finite nature of our fossil fuel resources has long led scientists to forecast shortages, which have now begun to appear. In Dr. Bartlett's view, the choice is obvious: we need to ''. . .embark on a program of continual reduction of the annual consumption of non-renewable energy in the United States.'' Dr. Weedman testified about current official estimates of U.S. reserves and how they are derived. Dr. Montgomery testified that the recent supply disruptions and price volatility do not reflect the long-term supply outlook. He stated, however, that ''. . .there is no long term supply'' beyond 50 years. Mr. Geller testified that ''. . .improvements in energy efficiency have contributed a great deal to our nation's growth and increased standard of living over the past 25 years.'' He recommended that funding of energy efficiency programs be increased, not cut; that corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards be increased by six percent a year for 10 years; that a self funded trust fund be established to fund utility energy efficiency programs; and that tax incentives be adopted for advanced energy efficient vehicles. Mr. Courtright testified that a portfolio of diverse energy sources is needed for electric power generation, including fossil, nuclear and renewables. He recommended R&D funding increases in the area of electric power delivery systems and the creation of non-profit ''Electricity Innovation Institute'' as a public/private partnership. Dr. von Meier testified that energy efficient improvements in buildings and use of renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind power, combined, potentially provide ''. . .everything we need for a positive and sustainable energy solution.''
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
4.2(d)—Department of Energy Office of Science—Issues and Opportunities
May 17, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–37
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the status of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science programs, future opportunities, and major issues that confront the Office.
There where two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of the chairs of the six Office of Science Advisory Committees: (1) Professor Frederick J. Gilman (Department of Physics Carnegie Mellon University), Chair, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, and Department of Physics Carnegie Mellon University; (2) Dr. T. James Symons (Nuclear Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Chair, DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee; (3) Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond (Department of Chemistry, University of Oregon), Chair, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; (4) Dr. Keith O. Hodgson (Director, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Department of Chemistry, Stanford University), Chair, Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee; (5) Professor Richard D. Hazeltine (University of Texas at Austin, Institute for Fusion Studies), Chair, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; and (6) Dr. Margaret H. Wright (Bell Laboratories/Lucent Technologies), Chair, Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee. The second panel included: (1) Dr. Robert C. Richardson, Vice Provost for Research, Cornell University, and recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics; (2) Dr. Charles V. Shank, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and (3) Professor James F. Blake, Institute for Plasma Research, University of Maryland.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
The first panel consisted of the chairs of the six Office of Science Advisory Committees who testified that DOE has an important R&D role in Advanced Scientific Computing; Basic Energy Sciences; Biological and Environmental Research; Fusion Energy Sciences; High Energy Physics; and Nuclear Physics. The panel pointed out that DOE's Office of Science is the principal supporter of physical science research and a major supporter of research in biological sciences, mathematics, and computing in our country. On the second panel, Dr. Richardson's testimony concerned the administrative structure of the Department, the effect that the structure has had on the performance of the Office of Science and made recommendations for improvements. Dr. Shank testified that the physical sciences were being shortchanged in funding, especially when compared to the increases being given to life sciences research. Dr. Blake discussed the importance of the Fusion Energy Program at DOE, which continues to make progress in spite of reduced budgets.
4.2(e)—Energy Conservation Potential of Extended and Double Daylight Saving Time
May 24, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–30
Background
The hearing addressed the potential energy savings that could result from extending the months during which Daylight Saving Time (DST) and double daylight saving time (DDST) are in effect. It also addressed the societal effects of DST and DDST.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
The Subcommittee received testimony from a panel including: (1) Representative Brad Sherman; (2) Ms. Linda Lawson; Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; and (3) Mr. James C. Benfield, Bracy Williams & Co.
