ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE

ON

U.S. SENATE,
APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[CLERKS NOTE.At the direction of the subcommittee chairman,
the following statements received by the subcommittee are made
part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2009 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSECIVIL
DEPARTMENT
CORPS
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

OF

OF THE

ARMY

ENGINEERSCIVIL

NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION (NCGA)

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the opportunity to

share with the subcommittee our Energy and Water Development Appropriations
priorities for fiscal year 2009. In general, our appropriations priorities include an
overall increase in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding to address the needs of
our failing inland waterways system; securing $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2009
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for the Upper Mississippi River
System (UMRS)Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) authorized
by H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act 2007, title VIII, secs. 8001
8005; and continued support for the Department of Energys Biomass Technologies
Program.
NCGAs mission is to create and increase opportunities for corn growers. NCGA
represents more than 33,000 members and 48 affiliated State organizations and
hundreds of thousands of growers who contribute to State checkoff programs.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Our countrys inland navigation system plays a critical role in our Nations economy, moving more than a billion tons of domestic commerce valued at more than
$300 billion. Each year, more than 1 billion bushels of grain (over 60 percent of all
grain exports) move to export markets via the inland waterways system. Inland waterways relieve congestion on our already over-crowded highways and railways that
run through cities. One jumbo barge has the same capacity as 58 trucks or 15 rail
cars. A typical 15-barge tow on our Nations rivers is equivalent to 870 trucks.
Additionally, navigation offers transportation with unparalleled environmental
benefits. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of trucks and 40 percent of the
cost of trains, while releasing 20 times less nitrous oxide, 9 times less carbon monoxide, 7 times less hydrocarbons, and burning 10 times less high-price fuel.
Unfortunately, investment in the inland waterways system has not kept pace with
its needs and is deteriorating. In 2006, more than half of the 240 operational Corpsfunded lock chambers in the United Stateswhich handle over 625 million tons of
freight each yearare over 50 years old and have exceeded their economic design
lives. Many locks currently in use are too small for todays larger tows, susceptible
to closures and long delays for repairs and unable to effectively deal with lines and
(1)

2
wait times that result from their obsolescence. In recent years, several high-profile
closures have raised reliability concerns among shippers, carriers, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and ultimately consumers who pay increased costs for expensive
transportation delays.
Funding (in constant dollars) for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) on Americas inland navigation system has remained flat for more than 2 decades. During
this period, an increasing amount of routine maintenance on waterways infrastructure has been deferred. This deferred maintenance has become unfunded maintenance, and the aging waterways infrastructure, combined with the growing O&M
backlog, has created todays average of 30 unscheduled lock shutdowns per year.
Tight O&M funding and the resultant fix-as-fail policy have led to a self-defeating cycle where routine maintenance dollars are now needed for emergency repairs.
As critical maintenance needs grow, they become candidates for major rehabilitationa trend that is not good for the waterways industry or for the Nation.
NCGA is appreciative of the successful efforts made by this subcommittee in recent years to increase the budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. NCGA
strongly supports continuing this trend with a significant increase over last years
funding levels to address the critically needed repairs and delayed construction
schedules facing the Corps. Its important to get our inland waterways infrastructure back on track so we can meet the ever-increasing demands of the global marketplace.
NAVIGATION ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM (NESP)

The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) includes the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway and tributary rivers, with 38 lock and dam sites
stretching from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Chicago, Illinois, to just south of St.
Louis, Missouri. The Upper Mississippi has 29 locks and 858 miles of commercially
navigable waterway, and the Illinois Waterway has 8 locks and is navigable for 291
miles. Also part of the UMRS is the Missouri River, which has no locks along its
735 navigable miles from Sioux City, Iowa, to St. Louis. There is one lock along the
26 navigable miles of the Kaskaskia River in southern Illinois.
In 1986, Congress declared the UMRS a nationally significant ecosystem and a
nationally significant commercial navigation system. The same waters that transport more than 60 percent of Americas corn and soybeans are home to 25 percent
of North Americas fish species and are globally important as a flyway for 60 percent
of North Americas bird species. However, both the river transportation system and
the river ecosystem are deteriorating. The locks that help tows to navigate the river
are antiquatedincreasing cost, safety risks and lost market opportunities. And
from an ecological perspective, the floodplain is degraded, islands eroded, backwaters filled in and the rivers natural flows disrupted.
With enactment of the Water Resources Development Act 2007, Congress created
a historic opportunity for the UMRS. Congress recognized the economic and ecological importance of what truly is Americas River by giving the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers a new, dual-purpose authority to integrate management of the rivers
habitats and navigation system in an unprecedented way. Corn growers are asking
Congress to invest in the future of the UMRS by funding implementation of this
new program.
We request your support in securing $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2009 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill for the Upper Mississippi River System
(UMRS)Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP). Now is the time to
build on the promise of the new authority for NESP by including funding for the
program in the Corps fiscal year 2009 construction general account. Congress has
authorized NESP at $2.2 billion for navigation improvements; half of which is funded by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, and $1.72 billion for ecosystem restoration,
with an additional $10 million per year for monitoring. This will permit the Corps
to begin implementing specific projects. NESP is a long-term vision, with the current authority providing for the first increment of that vision.
Over approximately the next 15 years, NESP will improve navigation efficiency
by constructing new 1,200-foot locks at Locks & Dams 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the
Upper Mississippi River, and at LaGrange and Peoria on the Illinois Waterway. The
plan also includes small-scale measures such as mooring facilities and switchboats
and mitigation for the environmental effects of the lock construction and increased
river traffic.
Concurrently, NESP will also work to restore and preserve more than 100,000
acres of habitat in a manner that is entirely compatible with current navigation
practices. Restoration projects will range in size and complexity but will focus on
restoring system-wide natural processes vital to the rivers health. Examples include

3
mimicking natural flow regimes by drawing down pools in the summer and restoring floodplain habitat in cooperation with willing landowners. Because the UMRS
is a vast and ecologically complex system, NESP includes an adaptive management
strategy, in which sound science, learning and monitoring guide the most efficient
and effective allocation of resources.
We appreciate this subcommittees help in securing Pre-Construction Engineering
and Design in years passed prior to authorization in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act. Congress has provided for $13.5 million in fiscal year 2005, $10 million in fiscal year 2006, $10 million in fiscal year 2007 and $8.85 million in fiscal
year 2008. Capability levels for PED were identified as $24 million for each fiscal
year to achieve a 34 year pre-construction engineering and design phase.
For continued success, U.S. farmers need efficient transportation networks, which
is why we have been long-time advocates for improvements to our inland waterway
system. Meeting future international demand for corn, soybean, and other grains
will be impossible without a modernized river infrastructure.
You have an opportunity to impact economic growth in our Nation. Your help in
securing funds for NESP will allow the Nation to achieve the benefits of river infrastructure and ecosystem improvements as soon as possible.
BIOMASS TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

The United States needs to displace imported petroleum with domestically produced ethanol. Grain ethanol is the only economically viable solution today to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. In order to achieve energy independence, the United States must capitalize on an abundance of domestic resources.
Using starch from corn grain to produce ethanol is a proven, efficient way to reduce
oil imports. Ethanol reduces green house gases, continues to spur economic development in rural communities, provides for a high-value co-product and stabilizes farm
income. In 2007, strong commodity prices reduced Government spending by $6 billion. Over the next decade, corn grain will continue to meet the growing demands
from livestock feed, human food, export sectors, and ethanol fuel.
The current Federal biomass technologies program is focused on long-term cellulose research. Cellulose research will not have any meaningful economic impact
for a decade or more. A successful research and development (R&D) portfolio always
balances near-, mid- and long-term goals, and biomass research should use a similar
strategy.
In the near term, R&D investments in corn grain ethanol production technology
could have a strongly positive economic impact while immediately decreasing dependence on imported oil. Examples of R&D investment opportunities include improving production and utilization of animal feed (DDGS), co-production of biobased
chemicals, utilization of corn kernel fiber, repowering ethanol facilities with biomass, water utilization, and decreasing natural gas use in ethanol plants. A sufficient supply of affordable ethanol will ensure the markets and infrastructure will
be poised for the larger impacts coming in the mid to long-term.
NCGA recommends the subcommittee commit at least 25 percent of the fiscal year
2009 allocation for the biomass technologies program towards near-term research of
corn grain. A strong corn ethanol industry is the foundation for an expanding renewable fuels market. Agricultural residues, cobs, and fiber will serve as the bridge
technologies to a second generation of renewable fuels.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn growers over
the years.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

CONTROL

AND

WATER

PROJECT

REQUEST

MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT: Construction General ......................................................................

HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS: Special Authorization under WRDA ................................................................
FUNDING FOR CERTIFICATION OF CORPS LEVEES: Inspection of Completed Works ...............................................
SAN JACINTO & UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP):
General Investigations .........................................................................................................................................
SANTA ANA RIVERMAINSTEM: Construction General ...........................................................................................

$13,000,000
28,400,000
3,000,000
355,000
108,600,000

4
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND RECREATION
PROJECT

Murrieta Creek continues to pose a severe flood threat to the cities of Murrieta
and Temecula. Overflow flooding from the undersized creek with a tributary watershed area of over 220 square miles continues to periodically wreak havoc on the
communities. The winter storms in 1993 cost nearly $20 million in damages to the
public and private sectors. Almost on a yearly basis, small to moderate storms cause
localized damages at numerous locations requiring ongoing repairs. As the area continues to develop, the potential for damages (direct and indirect) continues to increase.
In 1997 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated studies on the Creek. The
final outcome of this endeavor was Congressional authorization in 2000 of the $90
million, multi faceted project known as the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project. This project is being designed and will
be constructed in four distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel improvements through the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the construction of a 250-acre
detention basin, including the establishment of about 160 acres of new environmental habitat and over 50 acres of recreational facilities. Phase 4 will include
channel improvements through the city of Murrieta. Equestrian, bicycle and hiking
trails, as well as a continuous vegetated habitat corridor for wildlife are components
of the entire 7.5 mile long project.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 provided $1 million for a
new construction start for this critical public safety project and construction activities commenced in the Fall of 2003 on Phase 1. Appropriations for fiscal year 2004
and additional funds allocated allowed the Corps to continue construction on Phase
1, which was completed in December 2004. Phase 2 traverses Old Town Temecula,
one of the hardest hit areas during the flooding of 1993. The Corps anticipates having a Phase 2 construction contract ready to award in the Winter of 2008. The District, therefore, respectfully requests the subcommittees support of a $13 million appropriation in fiscal year 2009 to allow the Corps to complete the Design Documentation Report, and initiate construction on Phase 2 of the long awaited Murrieta
Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project.
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS PROTECTION OF MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE

Heacock and Cactus Channels are undersized, earthen channels that border the
eastern and northern boundary of the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) located adjacent to the city of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Substantial vegetation becomes established within both channels and impedes the conveyance of tributary storm flows to the existing ultimate outlet located downstream. Storm flows
overtop Cactus Channel and traverse MARB causing major disruption of the Bases
operation, including the fueling of airplanes and the transport of troops and supplies. The record rainfall of 2004/2005 also caused extensive erosion along Heacock
Avenue jeopardizing existing utilities within the road right of way and cutting off
access to about 700 residences within the city of Moreno Valley.
Under section 205 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), the Corps received $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 and completed an Initial Appraisal Report which
determined the feasibility of proceeding with a project to provide flood protection to
this sensitive area. With the $546,000 received in fiscal year 2006 the Corps completed a Project Management Plan, executed a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
and is nearing completion of the Feasibility Study. However, this study found that
MARB would receive approximately 75 percent of the benefits from constructing this
project making the use of section 205 funds inappropriate. Therefore, the project
will require Special Authorizing Language to approve and an appropriation of $28.4
million to provide flood protection to MARB.
The District requests support from the subcommittee for Special Authorization approving the project and authorizing appropriations of $28.4 million to complete the
design and construct the project providing this critical military installation flood
protection.
CERTIFICATION OF CORPS CONSTRUCTED LEVEES

As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) Map Modernization Program, the District, as well as all other agencies, cities and counties in the
Nation are being required to provide certification of the reliability of all levee structures providing flood protection to our citizens. Many of these projects were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in these cases, FEMA is requesting that the certification be provided by the Corps. Certification involves an exten-

5
sive amount of geotechnical analysis, including field and lab material testing, slope
stability and seepage checks, hydrologic and hydraulic verification, and other costly
and time consuming activities, as well as the review of operation and maintenance
records. These projects have an established Federal interest. Therefore, a National
Policy needs to be established addressing the need for these federally constructed
projects to be certified by the Corps and authorizing the Corps to perform the required analysis. Furthermore, the Corps should also be authorized to provide Federal assistance for design and construction costs associated with any necessary rehabilitation, repair or reconstruction of projects that are found not to meet the CFR
65.10 FEMA and/or Risk and Uncertainty analysis criteria. Non-conforming levees
put the public at risk and should be a Federal priority. Within our District, there
are three Corps constructed levees requiring this Federal certification: Santa Ana
River Levees constructed in 1958, Chino Canyon Levee constructed in 1972 and San
Jacinto River Levee constructed in 1982.
The District requests support from the subcommittee for the establishment of a
National Policy addressing this issue and the authorization and funding needed for
the Corps to meet its obligations to the numerous local sponsors of federally constructed levees throughout the country. The Los Angeles District needs an appropriation of $3.0 million for fiscal year 2009 under the Inspection of Completed
WorksCA Operations and Maintenance Appropriation 3123 to accomplish the
needed certification work.
SAN JACINTO AND UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN

In 2001 the Corps began development of a Special Area Management Plan

(SAMP) for both the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds to address
regional conservation and develop plans that protect the environment while allowing
for compatible economic development. The final product of the SAMP will be the establishment of an abbreviated or expedited regulatory permitting process by the
Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to assist Federal, State and local
agencies with their decisionmaking and permitting authority to protect, restore and
enhance aquatic resources, while accommodating various types of development activities. This process will increase regulatory efficiency and promote predictability
to the regulated public. The plan will also build on the protection of high value resource areas, as envisioned in the MSHCP. The District requests support from the
subcommittee for a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $355,000 to complete the work
on the Nations largest SAMP for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds.
SANTA ANA RIVERMAINSTEM

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99662) authorized
the Santa Ana River-All River project that includes improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief of Engineers Report to the Secretary of the
Army. The Boards of Supervisors of Orange and San Bernardino Counties as well
as the Board for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District continue to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to Congress.
For fiscal year 2009, an appropriation of $108.6 million, is necessary to provide
funding for Reach 9 of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of Prado Dam,
continue the construction of Prado Dam features and provide mitigation for the construction of Seven Oaks Dam. The District respectfully requests that the subcommittee support an overall $108.6 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year 2009 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
PREPARED STATEMENTS

OF THE

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

STATEMENT OF SUPPORTCOYOTE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY

Background.Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara Countys largest watershed, an

area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of the eastern foothills, the
city of Milpitas, and portions of the cities of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows
northward from Anderson Reservoir through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding occurred in
1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930 and 1931. Since 1950,
the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the magnitude of flooding, although
flooding is still a threat and did cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997.

6
Significant areas of older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-supported
lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague Expressway), which
was completed in 1996, protected homes and businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches upstream of the
completed Federal flood protection works on lower Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are to investigate
flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to identify potential alternatives
for alleviating those damages which also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife
resources, provide opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to proceed into
the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.In May 2002, the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution directing the Corps to . . .
review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . .
and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation and supply, recreation,
and other allied purposes . . ..
Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget Request and Funding.The Coyote Watershed Study was one of only three new start studies proposed for funding nationwide in the administration fiscal year 2006 budget request. Congress did not include
funding for the study in the final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress did not appropriate any funding to the
project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek Watershed.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTUPPER PENITENCIA CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT

Background.The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in northeast

Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay.
In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and
1998. The January 1995 flood damaged a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The February 1998 flood also damaged many homes,
businesses, and surface streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of San Jose and Milpitas.
The floodplain is completely urbanized; undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on
an August 2004 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Economics Analysis, over
5,000 homes and businesses in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in
the 1 percent or 100-year flood area. Flood damages were estimated at $455 million.
Benefit to cost ratios for the nine project alternatives range from 2:1 to 3.1:1.
Study Synopsis.Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83566), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly
the Soil Conservation Service) completed an economic feasibility study (watershed
plan) for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek.
Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to the very high ratio of
potential urban development flood damage compared to agricultural damage in the
project area.
In January 1993, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) requested the
Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994 fiscal year while the Natural
Resources Conservation Service plan was on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October
1994. The reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The feasibility study, initiated in
February 1998, is currently scheduled for completion in 2009.
Advance Construction.To accelerate project implementation, the District submitted a section 104 application to the Corps for approval to construct a portion of
the project. The application was approved in December 2000. The advance construction is for a 2,600-foot long section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek and
King Road. However, due to funding constraints at the District and concerns raised
by regulatory agencies, the design was stopped and turned over to the Corps to complete.

7
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress appropriated $229,000 to the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $171,000, in addition to the
$191,000 in the administrations fiscal year 2009 budget request, for a total of
$362,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project to continue the
Feasibility Study.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTSAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT

Background.The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45 square miles

and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows through five cities and two
counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it forms the boundary between Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities of Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The upper watershed tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside townships. The
creek flows through residential and commercial properties, a biological preserve,
and Stanford University campus. It interfaces with regional and State transportation systems by flowing under two freeways and the regional commuter rail system. San Francisquito Creek is one of the last natural continuous riparian corridors
on the San Francisco Peninsula and home to one of the last remaining viable
steelhead trout runs. The riparian habitat and urban setting offer unique opportunities for a multi objective flood protection and ecosystem restoration project.
Flooding History.The creeks mainstem has a flooding frequency of approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million in damages could
occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1-percent flood, affecting 4,850
home and businesses. Significant areas of Palo Alto flooded in December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and residential property and about 70 acres
of agricultural land. April 1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course up to 4
feet deep. Overflow in 1982 caused extensive damage to private and public property.
The flood of record occurred on February 3, 1998, when overflow from numerous locations caused severe, record consequences with more than $28 million in damages.
More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500 people were evacuated in
East Palo Alto, and the major commute and transportation artery, Highway 101,
was closed.
Status.Active citizenry are anxious to avoid a repeat of February 1998 flood.
Numerous watershed based studies have been conducted by the Corps, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, Stanford University, and the San Mateo County Flood
Control District. A grassroots, consensus-based organization, called the San
Francisquito Watershed Council, has united stakeholders including local and State
agencies, citizens, flood victims, developers, and environmental activists for over 10
years. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1999 to
coordinate creek activities with five member agencies and two associate members.
The Authority Board has agreed to be the local sponsor for a Corps project and received congressional authorization for a Corps reconnaissance study in May 2002.
The Reconnaissance Study was completed in March 2005 and the Feasibility Study
was initiated in November 2005.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress did not appropriate any funding to the
project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.It is requested the congressional
committee support an appropriation add-on of $700,000 to continue the Feasibility
Study.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTCOYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT, BERRYESSA CREEK
PROJECT ELEMENT