Summary of Hearing
Representative Sherman testified that saving electric energy at times of peak demand in order to avoid curtailments, and at all times, is important to the affected states and the Nation. He also presented studies that projected a one to two percent electricity savings and discussed public concern over the safety of children during dark morning hours. Ms. Lawson reviewed the history of DOT's 1975 studies during an energy crisis, which found up to one percent electric power savings in addition to small societal effects. She stressed the importance of uniform observance of time and DST in the specified zones, and gave examples of the confusion that existed when local jurisdictions set DST. She recommended further study before changes are made. Mr. Benfield testified based on his experience as founder of the DST Coalition, which worked to extend DST. He also discussed various social effects and the likely unpopularity and long term ineffectiveness of year round DST, and DDST. He suggested merging the Mountain and Pacific Time zones, which could achieve savings and be acceptable to the public.
4.2(f)—President's National Energy Policy: Clean Coal Technology and Oil and Gas R&D
June 12, 2001
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Hearing Volume No. 107–45
Background
The hearing examined the President's National Energy Policy, developed by the National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, which recommended that: (1) the Department of Energy (DOE) invest $2 billion to fund research in clean coal technology; (2) DOE and the Department of the Interior promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through new technology; and (3) DOE improve oil and gas exploration technology through continued partnership with public and private entities. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the current status of coal and oil and gas technologies, R&D efforts, and the extent to which technologies derived from these R&D efforts would extend the life of these resources.
The hearing consisted of two panels. The first panel considered clean coal technology. Witnesses included: (1) Mr. Robert S. Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (Mr. Kripowicz also appeared on Panel 2); (2) Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director of the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), Washington, DC; (3) Mr. James E. Wells, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. General Accounting Office; (4) Ms. Katherine Abend, Global Warming Associate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG); and (5) Mr. John S. Mead, Director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. The second panel considered how technologies derived from petroleum and gas R&D could be employed to improve exploration, extraction, refining & processing, and transportation of these fossil fuels. Witnesses included: (1) Ms. Virginia B. Lazenby, Chairman and CEO of Bretagne, GP, Nashville, TN, on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America; (2) Mr. Paul Cuneo, Vice President & Chief Information Officer of Equiva Services, LLC, Houston, TX; (3) Dr. Craig W. Van Kirk, Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO; and (4) Dr. Alan R. Huffman, Manager of Conoco's Seismic Imaging Technology Center, Houston, TX.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Kripowicz testified on R&D efforts at DOE designed to extend fossil resources while reducing concerns about emissions. These programs included clean coal technologies, innovative drilling techniques and the use of new technologies to squeeze more oil and gas out of existing wells. He also discussed the potential for efficiency increases and emissions reduction through the use of advanced turbines and technologies that create fewer emissions (or help capture emissions). Mr. Yamagata discussed clean coal technology and whether it can be competitive with natural gas technologies in terms of both costs and emissions levels. Mr. Wells talked about the ''lessons learned'' from the Clean Coal Technology program and how they may apply to future programs. Ms. Abend discussed environmental concerns about the use of coal even in a clean coal technology plant. Mr. Mead discussed state clean coal programs and their cooperation with federal programs. On the second panel, Ms. Lazenby discussed her company's use of advanced technologies to extend the life of stripper (low production) wells. Mr. Cuneo testified that new technologies installed throughout the oil production and refining process have improved efficiency and reduced emissions. Dr. Van Kirk discussed how technology derived from R&D has made the job of finding new oil and gas easier and has made exploiting unconventional and ''tight'' gas easier and accessing formerly inaccessible fields possible. Dr. Huffman testified on a proposed U.S. Energy Center that would operate as a research consortium between the private sector and the government. He also talked about a proposed Offshore Technology Program to explore ways to access ultra deep water oil and gas reserves.
4.2(g)—President's National Energy Policy: Hydrogen and Nuclear Energy R&D Legislation
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
June 14, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–45
Background
The hearing examined the President's National Energy Policy developed by the National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, which made a number of recommendations concerning hydrogen and nuclear energy.
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony regarding legislation: (1) to reauthorize the Spark A. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990/Hydrogen Future Act of 1996; and (2) on nuclear energy R&D provisions contained in H.R. 1679, the Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001, introduced by Representative Lindsey Graham (SC–3), and provisions contained in H.R. 2126, the Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering Act introduced by Representative Judy Biggert (IL–13).