Background.The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast Santa

Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay. A major
tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek drains 22 square miles in the city of
Milpitas and a portion of San Jose.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most recent flood in
1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and automobiles. The proposed project
on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road,
will protect portions of the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely
urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based on the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2005 report, a 1-percent or 100-year flood could

8
potentially result in damages exceeding $179 million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the
six project alternatives being evaluated range from 2:1 to 7.3:1.
Study Synopsis.In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection projects under section 205
of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a
combined Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the cities of Milpitas
and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The Berryessa
Creek Project element proposed in the Corps 1987 feasibility report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local
community and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat restoration and fish passage, and
sediment control structures to limit turbidity and protect water quality. The project
will also accommodate the city of Milpitas adopted trail master plan. Estimated
total costs of the General Reevaluation Report work are $6.5 million, and should be
completed in 2009.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress appropriated $1.147 million to the project
in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.Based on the continuing threat of
significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to continue with the
General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $650,000, in addition to the $950,000 in the administrations fiscal year 2009 budget request, for a total of $1.6 million for the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek
Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY

Background.Congressional passage of the Water Resources Development Act of

1976, originally authorized the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and Santa Clara
Valley Water District (District) was one of the project sponsors. In 1990, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that levee failure potential was low because the existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees, which were routinely maintained by Leslie Salt Company (subsequently Cargill Salt) to protect their industrial
interests, had historically withstood overtopping without failure. As a result, the
project was suspended until adequate economic benefits could be demonstrated.
Since the projects suspension in 1990, many changes have occurred in the South
Bay. The State and Federal acquisition of approximately 15,000 acres of South Bay
salt ponds was completed in early March 2003. The proposed restoration of these
ponds to tidal marsh will significantly alter the hydrologic regime and levee maintenance activities, which were assumed to be constant in the Corps 1990 study. In
addition to the proposed restoration project, considerable development has occurred
in the project area. Many major corporations are now located within Silicon Valleys
Golden Triangle, lying within and adjacent to the tidal flood zone. Damages from
a 1-percent high tide are anticipated to far exceed the $34.5 million estimated in
1981, disrupting business operations, infrastructure, and residences. Also, historical
land subsidence of up to 6 feet near Alviso, as well as the structural uncertainty
of existing salt pond levees, increases the potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara
County.
In July 2002, Congress authorized a review of the Final 1992 Letter Report for
the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The final fiscal year 2004 appropriation for
the Corps included funding for a new start Reconnaissance Study.
Project Synopsis.At present, large areas of Santa Clara, Alameda and San
Mateo Counties would be impacted by flooding during a 1-percent high tide. The
proposed restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds will result in the
largest restored wetland on the west coast of the United States, and also significantly alter the hydrologic regime adjacent to South Bay urban areas. The success
of the proposed restoration is therefore dependent upon adequate tidal flood protection, and so this project provides an opportunity for multi-objective watershed planning in partnership with the California Coastal Conservancy, the lead agency on the
restoration project. Project objectives include: restoration and enhancement of a diverse array of habitats, especially several special status species; tidal flood protection; and provision of wildlife-oriented public access. A Corps Reconnaissance Study

9
was completed in September 2004 and the Feasibility Study was initiated in September 2005.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress appropriated $785,000 to the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Request.It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.8 million to continue the Feasibility
Study to evaluate integrated flood protection and environmental restoration.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTLLAGAS CREEK PROJECT

Background.The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern Santa Clara

County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Martin.
Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in 1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982,
1986, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2008. The 1997, 1998, and 2002 floods damaged
many homes, businesses, and a recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan
Hill and San Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood affecting more
than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566), the Natural Resources Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for constructing flood damage reduction
facilities on Llagas Creek. The Natural Resources Conservation Service completed
construction of the last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the creeks habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include the presence of
additional endangered species including red-legged frog and steelhead, listing of the
area as probable critical habitat for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat
than were considered in 1982.
Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the traditional Public
Law 566 Federal project funding agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements and the District paying local costs including utility relocation, bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to
the steady decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction
program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project had not received adequate funding to
complete the Public Law 566 project. To remedy this situation, the District worked
with congressional representatives to transfer the construction authority from the
Department of Agriculture to the Corps under the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (section 501). Since the transfer of responsibility to the Corps, the District has been working with the Corps to complete the project. In November 2007,
Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110
114, section 3022) revising the estimated total project cost for the remaining reaches
of the project to $105 million with a Federal share of $65 million and a local share
of $40 million. The bill language also directs the Corps to complete the construction
of the project.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress did not appropriate any funding to the
project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.Based upon the high risk of flood
damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the congressional committee support
an appropriation add-on of $1.8 million in fiscal year 2009 for planning, design, and
environmental updates for the Llagas Creek Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTGUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing through a highly

developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County, California. A major flood would
damage homes and businesses in the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river
has flooded downtown San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $576 million. The Guadalupe
River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and March 1995, damaging
homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant Street areas of downtown San
Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted in breakouts along the river that flooded
approximately 300 homes and business.

10
Project Synopsis.In 1971, the local community requested that the Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance
have been provided by the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water
District in an effort to accelerate the projects completion. To date, more than $85.8
million in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and construction in the Corps project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction under the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design Memorandum was
completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was executed in March 1992, the
General Design Memorandum was revised in 1993, construction of the first phase
of the project was completed in August 1994, construction of the second phase was
completed in August 1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental effects, and project monitoring
and maintenance costs, a multi-agency Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative was created in 1997. A key outcome of the collaborative process was the
signing of the Dispute Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which modified the project
to resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed. The Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into law on November 12, 2001. This authorized the modified Guadalupe River Project at a total cost
of $226.8 million. Subsequent to the authorization, the project cost has been raised
to $251 million. Construction of the last phase of flood protection was completed December 2004 and a completion celebration held in January 2005. The remaining construction consists of railroad bridge replacements and mitigation plantings. The
overall construction of the project including the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for completion in 2008.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress appropriated $1.783 million for the project
in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $10 million to continue construction of the final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORTUPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways flowing

through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County, California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded the central district and southern
areas of San Jose. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe flooding would result from a 100-year flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995, and February 1998, causing
damage to several residences and businesses in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street
areas. The 1995 floods in January and March, as well as in February 1998, closed
Highway 87 and the parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) requested the Corps reactivate an earlier study of the Guadalupe River. From 1971
to 1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and Federal interest in the
Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. Following the
1982 and 1983 floods, the District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the
upper Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended proceeding to the
feasibility study phase, which began in 1990 and was completed in 1998.
Preconstruction Engineering and Design commenced in 1999 and currently several
reaches are ready for construction.
The Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project was first authorized for Federal construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (section 101).
This authorization was for a project cost of $140 million with an unfavorable costsharing formula. In November 2007, Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110114, section 3037) for an estimated revised
project cost of $256 million with a Federal share of $136.7 million and local share
of $119.3 million.
The project cooperation agreement was signed on July 21, 2007, and construction
is planned to commence in July 2008.

11
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.Congress appropriated $439,000 to the project in the
fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $12.5 million in fiscal year
2009 to continue construction on the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

COMMISSIONERS

BOARD

OF

HARBOR

Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of full funding of the Channel Deepening
Project at the Port of Los Angeles/Los Angeles Harbor, the largest and busiest container seaport in the United States and tenth largest in the world. Our testimony
speaks in support of an fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $1.33 million for the final
Federal share that will complete construction of the Channel Deepening Project.
Proposed funding for the Channel Deepening Project was not included in the Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget. Construction of our Federal deep-draft navigation
channels and ship berths is approximately 85 percent complete. Your full appropriation of the requested $1.33 million will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to finish
construction of the remainder of the Project; the Corps has stated that it has the
capability to fully obligate and spend this amount in fiscal year 2009. Dredging for
the project began in early 2003 with construction originally scheduled for completion
in 2006.
The Port of Los Angeles is Americas busiest seaport with record volumes of cargo
moving through the 7,500-acre harbor. Its strong performance is attributed to a
solid U.S. economy and the recovering Asian economies with a renewed manufacturing demand for American exports. The Port itself is a major reason for the remarkable cargo volumes. Its world-class facilities and infrastructure maximize the
one-stop shopping concept of cargo transportation and delivery favored by most
shipping lines. Ocean carriers can send the majority of their west coast-bound cargo
to Los Angeles with full confidence in the Ports modern cargo terminals and efficient train/truck intermodal network. The Channel Deepening Project is a critical
Federal navigation improvement project, and is the underpinning of the ongoing
confidence that shipping lines have in the Port of Los Angeles.
In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Congress authorized an increase in the total project cost to $222 million from $194 million, representing a Federal share of $60.7 million and a local share of $161.3 million in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers revision. This revision accounts for credits for in-kind services provided by the Port and other required
project modifications, including adjustments for construction contract changes, adjustments to the disposal costs for the dredged material, and project administration
costs. The cost-share amounts for the Channel Deepening Project is currently under
review, as well as a Supplemental EIS/EIR that will evaluate and determine the
best alternative for increased disposal capacity. Under consideration for placement
of the remaining dredge material are the formation of additional lands for future
Port development and environmental enhancements through the creation of improved submerged marine habitats. Upon completion of both reviews, the new costsharing amounts and the additional costs for disposal at the recommended site(s)
will be established. The need for a Supplemental EIS/EIR has moved project completion to fiscal year 2009.
PORT NAVIGATION DEMANDS

The evolving international shipping industry prompted a collaborative effort by

the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps of Engineers to implement the Channel Deepening Project in the early 1980s. With this project, the Port will deepen its main
Federal channel and tributary channels by 8 feet, from 45 to 53 feet Mean
Lower Low Water (MLLW), to accommodate the industrys shift to larger container
vessels. The first of these deeper-draft ships began calling at the Port of Los Angeles
in August of 2004, carrying 8,000 20-foot equivalent units of containers (TEUs) and
drafting at 50 feet. Carriers are continuing to order these larger, post-Panamax
vessels that range in size from 7,500 TEUs to 10,000 TEUs. These vessels are now
in service in the international shipping trade and will continue to be delivered to
shipping lines at a steady pace for the foreseeable future, which means that ports
unable to accommodate the bigger ships will be left out of the surge in trade if they
are unable to accommodate these vessels.

12
As we have testified before, cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay port complex,
comprising the Ports of Los Angels and Long Beachand the Port of Los Angeles
in particularhas a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy. We at the Port of Los
Angeles cannot overemphasize this fact. The ability of the Port to meet the spiraling
demands of the steady growth in international trade is dependent upon the speedy
construction of sufficiently deep navigation channels to accommodate the new containerships. These new ships provide greater efficiencies in cargo transportation,
carrying one-third more cargo than most of the current fleet, and making more
product inventory of imported goods available to American consumers at lower
prices. In addition, exports from the United States have become more competitive
in foreign markets. However, for American seaports to keep up, they must immediately make the necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable them to
participate in this rapidly changing global trading arena.
Mr. Chairman, as we have said before, these state-of-the-art container ships represent the new competitive requirements for international container shipping efficiencies in the 21st century, as evidenced by the increased volume of international
commerce. As such, we ask your subcommittee to fully appropriate the $1.33 million
for fiscal year 2009 that will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to complete construction of the Channel Deepening Project in fiscal year 2009.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS

The Port of Los Angeles is one of the worlds largest trade gateways, and the
scope of its economic contributions to the Southern California regional economy
and to the U.S. economyis critically important. Currently, nearly 45 percent of
containerized cargo entering the United States is handled at the San Pedro Bay port
complex with the Port of Los Angeles, alone, handling a record 8.5 million TEUs
just last year. This represents significant continued growth for any American seaport. The national economics of trade through the Port of Los Angeles is significant,
touching every Congressional district in the country. Some 190 million metric revenue tons of cargo, valued at more than $238 billion, were handled at the Port in
2007, with $223 billion in trade benefiting the national economy based on the $5.1
billion it generated in State and local tax revenues.
Locally, the Port is connected, directly or indirectly, with tens of billions of dollars
in industry sales each year in Southern California. Those sales translate into hundreds of thousands of local jobs representing billions in wages, salaries, and tax revenues. Regional benefits from Port of Los Angeles trade include:
1.1 million jobs in California;
3.3 million permanent, well-paying jobs in the United States;
$89.2 billion in California trade value;
$223 billion in U.S. trade value;
$5.1 billion in State tax revenue; and
$21.5 billion in Federal tax revenue.
This economic impact is a direct result of international waterborne trade flowing
through the Port of Los Angeles. Clearly, the Channel Deepening Project is a commercial, Federal navigation project of tremendous national economic significance,
and one that will yield exponential economic and environmental returns to the
United States annually. Furthermore, the U.S. Customs Service reports that more
than $12 million a day in customs duties are taken from the Port. The Los Angeles
Customs District leads the Nation in total duties collected for maritime activities,
collecting more than $6 billion in 2005 alone. The return on the Federal investment
at the Port of Los Angeles is real and quantifiable, and we expect it to continue to
surpass the cost-benefit ratioas determined by the Army Corps of Engineers
project Feasibility Studymany times over.
In closing, Federal investment in the Channel Deepening Project will ensure that
the Port of Los Angeles, the Nations busiest container seaport, remains at the forefront of the new international trade network well into this century. The Channel
Deepening Project marks the second phase of the 2020 Infrastructure Development
Plan that began with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project. The
Port of Los Angeles is moving forward with the 2020 Plan designed to meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on it in the face of the continued high
volume of international trade.
Chairman Dorgan, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your subcommittee
to appropriate the full $1.33 million request for fiscal year 2009 that will enable the
Army Corps of Engineers to complete construction of the Channel Deepening Project
in fiscal year 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this testimony for continued Congressional support of the Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los An-

13
geles. The Port has long valued the support of your subcommittee and its appreciation of the role the Port of Los Angeles plays in this countrys economic strength
and vitality.

14
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

OF

RECLAMATION

GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Dave Koland; I serve

as the general manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. This is a
request for a $102 million appropriation for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program/
Garrison Diversion Unit, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources, Department of the Interior. The mission of Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable,
high quality and affordable water supply to the areas of need in North Dakota. Over
77 percent of our State residents live within the boundaries of the district.
The Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget request was pitifully inadequate in meeting the commitments the Federal Government has made to North Dakota. In return
for accepting a permanent flood on 500,000 acres of prime North Dakota river valley, the Federal Government promised the State and tribes that they would be compensated as the dams were built. The dams were completed over 50 years ago and
still we wait for the promised compensation. At the rate of payment the Presidents
budget proposes, the Federal Government will not even stay current with the indexing applied by law on their commitment to North Dakota.
The Municipal Rural & Industrial (MR&I) program was started in 1986 after the
Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) was reformulated from a million-acre irrigation
project into a multipurpose project with emphasis on the development and delivery
of municipal and rural water supplies. The statewide MR&I program has focused
on providing grant funds for water systems that provide water service to previously
unserved areas of the State. The State has followed a policy of developing a network
of regional water systems throughout the State.
NORTH DAKOTAS SUCCESS STORY

Rural water systems are being constructed using a unique blend of local expertise,
State financing, rural development loans and MR&I grant funds to provide an affordable rate structure; and the expertise of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to
deal with design and environmental issues. The projects are successful because they
are driven by a local need to solve a water quantity or quality problem. The solution
to the local problem is devised by the community being affected by the problem. The
early, local buy-in helps propel the project through the tortuous pre-construction
stages.
The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the willingness of North
Dakotas rural residents to pay water rates well above the rates EPA considers affordable. The EPA Economic Guidance Workbook states that rates greater than 1.5
percent of the median household income (MHI) are not only unaffordable, but also
may be unreasonable.
The average monthly bill on a rural water system for 6,000 gallons of water is
currently $59.21. The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to astronomical
levels without the 75 percent grant dollars provided by the MR&I program. For instance, current rates would have to average a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or
a whopping 3.8 percent of the MHI. Rates would have ranged as high as $190.80/
month or a prohibitive 5.3 percent of MHI without the assistance of the MR&I program.
BUDGET IMPACTS ON GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT

Let me begin by reviewing the various elements within the current budget request
and then discuss the impacts that the current level of funding will have on the program.
The Presidents budget request for fiscal year 2009 is $22.11 million. This year,
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is asking Congress to appropriate a total
of $102 million for the GDU. Attachment 1 is a breakdown of the elements in Garrison Diversions request. To discuss this in more detail, I must first explain that the
GDU budget consists of several different program items. For ease of discussion, I
would like to simplify the breakdown into three major categories. The first I would
call the base operations portion of the budget request. This amount is nominally $18
million annually. However, as more Indian MR&I projects are completed, the operation and maintenance costs for these projects will increase and create a need that
will need to be addressed.
The second category of the budget is the MR&I program. This consists of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 authorized

15
an additional $200 million for each of these MR&I programs. It is our intent that
each program reaches the conclusion of the funding authorization at the same time.
We believe this is only fair and have worked with the tribes toward this goal.
The MR&I program consists of a number of projects that are independent of one
another. They are generally in the $20 million category. Some are, of course, smaller
and others somewhat larger; one that is considerably larger at $150 million is the
Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS). The first phase of that project is
under construction. Several other projects have been approved for future funding
and numerous projects on the reservations are ready to begin construction. These
requests will all compete with one another for funding. It will be a delicate challenge to balance these projects. Nevertheless, we believe that once a project is started, it needs to be pursued vigorously to completion. If it is not, we simply run the
cost up and increase the risk of incompatibility among the working parts.
The third category of the budget is the Red River Valley Water Supply Project
(RRVWSP) construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 authorized
$200 million for the construction of facilities to meet the water quality and quantity
needs of the Red River Valley communities. Over 42 percent of North Dakotas citizens rely on the drought-prone Red River of the North as their primary or sole
source of water. It is my belief that the final plans and authorizations could be expected in approximately 2 to 3 years. This will create a need for greater construction
funding.
This major project, once started, should also be pursued vigorously to completion.
The reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and relate to good engineering
and construction management. Although difficult to predict at this time, it is reasonable to plan that the RRVWSP features, once started, should be completed in approximately 3 years. This creates the need for additional funding of $30 million/year
starting in fiscal year 2011.
Using these two projects as examples frames the argument for a steadily increasing budget. There is a need to accelerate the MR&I program now to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and then to accommodate the need for additional
construction funds when the RRVWSP construction is underway.
It is simply good management to blend these needs to avoid drastic hills and valleys in the budget requests. By accelerating the construction of NAWS and tribal
projects which are ready for construction during the next few years, some of the
pressure will be off when the RRVWSP construction funding is needed. A smoother,
more efficient construction funding program over time will be the result.
It began with a $67 million budget in fiscal year 2008 and needs to gradually
build to about $200 million when the RRVWSP construction could be in full swing
(fiscal year 2011). Mr. Chairman, this is why we have supported a budget resolution
that recognizes that a robust increase in the budget allocation is needed for the Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources Account in fiscal year 2009.
The Bureau of Reclamation, Rural Development, Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District, North Dakota State Water Commission and local rural water districts have
formed a formidable alliance to deal with the lack of a high quality, reliable water
source throughout much of North Dakota. This cost-effective partnership of local
control, state-wide guidance and Federal support has provided safe, clean, potable
water to hundreds of communities and thousands of homes across North Dakota.
ATTACHMENT 1.GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT (GDU)

Justification for $102 million appropriation fiscal year 2009

North Dakotas Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) water supply program
funds construction projects State-wide under the joint administration of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (GDCD) and the State Water Commission
(SWC).
Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS) is under construction after 18
years of study and diplomatic delay. Construction costs are estimated to be $150
million.
Indian MR&I programs on four reservations are also under construction. Tribal
and State leaders have agreed to split the MR&I allocation on a 50/50 basis.
The SWC has advanced the MR&I program $21 million to allow construction to
continue on several critical projects. One project is the $85 million South Central
Regional Water District system currently under construction.