The hearing consisted of two panels. The first panel considered the reauthorization of the Spark A. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990/Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. Witnesses included: (1) The Honorable David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. H.M. Hubbard, Chair, Committee on Programmatic Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Power Technologies, National Research Council; (3) Mr. Arthur T. Katsaros, Group Vice President-Engineered Systems and Development, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Lehigh Valley, PA, on behalf of the National Hydrogen Association; (4) Mr. David P. Haberman, Chairman, DCH Technology, Inc., Valencia, CA; and (5) Dr. Peter Lehman, Director, Schatz Energy Research Center, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
The second panel considered nuclear R&D legislation and commenced with testimony from Representatives Graham and Biggert followed by a group of witnesses that included: (1) Mr. William D. Magwood, IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, DOE; (2) Mr. Joe Colvin, President, Nuclear Energy Institute; (3) Mr. John Kotek, Argonne National Laboratory-West, Idaho Falls, ID, and Co-Chair, Public Policy Committee, American Nuclear Society; and (4) Ms. Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Summary of Hearing
The first panel was comprised of witnesses who discussed hydrogen as a medium for transporting energy. Secretary Garman testified in support of the Spark A. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 and the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, and stated that the next decade is a window of opportunity to affect the pace of transition to a hydrogen economy. Mr. Hubbard testified that the National Research Council's report on the DOE hydrogen programs found that projects are well executed overall. Mr. Katsaros stated that there is a large, successful industrial hydrogen economy now, and the industry is ready to work with the government to make the commercial hydrogen safe and successful. He testified that development is needed in Codes and Standards, demonstration projects are required and tax credits are essential to stimulate markets. Mr. Haberman stated that the industrial hydrogen industry is developing the base for the commercial hydrogen industry, and that government and industry roles in R&D should be kept separate. Government support is needed to ensure competitiveness with other countries, and governments should purchase new hydrogen technologies to help provide a market base. Dr. Lehman testified that his University is engaged in hydrogen technologies R&D because they believe that hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources is the future.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
The second panel discussed Nuclear Energy. Congressman Graham testified on the research and development aspects of his bill, H.R. 1679. He favors support for nuclear engineering education, use of DOE sites for new reactors, Generation Four reactors and nuclear technology for medical research and applications. Congresswoman Biggert testified in favor of continued support for university nuclear education, stating that the number of people entering the field is declining. Mr. Colvin stated that nuclear power is the only large expandable source of electric power that preserves air quality, and supports increasing the number of plants, and increased energy efficiency and conservation. Mr. Magwood testified in support of all aspects of nuclear energy and the President's energy plan, stressing the importance of support for nuclear science and engineering education. Mr. Kotek stated that current nuclear power plants are safe, reliable and economic, and that the proposed legislation will strengthen these qualities. He stated that his organization believes that deep geologic storage is a technically acceptable solution to the problem of spent nuclear materials. Ms. Aurilio testified against all aspects of nuclear power and favored rejecting energy sources of the past in favor of increased efficiency and use of renewable energy.
4.2(h)—U.S. Energy Security: Options to Decrease Petroleum Use in the Transportation Sector
November 1, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–43
Background
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
The hearing examined the relationship between national security and the Nation's dependence on imported petroleum, particularly in the transportation sector. The Subcommittee explored the extent to which research and development on alternative fuels—such as electricity and biofuels—and enhanced vehicle fuel efficiency could help enhance energy security. The Subcommittee also heard testimony on the status of the public-private sector Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and the United States Council for Automotive Research, or USCAR, an industry research and development (R&D) consortium.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: (1) The Honorable James Woolsey, former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency; (2) The Honorable David Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (3) Mr. Gregory Dana, Vice President of Environmental Affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; (4) Mr. Robert H. Burnette, Project Manager for Bulk Power at Dominion Virginia Power representing the Electric Vehicles Association of the Americas (EVAA); (5) Mr. David D. Doniger, Policy Director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and (6) Dr. James J. MacKenzie, Senior Associate for the Climate, Energy and Pollution Program at the World Resources Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Woolsey testified that the U.S. dependence on imported oil weakens our national security. He spoke about the potential for a catastrophic disruption of Mid-East petroleum and proposed greater energy efficiency and the use of renewable fuels as a potential solution. Mr. Garman testified on the status of a variety of programs in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at DOE, including the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. He outlined progress in improving efficiency in this country and plans for ''leapfrogging'' present technology to accelerate the introduction of a hydrogen-based economy. Mr. Dana testified on research in the automobile industry designed to increase gas mileage without sacrificing vehicle size or comfort. He also spoke about the need for incentives to jump start demand for alternative fuel vehicles. Mr. Burnette testified on the future of electric vehicles and potential new uses for electricity in innovative mass transit systems. Mr. Doniger testified on the need to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy sources as well as using ''smart growth'' policies and increasing investment in mass transportation. Mr. MacKenzie testified on short-, intermediate- and long-term ways to reduce our energy consumption and the need to use alternative fuels while being aware of each of their ''greenhouse gas potentials.''