16
[In millions of dollars]
Amount

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INDIAN MR&I SYSTEMS AND JAMESTOWN DAM (Provides for the O&M of the
Tribal water systems and the Jamestown Dam.) .......................................................................................................
BREAKDOWN OF $96.39 MILLION CONSTRUCTION REQUEST:
Operation and Maintenance of existing GDU system (Provides for the O&M of the Snake Creek Pumping
Plant, McClusky and New Rockford Canals.) .....................................................................................................
Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust (Provides for O&M of Arrowwood, Audubon, Kraft Slough, Lonetree and Canalside Lands.) ................................................................................................................................
Red River Valley Water Supply (Provides for the work on the RRVWSP.) ..............................................................
Indian and non-Indian MR&I (Provides funding for the State and tribal MR&I programs. Funding is split
50/50 between the two programs.) ....................................................................................................................
Oakes Test Area and Miscellaneous (Provides for the O&M of the Oakes Test Area, Recreation Facilities, work
for 28K unidentified acres.) ...............................................................................................................................
Standing Rock Irrigation (Provides for development on Standing Rock Reservation.) .........................................
Total for Construction .........................................................................................................................................
Grand Total ................................................................................................................................................

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL

OF ARIZONA

5.61

5.24
3.96
0.22
84.00
1.09
1.88
96.39
102.00

DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION

The Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDA) is pleased to

present written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2009 proposed budgets for the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Western Area Power Administration
(Western).
IEDA is an Arizona nonprofit association whose 25 members and associate members receive water from the Colorado River directly or through the facilities of the
Central Arizona Project (CAP) and purchase hydropower from Federal facilities on
the Colorado River either directly from Western or, in the case of the Boulder Canyon Project, from the Arizona Power Authority, the State agency that markets Arizonas share of power from Hoover Dam. IEDA was founded in 1962 and continues
to represent water and power interests of Arizona political subdivisions and their
consumers.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

IEDA has reviewed the testimony submitted by Susan Bitter Smith, the President
of the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), the Arizona three-county special district charged with operation of the
CAP. We support that testimony and urge the subcommittee to actively consider the
suggestions made by President Smith. We are especially mindful that the Yuma
Desalting Plant continues to remain underfunded and therefore not able to conduct
the water conservation, water quality and water supply mission for which it was
designed. The Yuma Desalting Plant is an integral element of the problem solving
mechanisms being put in place for the Colorado River and especially the Lower Colorado River. Problem solving on the Lower Colorado River will be substantially impaired as long as the plant remains idle.
We also wish to call to the subcommittees attention the issue concerning increased security costs at Reclamation facilities post-9/11. Legislation is pending before Congress addressing that issue and a budget approved for Reclamation for fiscal year 2009 should reflect the possibility that this legislation will become law and
affect Reclamation operations in the next fiscal year.
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

IEDA has reviewed the testimony submitted by Westerns administrator, Tim

Meeks. We note that both this subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee Water and Power Subcommittee have a concern, as did Administrator Meeks, over the $74 million shortfall in construction funding proposed
for fiscal year 2009. We believe this shortfall is irresponsible. Western has over
15,000 miles of transmission line for which it is responsible. It has on the order of
14,000 megawatts of generation being considered for construction that would depend
on that Federal network. The existing transmission facilities cannot handle all of
these proposals yet the region is projected, by all utilities operating in the region,

17
to be short of available generation in the 10-year planning window utilities, including Western, use.
Moreover, the $1,881,000 proposed for appropriation in this category cannot come
even close to keeping existing transmission construction going. Repairs and replacements will have to be postponed and, considerable hardships to local utilities that
depend on the Federal network are bound to occur. In Westerns Desert Southwest
Region, our region, over $20 million in work necessary just to maintain system reliability will have to be postponed.
We would be the first to support additional customer financing of Federal facilities and expenses through the Contributed Funds Act authority under Reclamation
law that is available to Western. However, programs utilizing non-Federal capital
formation require years to develop. One such program being proposed by the Arizona Power Authority in a partnership with Western has been stuck in bureaucratic
red tape at the Department of Energy for over 2 years. There is no way that Western customers can develop contracts, have them reviewed, gain approval of these
contracts from Western and their governing bodies, find financing on Wall Street
and have monies available for the next fiscal year. It is just impossible.
There are impediments to using existing Federal laws in facilitating non-Federal
financing of Federal facilities and repairs to Federal facilities and Congress should
examine them. But dropping this bomb on us 9 months before the beginning of the
fiscal year, when there just is not the time necessary to develop alternative capital
formation, is bad public policy and should not be countenanced. We urge the subcommittee to restore a reasonable amount of construction funding to Western so it
can continue to do its job in keeping its transmission systems functioning and completing the tasks that it has in the pipeline that are critical to its customers
throughout the West.
CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. If we can provide
any additional information or be of any other service to the subcommittee, please
do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, WEST
RIVER/LYMAN JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM, ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM, AND
THE LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM
MNI WICONI PROJECT

Fiscal Year 2009 Request

The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request appropriations of
$38.378 million for construction ($28.196 million) and operation and maintenance
(OMR) activities ($10.182 million) for fiscal year 2009:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year 2009
Request

Construction .........................................................................................................................................................
OMR ......................................................................................................................................................................

28.196
10.182

Total ........................................................................................................................................................

38.378

Construction Funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
Project Area

Amount

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:

Core .............................................................................................................................................................
Distribution ..................................................................................................................................................
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS ..............................................................................................................................
Rosebud RWS .......................................................................................................................................................

$1,115,000
14,775,000
5,133,000
7,173,000

Total ........................................................................................................................................................

28,196,000

As shown in the table below, the project will be 81 percent complete at the end
of fiscal year 2008. Construction funds remaining to be spent after fiscal year 2008

18
will total $87.691 million within the current authorization (in October 2007 dollars).
Extension of the project authorization from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013
was accomplished by Public Law 110161. Additional administrative and overhead
costs of extending the project, additional construction costs, and accelerated inflation over the next 5 years are expected to increase project costs to $137.167 million
after fiscal year 2008.
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct. 2007 dollars) .....................................................................................
Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2008 ...........................................................................................
Percent Spent through Fiscal Year 2008 ............................................................................................................
Amount Remaining After 2008:
Total Authorized (Oct. 2007 dollars) ..........................................................................................................
Overhead Adjustment for Extension to Fiscal Year 2013 and Other .........................................................
Adjustment for Annual Inflation .................................................................................................................
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2013; Public Law 110161) .....................................................
Years to Complete ................................................................................................................................................
Average Annual Required for Finish ....................................................................................................................

$451,707,000
$364,016,000
80.59
$87,691,000
$109,851,000
$137,167,000
2013
5
$27,433,000

Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 7.89 percent for pipelines. Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed (see chart below). Assuming
an average 7.89 percent inflation in construction costs in the remaining 5 years to
complete the project, average funding of $27.433 million is required. The Presidents
budget of $16.24 million is grossly inadequate, departs significantly from recent
budgets and threatens an undetermined delay in completing the project by 2013, the
new date established by Congress in Public Law 110161 last year.

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS)

Core System
The funding request will provide $1,115,000 for the OSRWSS core system. These
funds will complete the projects transmission system that serves all sub-projects
managed by separate entities, including the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud
Indian Reservation, Lower Brule Indian Reservation and the 8-county service area
of West River/Lyman-Jones. Funds will be used to connect the northern portion with
the southern portion of the transmission system and permit water delivery in either
direction to accommodate a shutdown in the western part of the water transmission
system.