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
4.2(i)—The Renewable Roadmap to Energy Independence
February 21, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–50
Background
The hearing focused on the important role renewable energy resources, as well as energy efficiency and conservation, can plan in the U.S. quest for energy independence. The Subcommittee received testimony from witnesses on the current activities underway in the U.S. Department of Energy and in the State of California to achieve this goal. Other witnesses discussed environmental impacts from continued reliance on offshore oil to meet energy needs.
Witnesses included: (1) Admiral Richard Truly, Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado; (2) Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley; (3) Dr. Donald Aitken, Union of Concerned Scientists, Berkeley, California; (4) Mr. Matthew J. Sullivan, Newcomb Anderson Associates, San Francisco, California; and (5) Mr. Richard Charter, Environmental Defense, Bodega Bay, California.
Summary of Hearing
Discussion during the hearing focused on the market viability of renewable energy, the impact of current Federal Government research, development and demonstration projects relating not only to renewable energy, but also energy efficiency, and the role that renewable energy can play in national security.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Admiral Truly's testimony focused on how energy technologies could help the U.S. achieve greater energy independence. His testimony focused on four key points: 1) For reasons ranging from national security to sustainability, our current energy system is in need of an overhaul, over the long haul; 2) There is much evidence that the Nation's transition to this new energy destination has already begun; 3) Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies will increasingly play a key role in helping the Nation make this transition; and 4) The Federal Government and states must work together to help assure this new energy destination is reached.
Dr. Kammen testified that clean energy technology options and policies are needed to balance, diversify, and safeguard our energy sources and supplies, and to address the challenge of global environmental sustainability. In addition, Dr. Kammen stated that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency must play a more significant role in protecting our climate as well as our energy future, and these technologies and practices demand far greater examination and commitment to implementation than we have seen to date.
Mr. Sullivan testified to what was working at the community level, and how that related to national energy policy. He focused on the impact of energy efficiency on small businesses and local governments, and how renewable energy can play a greater role in community energy needs.
Mr. Charter's testimony focused on the environmental benefits of renewable energy, conservation and energy efficiency. He noted the damaging effects that fossil fuel drilling and transportation has had on Northern California ecosystems. He also briefly spoke to the added benefits renewable energy and energy efficiency can provide to national security.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Dr. Aitken testimony concentrated on the practical application of renewable technologies, and its relation to energy security. He also noted the ability of alternative energy sources to provide adequate supply in the absence of more harmful fossil energy.
Member questions focused on the economic viability of renewable energy, and what the role of federal research investments should be if it is viable. Members also touched upon the need to diversify our nation's energy portfolio with renewable sources in order to mitigate the effects of our dependence on foreign sources of oil and the adverse effects of fossil fuels on our environment.
4.2(j)—H.R. 3929, Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act
March 13, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–70
Background
The hearing examined the Committee's proposed legislation, H.R. 3929 designed to advance the science needed to protect the Nation's critical pipeline infrastructure from attack or failure. The Committee's legislation would increase research and development (R&D) efforts to improve surveillance, security, fault detection (including the detection of difficult-to-detect leaks), and pipeline materials and robustness. It would also help reduce repair and recovery times after a pipeline failure.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Witnesses included (1) Mr. Terry Boss, Vice President, Environment, Safety and Operations, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which represents the major gas pipeline transmission companies; (2) Mr. Tim Felt, President, Explorer Pipeline Corporation on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), which represents the major oil pipeline transmission companies, and the American Petroleum Institute (API); (3) Dr. Nirmal Chatterjee, Vice President, Environmental, Health and Safety and Corporate Engineering, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania, which is an industrial gas company and a manufacturer and distributor of hydrogen and other industrial gases; and (4) Mr. Stan Wise, Commissioner, Georgia Public Service Commission on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
Summary of Hearing
The hearing primarily solicited views on the importance of pipeline safety R&D programs. The committee also investigated means of carrying out that R&D as envisioned in H.R. 3929, which authorizes a coordinated federal program with $10M annually to DOE and $5M annually each to DOT and NIST.
Mr. Boss testified on the importance of pipeline research and the different funding mechanisms presently employed to finance these efforts. He indicated that new funding mechanisms need to be put in place to make up for the FERC R&D surcharge, which has collected as much as $212 million a year and expires in 2004. He also expressed skepticism about NIST's role in pipeline safety R&D and urged the Committee to give a higher priority to restoring DOE's funding.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Mr. Felt testified that the DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety has the longest experience in pipeline safety R&D and perhaps the best understanding of the needs of the regulated community. He felt that DOE had an important R&D role, since pipeline safety is such an important public and environmental priority, and DOE has access to general revenue funds. He spoke generally about technologies that DOE has developed that may be useful for pipeline operators. Finally, he advised the committee to put one agency in control, otherwise conflicts between the three agencies would hamper research.
Dr. Chatterjee testified that hydrogen pipelines are different from natural gas and products pipelines. He also predicted that most hydrogen production would be local and that there would be no need for extensive hydrogen pipeline system in the next 10–20 years.
Mr. Wise spoke mostly about a NARUC R&D funding resolution that is not a part of H.R. 3929. This mandatory funding scheme would collect approximately $65 million in funding for pipeline and storage R&D programs and has the support of the AGA.
Representative Vernon Ehlers asked Dr. Chatterjee about the size of hydrogen pipelines, how hydrogen is currently produced and what happens to the carbon and other ''waste products'' produced as a byproduct of reforming natural gas. Dr. Chatterjee responded that a variety of pipe sizes are in use, but that pipes must be specially designed to transport hydrogen. He also stated that most hydrogen today and in the near future is produced from reforming natural gas, and that it is possible to capture the carbon dioxide.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey asked the panel about pipeline sitting issues and what could be done to ease the approval of new pipelines, citing a northern California project, which was having difficulty in getting approvals to transport tertiary wastewater. The panel concurred that it was a challenge for the industry, but Mr. Boss felt that better communication between the pipeline engineers and the public could help solve the problem.
Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett asked whether the industry preferred research tax credits to direct federal spending on R&D. Members of the panel replied that federally funded programs could aim at industry-wide needs and gain a higher level of trust from the public than company proprietary R&D, regardless of the funding mechanism. The government may also have a longer R&D time horizon than the private sector. Mr. Bartlett asked whether pipelines would have been built differently if we had known about terrorism. The answer was generally ''no'' except to give greater emphasis to monitoring needs. Mr. Bartlett asked if the panel had considered putting out an RFP to the engineering and scientific community to develop a new smart pig, a device that monitors the condition of pipelines.
4.2(k)—Fuel Cells: The Key to Energy Independence?
June 24, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–83
Background
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
The hearing examined the potential of hydrogen as an energy source and what needed to be done to fulfill that potential. The hearing focused on developments in hydrogen fuel cell R&D and in the fuel cell business. The hearing provided a broad overview of fuel cells for all applications, rather than a narrow focus on transportation applications.