19
The completion of the OSRWSS core system is an historic milestone and permits
greater focus in the remaining years of the project authorization on completion of
the distribution systems.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has not received water from the OSRWSS core
system prior to fiscal year 2008. Over 40 percent of the projects population resides
on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Reservation public has awaited delivery
of project water from the Missouri River since 1994. Project funds in fiscal year
2009 will permit the completion of the on-Reservation transmission system between
the connection with the OSRWSS core system (see discussion above) and the community of Kyle in the central portion of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Delivery
of Missouri River water at this location will allow distribution to OSRWSS project
pipelines built earlier that serve the communities of Kyle, Sharps Corner, Rocky
Ford, Red Shirt, Manderson, Evergreen and Porcupine and the large number of
rural homes between the communities along these pipelines.
The fiscal year 2009 request also funds additional on-Reservation transmission
system that will advance the delivery of Missouri River water toward the largest
community on the Reservation, Pine Ridge Village. Connection to Pine Ridge Village
is scheduled in fiscal year 2010. The request will connect the transmission system
from Porcupine Butte to the community of Wounded Knee and serve rural homes
south of Manderson. The request will fund an additional transmission system beyond Pine Ridge Village toward the community of Oglala and will connect with
OSRWSS pipelines built in the early years of the project.
As set forth above, the focus on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in fiscal year
2009 is to construct the transmission system that serves as the backbone of the
project on the Reservation. This distribution system is now reliant upon groundwater exclusively. Groundwater will be retained where adequate and safe. Missouri
River water will serve as a backup to groundwater supplies and as the sole supply
in areas where groundwater is deficient.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of other sponsors.
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System
Priority projects for the WR/LJ system include the Powell Area Project, service
to new members within the system and distribution system storage. The Powell
area, from Midland to Philip and from the Bad River to the Elbon service area, continues to be impacted by drought conditions that have persisted since 2001. Powell
area users have patiently waited as the OSRWSS North Core pipeline was constructed through their area. With its completion their project area has a supply
source from which distribution lines can be constructed.
Projects in the Reliance area and Eastern Mellette County were constructed with
emphasis on pipeline. Needed storage structures were deferred until additional
funds were made available. Water use has increased each year since completion of
these projects. Providing storage within those service areas increases system capability to meet peak demands and improves system reliability.
The WR/LJ system receives new requests for service in completed project areas
as stock ponds and wells go dry and as people move into those areas. Further additions are required as existing members request added connections to serve livestock
in other locations. These additions are a demonstration of the need for this important project.
Rosebud Rural Water System (Sicangu Mni Wiconi)
In fiscal year 2009 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe will complete the necessary infrastructure to supply surface water to portions of Todd County, which will reduce the
need for summertime water restrictions that have resulted from overextending the
interim groundwater supply. Work began on this series of projects in the summer
of 2007 and the primary pipeline and pump stations will be completed in the summer of 2008. The receiving reservoir at the end of this pipeline is partially funded
with fiscal year 2008 funds as is the large diameter pipeline that will connect the
town of Mission and eastern Todd County to the surface water supply. However,
both of these projects require fiscal year 2009 funding for completion.
Two additional projects are also scheduled for 2009. Phase I of the Old Rosebud
project will replace corroded iron pipelines in the older portion of the Rosebud community with modern plastic pipe. This project is designed and ready to bid; however,
to reduce costs and improve effectiveness, it is being bid and managed in conjunction with a Bureau of Indian Affairs street replacement project and an Indian
Health Service sewer replacement project. Rural Development is also assisting with
funding for the sewer work. By completing water, sewer and street improvements
at the same time, the cost of excavation and reclamation for the water portion of

20
the work is significantly reduced. Upgrading water and sewer lines concurrently
with the paving project also prolongs the useful life of the new streets because the
new pavement will not need to be disturbed (and then patched) to repair water
main breaks.
The other major project scheduled for 2009 will serve the rapidly growing Sicangu
Village area. The existing wells and aquifer in this area are not capable of supplying
the growing demands. A pipeline will connect the community to the existing well
field several miles south of the town of Mission. Adequate capacity will be available
in that well field after the Mission area is connected to the surface water supply.
Other projects include a new well for the well field near St. Francis and the ongoing service line and connections installed by the tribal construction crew. The new
well near St. Francis is needed because two of the existing wells currently run 24
hours a day during periods of peak demand in summer months. The third existing
well does not have sufficient capacity to allow either of the two primary wells to
recover. The St. Francis well field also supplies the Spring Creek and Grass Mountain areas.
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Budget
The sponsors have and will continue to work with Reclamation to ensure that
their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain and replace (OMR) respective portions of the core and distribution systems. The sponsors will also continue
to manage OMR expenses in a manner ensuring that the limited funds can best be
balanced between construction and OMR. The project has been treating and delivering more water each year from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort
Pierre. Completion of significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted in
more deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for sufficient funds
to properly operate and maintain the functioning system throughout the project has
grown as the project has now reached 73 percent completion. The OMR budget must
be adequate to keep pace with the system that is placed in operation. The administrations request for fiscal year 2009 is $9.374 million less than the administrations
fiscal year 2008 request of $9.526 million despite the acknowledged increasing need
for OMR funds.
The supporting documentation for the Great Plains Region budget request
prioritizes the OMR of the Tribal features of Mni Wiconi. However, it should be
noted that the tribal features of Mni Wiconi do not participate in Reclamations Replacement, Additions and Extraordinary (RAX) program for which $9.8 million has
been requested by Reclamation for their non-tribal projects in the Great Plains Region. The tribal systems also have RAX needs.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully request
appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2009 in the amount of $10,182,000:
Project Area

OMR Amount

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:

Core .............................................................................................................................................................
Distribution ..................................................................................................................................................
Lower Brule ..........................................................................................................................................................
Rosebud RWS .......................................................................................................................................................
Reclamation .........................................................................................................................................................

$2,376,000
2,808,000
1,485,000
2,121,000
1,392,000

Total ........................................................................................................................................................

10,182,000

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NATIONAL CONGRESS

OF

AMERICAN INDIANS

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, we are pleased to

present testimony on the administrations fiscal year 2009 budget request for transportation energy and water development programs. We look forward to working
with this subcommittee to ensure that the critical programs and initiatives are
funded at levels that will ensure their long term effectiveness.
TRIBAL ENERGY ACCESS AND PRODUCTION

The lack of access to energy resources and to participation in the energy market
is still a persistent problem among Indian communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 14.2 percent of reservation homes lack access to electricity, compared

21
to the national average of less than 2 percent.1 When provided with innovative energy solutions, tribes are embracing them. For example, 350 Navajo Nation members recently began renting renewable energy units, which provide them with energy for the first time. Using wind technologies, members can power their televisions and a few lights. These improvements, while humble, can drastically improve the quality of life for Indian people.
TRIBAL WATER ACCESS AND RIGHTS

Water resources are, perhaps, the single most important natural resource that is
at risk for tribes. Climate change and population growth forecasts place a large burden on rivers and reservoirs, especially in the west, and tribes play a key role in
future management of these bodies of water. Tribes usually have priority water
rights, but typically have not exercised their full rights. As water demands grow,
more tribes will need to exercise their rights and work on developing water infrastructure for their communities. The current posture of requiring offsets in other
Department of Interior programs to fund water settlements and projects is potentially harmful to tribal programs, and other sources must be utilized.
Specific Tribal Appropriations Requests; Energy & WaterDepartment of Energy
Title VIndian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Grants.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109058) included Title VIndian Tribal
Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005, which authorized a competitive grant in the amount of $20 million from fiscal year 2006 to 2016 to assist
Indian tribes in energy education, research and development, planning and management needs; and to provide a loan guarantee program to any Indian tribes for energy development. These initiatives have yet to be funded and again are not included in the Presidents request budget for the Department of Energys fiscal year
2009.
NCAI recommends that the title V grants to Indian tribes be fully funded in
the amount of $20 million.
Weatherization Assistance Programs.The President proposed a significant decrease in funding for Indian programs in the Department of Energy. The administration proposes the elimination of the Weatherization Assistance Programs that
provides weatherization assistance grants to Indian tribes for low-income and rural
homes, and the training and technical assistance.
NCAI recommends that $22.7 million be made available in fiscal year 2009 for
the Weatherization Assistance Programs, the same amount appropriated for fiscal year 2008.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.The President requested a substantial decrease for tribal energy activities for fiscal year 2009, which would be
funded at $1 million compared with $5.9 million in fiscal year 2008. The President
also proposes no resources for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs,
which was authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 but has never been funded. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized this office to implement tribal energy
initiatives and funding opportunities for Indian energy development and tribes have
been fighting for even the most basic funding each year.
NCAI recommends that level funding of $5.9 million be made available for fiscal
year 2009 for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (OIEPP).
Renewable Energy Production Incentives.Another program proposed for termination in the fiscal year 2009 Presidents budget is the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), which provides financial incentive payments to publicly
owned utilities, not-for-profit electric cooperatives, and tribal governments and native corporations that own and operate qualifying facilities generating renewable energy. The justification for the elimination of REPI by the administration is the importance of this program has diminished over time due to reduced cost and competitiveness of renewable energy technology.
NCAI recommends that $8.5 million be made available for the renewable energy
and conservation programs and activities for fiscal year 2009.
Bureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior)
GeneralTribal Water Projects and Settlements.The Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) has a significant role in shaping the future of tribal water resources. Water
rights settlements are often funded through BOR, as well as negotiated and implemented. However, the process is cumbersome and very tenuous as funding is often
difficult to obtain. There are nearly 25 settlements nearing implementation that will
1 Energy Information Administration, Energy Use and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands, 2000.