Witnesses included (1) Dr. Hermann Grunder, Director of Argonne National Laboratory; (2) Mr. Robert Culver, Executive Director of the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR); (3) Mr. Stan Borys, Executive Vice President and COO of the Gas Technology Institute (GTI); (4) Mr. Jeff Serfass, President, National Hydrogen Association; (5) Mr. James Uihlein, Fuels Project Manager for BP; and (6) Mr. Elias (Lee) Camara, Vice President of H2Fuels.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Grunder testified with certainty that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, but he was not sure when it fully develop. He discussed work that Argonne was doing to create a cost-effective fuel processor to convert hydrocarbons to pure hydrogen. The fuel processor was an interim step to allow the use of fuel cells prior to the development of a hydrogen distribution system.
Mr. Uihlein testified that the transition to a hydrogen infrastructure at all U.S. service stations would cost $6.8 billion. He said that BP is beginning to introduce hydrogen into their distribution system
Mr. Culver testified on USCAR's role in the FreedomCAR program. He said there should be thousands of fuel cell vehicles on the road by the end of the decade, but that the availability of hydrogen vehicles needs to be preceded by a fueling infrastructure of some kind.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Mr. Borys spoke about the transition from solid fuels (wood and coal) to liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) to gaseous (natural gas and hydrogen). He noted that most of the media is focused on hydrogen in transportation applications, but actually stationary applications were in much wider use. Stationary fuel cells are not weight or size constrained, so costs can be lower, and can rely on the existing natural gas infrastructure.
Mr. Serfass testified on the decarbonization of the economy that will happen through the use of hydrogen fuel. He spoke about the important role for government in rolling out hydrogen fuel cells and asked government to increase cost shares, develop codes and standards, a be the first purchaser of fuel cell fleets.
Mr. Camara spoke about his company's process to remove sulfur from hydrogen feedstocks. Pure hydrogen is essential for the success of fuel cells because the alternative, sulfur tolerant fuel cells, are expensive.
Representative Judy Biggert asked about how to overcome the perception that hydrogen gas caused the Hindenburg to burn. She also asked about how water vapor emitted from fuel cells could be prevented from freezing in wintertime conditions, and about alternative sources of hydrogen, including nuclear and ethanol. The panel responded as follows: that the Hindenburg incident was due to a flammable paint used on the dirigible, and that hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline; the freezing problem is being worked on, but for the fuel cells that operate at high temperature it would not be a problem; and alternate sources of hydrogen are definitely viable, but may take longer to develop.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey asked whether the existing natural gas distribution system could be used to provide hydrogen to the home; Mr. Borys responded positively. She also asked why the government should trust industry in a partnership when the auto industry refused to enter into a partnership on CAFAE1E. Mr. Culver assured her that the auto industry was interested in the environment, and that the partnership was essential to the development of fuel cells. Finally, she asked why fuel cell technologies developed by NASA hadn't been quickly transferred to the private sector and the consumer, to which the panel responded that mass production of fuel cells presented numerous obstacles.
4.2(l)—FreedomCAR: Getting New Technology into the Marketplace
June 26, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–84
Background
The hearing primarily solicited views on the best ways to proceed with automotive research and development (R&D) and how to integrate advanced technologies into production vehicles that can gain customer acceptance. One of the recurring questions was the ''chicken and egg'' problem with hydrogen fuel cells, i.e., how can you establish an effective hydrogen infrastructure before there are great numbers of fuel cell vehicles?
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Amory B. Lovins, Chief Executive Officer (Research), Rocky Mountain Institute; (2) Dr. Byron McCormick, Executive Director, General Motors Fuel Cell Activities; (3) Mr. Doug Rothwell, President and CEO, Michigan Economic Development Corporation; (4) Mr. Roger Saillant, President, Plug Power, Inc.; and (5) Mr. Roger Templin, Director, PAICE Corporation.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
The hearing solicited views on the best ways to proceed with automotive research and development (R&D) and how to integrate advanced technologies into production vehicles that can gain customer acceptance.
Dr. Lovins testified on his 100 mile per gallon concept vehicle called Hypercar. He said that the Hypercar, given appropriate funding, could be available as a demonstration vehicle by 2004 and could go into production by 2007. The auto industry has plenty of R&D resources, according to Dr. Lovins, but lacks the flexibility to change its manufacturing quickly enough to get vehicles like Hypercar to market quickly. He suggested that a fundamental change in manufacturing was required to shorten product cycles and reduce the break-even production level-both of which wed car makers to existing, rather than leapfrog technologies.
Mr. McCormick testified that GM is investing aggressively on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, including the HydroGEN3, and the Autonomy that will be demonstrated later this year. According to McCormick, hydrogen storage on the vehicle is the greatest challenge GM faces. Dr McCormick brought up the ''chicken and egg'' problem with hydrogen fuel cells, i.e., how can you establish an effective hydrogen infrastructure before there are great numbers of fuel cell vehicles? He spoke about the critical need to develop fueling infrastructure prior to the introduction of hydrogen vehicles. He also stated that the government must work to develop codes and standards for this fueling infrastructure. He urged the government to refrain from ''freezing technologies'' with overly prescriptive regulation.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Mr. Rothwell testified on Michigan's NextEnergy program, a public/private consortium designed to promote R&D on alternative fuels. He argued that this effort is critical to provide an incentive for continued production of alternative vehicles in Michigan. He agreed with McCormick that incentives are a better approach than regulation.
Mr. Saillant spoke mostly about Plug Power's vision for fuel cells for residential sized combined heat and power, and potential sources of hydrogen fuel for vehicles. He said that these fuel cells could be deployed fairly rapidly using the existing natural gas distribution infrastructure. He also stated that other countries are doing a better job of encouraging fuel cell manufacturers than the U.S. and argued that the U.S. government should ensure that we don't lose leadership in this area.
Mr. Templin testified on PAICE's Hyperdrive concept, which is a technology designed to improve mileage on internal combustion engine vehicles. Templin stated that this technology could roughly double the mileage of standard gasoline and diesel engines, and provided a technology bridge to hydrogen fuel cells. He said that most of the interest in his technology came from overseas and that it is tougher to sell efficiency in the U.S. than overseas because of our much lower fuel prices.
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey stated that this country was falling behind other countries in technology and suggested that we need to redouble efforts in science and engineering education. She asked what we could do to make sure we didn't lose the fuel cell technology race with other countries. Dr. McCormick responded by saying that General Motors, as a global company, has a subsidiary that participates in the internal Japanese planning group on hydrogen and fuel cells and that the Japanese are aggressive and formidable in this area. But, he said, the U.S. has the wherewithal and only needs the will and to commit the resources to compete-especially in area beyond basic research, we need to support prototypes and learn to get around the morass of regulatory barriers. He also praised the research at Argonne, Los Alamos and Sandia Livermore in these areas. Mr. Templin said that we should find a way to offer an economic incentive that is comparable with that due to higher fuel costs in Japan and Europe. Dr. Sallant said that we have a science education problem at the secondary and university level where we need to teach systems thinking.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
In response to a question from Representative Melissa Hart, on how fast we would see advanced cars, Mr. Templin said he thought his technology, when deployed as an advanced hybrid, would blanket the market within four or five years after they are first introduced. In response to the same question Dr. Lovins said that the car industry is a classic over-mature industry with an unattractive risk-reward profile because it is extremely capital intensive with a very long product cycle time. In contrast, his Hypercar has a low capital intensity, a low fixed cost per model, a higher piece cost, and a comparable total cost per car which means that the break-even volume is low and the product cycle time also can be low. He also said that the hydrogen infrastructure problems (chicken/egg) were real, but readily resolved using miniature gas reformers which would be less capital intensive that the current gasoline fueling infrastructure.
Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett stated that at one point he thought it unpatriotic to buy a foreign car, but he now loves his gasoline-electric hybrid Prius. He now believes that it's patriotic to buy foreign vehicles because that is a way to spur innovation through competition in the domestic auto industry. He then asked Dr. Lovins what needs to happen to make the public understand that we have a very uncertain energy future. Dr. Lovins responded that we already have shown that energy and economy can be decoupled. He also criticized H.R. 4 as contrary to market and free trade principles because it distorts prices by suppressing efficient use of oil and by making oil look cheaper than it really is.