22
need funding, and the current position of pushing it further down the timeline only
increases the price. The budget committee needs to raise the ceiling.
NCAI recommends that the Bureau of Reclamation prioritize funds for Indian
water projects and water rights settlements.
Reclamation Fund.Tribes passed a resolution at the 2007 Annual NCAI Conference (No. DEN 07069) that identifies the Reclamation Fund (Fund) as an appropriate vehicle for funding tribal water rights settlements. The Fund could be utilized
as the primary source for funding settlements, which is desperately needed. The
Fund was established in 1902 to fund water projects in the 17 western States, including on tribal lands. The Fund continues to have a growing balance, over $7 billion estimated in fiscal year 2007, with mineral development providing most of the
increase.
NCAI recommends that the BOR Reclamation Fund be utilized as a substantial
source for tribal water projects and settlements.
Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense)
Army Corps of Engineer projects can provide substantial opportunities for water
infrastructure development in Indian Country. Specifically, the Water Resources Development Act authorizes municipal water supply and wastewater treatment
projects. These projects are crucial for tribes, and funding needs to be increased to
tribal projects. In the earlier part of this century when Congress invested heavily
in Corps projects and WPA projects, Indian Country was often overlooked. Therefore, our infrastructure, particularly water infrastructure has usually never had
even the most basic investment.
NCAI recommends a minimum of 10 percent of the civil works projects that provide environmental infrastructure be set aside for tribal specific projects.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

CONSORTIUM

FOR

FOSSIL FUEL SCIENCE (CFFS)

PRODUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM COAL PLUS BIOMASS WITH REDUCED

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, we request $2,000,000 in

funding for a congressionally directed project in the budget of the Department of
Energy in the Fuels Program of the Office of Fossil Energy, to continue a program
of research to produce transportation fuels from coal plus biomass. This program,
which was recently initiated with a $750,000 contract from the U.S. Department of
Energy in fiscal year 2008, will focus on the conversion of coal plus waste biomass
into ultra-clean transportation fuels by gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
This approach has the potential to minimize the amount of carbon dioxide emitted
by the fuel conversion process to less than that produced by the production of similar transportation fuels from petroleum. Additionally, combustion of the biomass
component of the carbon during fuel utilization in vehicles or planes will be carbon
dioxide neutral.
Overview
Traditional petroleum-derived fuels will continue to dominate transportation by
vehicles and planes for at least the next 20 years. The United States currently imports over 10 million barrels of oil per day at a cost exceeding $470 billion/year,
most of it from unstable regions of the world. Not only is this the biggest item in
the U.S. trade deficit, it is also a serious threat to our national security. Increasing
global demand, coupled with an expected peaking in the world oil supply, will undoubtedly cause shortages and markedly increased prices, possibly deepening the
current economic recession and leading to more severe recessions in the future.
It is therefore essential that we begin to produce transportation fuels from our
own national resources, particularly our most abundant energy resource, coal. It is
equally essential, however, that we do so without harming the environment. The
Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science (CFFS), a research center of the University of
Kentucky, has formed an integrated team of fossil fuel scientists from five universities (University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, Auburn University, University of Utah, and University of Pittsburgh) to conduct a basic research program
focused on producing Fischer-Tropsch fuels using mixtures of coal and biomass as
the feedstock. We believe that costs can be reduced, a superior transportation fuel
can be produced, and carbon dioxide emissions can be minimized through such research.
The CFFS has extensive experience and broad expertise in research on the conversion of coal into clean liquid transportation fuels and the conversion of coal into
hydrogen. We have made significant breakthroughs in such areas as:

23
Catalysis of coal conversion reactions.
C1 chemistry processes, including Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, to produce
transportation fuels from coal-derived syngas.
Conversion of coal and waste materials, including plastic, rubber, and cellulose
(biomass) into high value oil products.
Development of novel processes to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels.
Environmental research focused on a number of pollutants derived from coal
(fine particulate matter (PM), toxic trace metals (arsenic, chromium, mercury,
etc.) and SOX).
We are now focusing on a research program to develop processes that use biomass
as a co-feed with coal for the production of clean transportation fuels with reduced
carbon emissions. In this program, lignocellulosic waste materials will be used because they are not food feedstocks. Wood wastes and agricultural wastes (sawdust,
bark, corn stover, etc.) will be emphasized because they reflect the lumber, paper,
and farming industries in the CFFS States.
Goals
Some of the research goals of the CFFS coal biomass program are summarized
below.
A pilot scale (330 lbs/hr) gasifier is under construction that will be used to gasify coal biomass feeds. It will be coupled with a supercritical fluid (SCF) F
T synthesis reactor.
Biomass feedstocks (lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, etc.) will be reformed in
supercritical water (SCW) to produce hydrogen for FT synthesis and fuel upgrading with no net carbon dioxide emissions.
Iron-alloy nanoparticle catalysts will be used to dehydrogenate gaseous alkanes
produced by FT synthesis, yielding pure hydrogen to recycle to the coal biomass syngas stream, raising its hydrogen content to avoid carbon dioxide emissions from the water-gas shift reaction.
A laboratory-scale fluid-bed gasifier will be designed and built to convert coal
biomass into syngas with an adjustable composition. Potassium and calcium
will be tested as catalysts.
Novel catalysts (dual function catalysts, metallic nanoparticles on carbon
nanotube supports, xerogels, etc.) will be developed for FT synthesis using
syngas typical of coal biomass.
Systems engineering modeling will be used to optimize fuels production from
coal biomass with regard to both economics and carbon dioxide emissions.
Summary
We request your support for $2,000,000 in funding for this program from the Fossil Energy budget for fiscal year 2009. This funding will be shared between the
CFFS universities to support the second year of a 3-year research program for the
production of liquid transportation fuels from coal and biomass. The CFFS will provide $500,000 in cost-sharing to support this important research on a topic that is
critical to both our States and our Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

OF THE

FOR

COAL

AND

ENERGY,

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Summary
The National Research Center for Coal and Energy submits this testimony in support of the Fossil Energy program and recommends the following modifications to
the administrations budget request:
Carbon Capture and Storage ($6 million for the Focus Area for Carbon Sequestration Science)
Fuels Program ($20 million for continuation of the coal, synthetic natural gas,
and coal-biomass liquid fuels programs)
Advanced Research ($10 million to initiate a Focus Area for Materials Science
and $5 million for the Focus Area for Computational Energy Science)
Innovations for Existing Plants ($10 million for criteria pollutants and water
programs)
Oil and Natural Gas Programs ($30 million to restore programs for small producers)
We recommend a dual program strategy to Congress which includes supporting
fundamental research for developing new concepts and also supporting larger scale
projects to prove out and hasten the deployment of advanced technologies. A robust

24
coal, oil, and natural gas research program is necessary if we are to meet our national energy needs.
Introduction
Coal will continue to play a leading role in electrical power generation in the
United States well into the future. Transforming coal into liquid fuels, synthetic
natural gas, and/or chemicals can help to reduce petroleum imports, bring associated positive effects on our international balance of payments, and preserve jobs in
this country. Concerns about the effect of greenhouse gases on global climate will
require reducing emissions of CO2 from all fossil fuel use. The successful deployment of cost-effective carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies will ensure
that America can continue to use its abundant domestic fossil fuel resources into
the future. Given the projected global use of coal and other fossil fuels, leadership
by the United States to implement low carbon emission technologies will set a positive example for the rest of the world. Deployment of U.S. owned low-carbon technologies would be an economic stimulus for developing new products that can be
sold in global markets.
Advanced low carbon fossil energy technologies will enable the world community
to meet pressing environmental challenges driven by growing economies as both established and emerging nations are faced with diminishing resources. We recommend strong congressional support for fossil energy research, development, and
technology deployment. We also call the subcommittees attention to the critical
shortage of energy technologists at all levels. We urge your support in particular
for basic research in fossil energy that supports academic programs under which we
can both develop breakthrough discoveries and also educate our future workforce of
scientists and engineers to meet the challenges which face the energy sector.
Carbon Capture and Storage
We recommend strong support for carbon storage research for injecting CO2 into
geologic formations. Given the variety of potential sinks, multiple projects are needed to prove out technologies such as injection into saline aquifers, depleted oil and
natural gas reservoirs, and coal seams. States like West Virginia offer possibilities
for demonstrating and deploying capture and storage technologies while offering opportunities for our States coal resources to help meet electrical demands of the East
Coast. We recommend congressional support for a diverse portfolio of investments
in the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) as the national center for
carbon management research. NETL should also expand its programs on developing
pre-and post-combustion CO2 capture technology. Continued support for the collaborative research program with NETL and the Zero Emissions Technology Center is
also recommended. Another promising area of research is to explore ways to utilize
CO2 in processes which do not require storage but result in useful products. In addition to supporting the base administration request, we recommend restoring the
Focus Area for Carbon Sequestration Science to its fiscal year 2007 level of $13 million ($6 million to administration request).
Fuels Program
The administration request for fuels research includes only $10 million for the development of hydrogen from coal. This program contributes to developing a national
hydrogen economy. However, the administration program should also support
projects which address the deployment of hydrogen technologies and the associated
critical infrastructure issues. We need to demonstrate to the general public that hydrogen (from coal) is both economically viable and safe.
We are also concerned that little attention is paid to developing transportation
fuels, synthetic natural gas, and/or chemicals from alternative energy sources such
as coal and coal-biomass blends. We recommend adding $20 million for continuation
of the fuels programs added by Congress in fiscal year 2008. These funds would permit investments in fuels research to support programs such as the Consortium for
Fossil Fuel Science and the Center for Advanced Separation Technology. These fundamental research programs educate coal chemistry and coal materials technologists
who will be needed in the energy industry of the future as our aging scientists and
engineers from the Synfuels Corporation era complete their careers. Other worthwhile investments which should be supported from these funds include the program
conducted by the United States and China under Annex II of the Fossil Energy Collaborative Research Protocol to study the development of large scale coal liquefaction/carbon sequestration plants in China. Of the increased funding recommended, $1 million should be designated to continue the China program. Modest
investments in the China program pay back big dividends in access to commercialscale results at a fraction of the cost of building such plants in the United States.