Representative Judy Biggert asked how R&D could bring down the cost of fuel cells. She also asked about what the government's role should be. Dr. McCormick replied that on the cost side, it was important to realize that manufacturers are supported by thousands of suppliers, only half of which have the automotive industry as their main customer and so really prescriptive or over targeted approaches will fail. He also said that we need good tax policies so companies make investments in their manufacturing plants. He also said the national laboratories have an important role-especially in new materials.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
4.2(m)—Future Direction of the Department of Energy's Office of Science
July 25, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–86
Background
The hearing discussions focused on big ideas and societal issues, with an emphasis on the need to provide funding proportionate to the value of the research and educational missions of the Office of Science to the Nation.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Jerome I. Friedman (1990 Nobel Prize in Physics), Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (3) Dr. Richard E. Smalley (1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University; and (4) Ms. Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on the role the Office of Science in supporting basic research and education in the fundamental sciences and engineering. Key topics included the impact of flat funding over the past decade, contributions to national economic and technological competitiveness, future plans, programs, and projects, and regulation of worker and environmental safety at Office of Science facilities and laboratories.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Dr. Orbach testified on how the Office of Science contributes to the national scientific research agenda, including supporting graduate education and research at universities, and instrumentation and facilities for DOE and non-DOE scientists and engineers.
Dr. Friedman testified on the serious consequences that flat funding for the Office of Science has had for the Nation's research infrastructure. Funding for the Office of Science has not kept up with inflation and is falling even further behind considering scientific inflation—the increasing costs of scientific equipment and personnel. As a result, there are fewer and smaller research grants to universities. Among the consequences are fewer U.S. citizens pursuing careers and advanced degrees in physical science and engineering.
Dr. Smalley testified that energy is the single most important issue facing mankind. Continued use of fossil fuels is unsustainable and a concerted effort must be made to develop new science and technology to provide safe, clean, affordable energy. Nanotechnology can and will play a central role in this effort and a national commitment to this will invigorate and excite the youth of the Nation to pursue careers in science and engineering.
Ms. Jones updated the Committee on the status of the regulation of nuclear and worker safety at Office of Science laboratories and facilities. The GAO contends that external regulation by the NRC and OSHA is workable and can provide many benefits over the current system of self-regulation by the DOE. The GAO finds a lack of commitment by the DOE to move forward on this issue, while the NRC, OSHA, laboratory directors, and contractors are all supportive of moving to external regulation.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett stated that societal values must change if science is going to get the respect and support it deserves and attract young people to careers in science. He expressed his whole-hearted agreement with Dr. Smalley that we need to stop relying on fossil fuels to supply so much of the Nation's energy.
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey emphasized the need to attract women and minorities to science. She also expressed her concern over nuclear and worker safety at the national laboratories and asked Dr. Orbach if he was committed to pursuing external regulation and what the Office of Science was doing in this regard. Dr. Orbach replied that he and his office were committed to examining external regulation of their facilities and would be performing pilot studies over the next 10 months.
Representative Judy Biggert expressed support for increased funding for the Office of Science and asked how the Office could utilize additional funds.
Representative Nick Lampson observed that people follow money and asked point blank: ''Is the current budget sufficient?'' Dr. Orbach replied that at present it is. Dr. Friedman asserted that it is not.
Representative Vernon Ehlers expressed his concern that it was socially acceptable to be ignorant of science and encouraged the panel and the scientific community to become more active in educating the public and Congress on the value of science to society.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher expressed his skepticism that throwing money at science would solve the problems discussed here and his concern that ''Big Science'' was counterproductive to creative thinking. Dr. Friedman responded with examples of how researchers on ''Big Science'' projects had demonstrated creativity and made contributions to society in important and unexpected ways (e.g., creating the first Web browser).
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 9
Next Hearing Segment(6)
(Footnote 2 return)
Department of Energy: DOE's Nuclear Safety Enforcement Program Should Be Strengthened (GAO/RCED–99–146, June 10, 1999).