25
We support the position that CCS must be integrated with the fuel production aspects of coal conversion technologies. Fundamental programs of research conducted
with the additional funds recommended would develop new technologies that are
cost effective with respect to both fuels production and CO2 capture. Computational
modeling, especially for polygeneration systems, should be an integral part of the
work conducted under these programs.
Advanced Research
Materials Research.Advanced materials are needed in a variety of applications
such as ultra supercritical power plants, high temperature gas-fired and hydrogenfired turbines, sensor technology, catalysts for fuel conversion, high temperature
materials for fuel cells, and new processes for carbon capture. We recommend the
addition of $10 million to the Advanced Research account for the creation of a Focus
Area for Materials Research at NETL to develop advanced materials for energy applications.
Focus Area for Computational Energy Sciences.Advanced computing capability
enabled by newer, high speed computers and developments in computing science
permit modeling of energy systems in scale ranges from molecular interactions to
integrated operation of complex power plants. Given the high cost of testing and
building large scale energy systems, computational modeling offers inexpensive advantages to design energy systems which will/must be deployed in the future. We
are disappointed that the administration has again neglected this important area
of research and recommend additional funding of $5 million for this account for fiscal year 2009.
Innovations for Existing Plants Program
We support the request of the administration to provide increased funding to the
Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program for CCS technologies. We are concerned however, that the administration request neglects other important areas
such as particulate control, air toxics, combustion byproduct utilization, and research in technologies which minimize the use of water in energy systems. Continued research is needed in these areas in view of the new CAMR ruling calling for
more stringent studies on mercury emissions. National concerns have arisen about
the scarcity of water in many regions where electric power demands are increasing.
We recommend an additional $10 million for the IEP program for these applications.
Oil and Natural Gas Programs
The administration request zeros out funding for both the Oil and Natural Gas
programs again this year. The core oil and natural gas programs under Fossil Energy are specifically authorized in Public Law 10958 (EPAct 2005). This authorization includes programs such as the Stripper Well Consortium, the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, and the Enhanced Oil Recovery in Marginal Fields programs. All three of these programs are of major interest to areas such as Appalachia
where small producers do not have sufficient funding or expertise to conduct research to recover the valuable resources remaining in the ground. These programs
also support research which educates our geologists and petroleum engineers needed
in the future to produce our existing resources and to manage our carbon storage
programs for CO2. We recommend restoration of the Oil and Natural Gas program
at NETL to a level of $30 million, which is considerably less than Congress provided
in earlier times when we were not facing national economic challenges such as $118
per barrel oil and $4 dollar per gallon gasoline.
Thank you for considering our testimony.
NOTE.Specific recommendations for the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science ($2
million) were made in testimony submitted by Gerald Huffman. Roe-Hoan Yoon submitted testimony requesting support for the Center for Advanced Separations Technology ($3 million).
PREPARED STATEMENT

AMERICAN COUNCIL
ECONOMY (ACEEE)

OF THE

FOR AN

ENERGY-EFFICIENT

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency to increase economic
prosperity, enhance national security, and improve environmental quality. Founded
in 1980, we are a leading source of unbiased information and policy analysis on energy efficiency.
DOEs fiscal year 2009 budget request reflects a continuing decline in support for
important energy efficiency programs at a time when expanded support for energy
efficiency is needed more than ever to protect national energy security, save Amer-

26
ican jobs, control rising consumer bills, and stem air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions. For fiscal year 2009, the administration proposes to cut $204 million (29
percent) relative to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. In order to better address
many of Americas energy needs, we recommend that the subcommittee increase
funding for 11 especially high-priority programs for a total of $302 million above the
administrations request but only $71 million above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. These programs include several of DOEs most successful programs as well as
a few new programs authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA). Specific recommendations are described in the sections below.
BUILDINGS TECHNOLOGIES

Commercial Building Initiative.CBI is a major new initiative established in

EISA. The goal of the initiative is for all new commercial buildings to use zero energy on net by 2030 (i.e. they produce as much energy as they use) and all existing
buildings to meet the same goal by 2050. These are very large savings that can have
many positive impacts on the U.S. economy and environment. CBI combines research, development, and deployment, and will be run by DOE with input from an
industry consortium. We recommend that funding of at least $20 million be appropriated for this important new program, an increase of $7 million relative to the
Commercial Buildings Integration budget in DOEs request.
Lighting and Appliance Standards.DOE standards produce the greatest energy
savings of any DOE program. DOEs analysis estimates that 12 standards to date
have saved consumers about $25 billion, from a Federal investment of less than $10
million a year. DOE is under court order to complete many rulemakings that are
years behind schedule, and also needs additional funding to address requirements
added by EISA. The DOE request does not appear to address the new EISA requirements which include several new rulemakings, as well as new mandates to review
and update existing test procedures and standards every 6 to 8 years. In order to
address both old and new requirements, we recommend funding of $24 million for
the standards program, an increase of $4 million relative to the fiscal year 2009
budget request but an increase of only $2 million relative to the fiscal year 2008
appropriation. DOE should be permitted to spend a portion of this increase on staffing, as more DOE staff are needed to supervise increased contractor budgets made
possible by the fiscal year 2008 budget.
Building Codes, Energy Star, and Residential Building Integration.These are
three of the most important programs at DOE and all three received significant
funding increases in the fiscal year 2009 request. We support these increases.
Many States are interested in revising their building codes as part of efforts to
save energy and address climate change. The DOE codes program is an important source of funding for these efforts. DOE is also supporting efforts by
ASHRAE to reduce permitted energy use in its model commercial building code
by 30 percent.
The Energy Star program is probably the administrations most effective climate change response program. Increased funding will allow DOE to update existing specifications, expand the program to several new products, and actively
promote these specifications in regions without significant State or utility programs.
The Residential Building Integration program is the home of the Building
America program, a successful partnership with private firms that is developing
and promoting cost-effective design approaches for reducing energy use of new
homes by 40 percent or more.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES

The 2009 request would cut the Industrial Technologies Program by $2.3 million,
relative to fiscal year 2008, but much larger cuts in several very important programs are hidden in the budget details as is discussed below. The overall program
activities are divided into two broad groupings: industry specific and cross cutting.
We have identified several priorities in each of these areas.
Industrial Assessment Centers.The IAC is part of the cross-cutting program
budget. The IAC program helps small and medium industries identify and implement energy saving measures, while also helping to train the next generation of industrial energy engineers. The program operates centers at 31 universities nationwide and produces several hundred trained engineers annually while helping to reduce industrial energy use in small- and medium-sized facilities. This is one of
DOEs most effective programs, and is presently saving more than $1 billion per
year (including measures implemented in earlier years). The program should be substantially expanded in order to meet future needs for trained energy engineers

27
there is presently a shortage of skilled energy efficiency engineers. We recommend
that the program be restored to fiscal year 2006 funding levels of $6.435 million in
fiscal year 2009.
Industries of the Future (Specific).This program does cost-shared research with
industry at major research institutions. The program focuses on key, energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as steel, aluminum, wood products, glass and
metal casting. The most recent National Academy review found this to be among
the most successful of Federal R&D efforts.1 In spite of this success, the program
has seen its budget drop from $63 million in fiscal year 2002 to $11 million in fiscal
year 2008. DOE is proposing $11.4 million in fiscal year 2009, which may appear
to be level funding, but in reality represents a further cut since most of the research
funding is multi-year, and funding from earlier years is now no longer being replaced and the pipeline is running dry. In EISA, Congress authorized an expanded
Energy-Intensive Industries program (sec. 452), with an emphasis on industry-specific research in energy-intensive industries. This provision specifically authorized
the successful industry-focused program format that has proven effective because it
responds to the targeted needs of individual industries rather than to the more general and less focused topics covered under the cross-cutting program. To start implementing this new provision, we recommend fiscal year 2009 funding of at least $24.2
million (which was the appropriation in fiscal year 2006), an increase of $12.8 million relative to the budget request.
Distributed Energy (DE).Over the past decade these efforts have played a key
role in the development of high-efficiency clean technologies like combined heat and
power (CHP) and technologies to recycle waste energy. Over the past few years
these efforts have been shuffled between EERE and the Office of Electricity, and
the program has received no funding for the past year. For fiscal year 2008, Congress provided $14.5 million, but DOEs fiscal year 2009 request is for only $1.5 million. The program is now part of the cross-cutting effort in the Industry program.
We recommend the DE activities be funded at an overall level of no less than $20
million, an increase of $5.5 million relative to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.
Industries of the Future (Cross-Cutting).The remainder of the industrial program budget request falls within the category of cross-cutting programs. This includes the Industrial Assessment Centers and the Distributed Generation program
discussed above. In addition, this program includes Best Practices and cross-cutting
R&D, each of which we discus below.
Best Practices.The OMB request proposes to increase the best practices area
from $8.8 to $15.5 million, though this represents only a partial restoration of
funding that was $19.8 million in fiscal year 2007. This increased funding will
allow the expansion of the successful Save Energy Now program, one of the
most successful energy savings programs undertaken at the Federal level (e.g.
savings underway of approximately $288 million since program inception in
2006). We recommend that the program be funded at the requested level of
$15.5 million.
Cross Cutting RD&D.These activities are primarily for R&D on technologies
that benefit many industrial sectors, such as work on sensors and controls. In
addition, DOE is now proposing a number of new efforts in energy-intensive
process R&D, feed stock flexibility and nanomanufacturing, and expanding the
industry focus to include datacenters and food processing. While these are potentially worthy areas of efforts, DOE is essentially proposing to fund these efforts by further cuts to the successful industry-specific IOF efforts. In addition,
EPA has already been running a datacenter program for several years, and a
new DOE effort is potentially duplicative. If budgets are tight, funding for these
cross-cutting RD&D can be reduced to fiscal year 2008 levels in order to free
up funds for our higher priorities discussed above.
1 In 2005 the National Research Council reviewed DOEs Industrial Technology Program in
their report Decreasing Energy Intensity in Manufacturing. The study characterized the program (at that point) as being well-managed and effective. In particular they indicated that the
programs scope and depth of analysis and reporting are impressive. The ITP significantly
leverages its resources through a large and growing number of partnerships with industry, industry associations, and academic institutions. Unfortunately, funding has been dramatically
reduced since this evaluation, and a subsequent National Research Council report on DOE R&D,
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two)
(2007), noted with respect to Chemical Industry research activities the budget decreased to $9
million in fiscal year 2005 and $7 million in fiscal year 2006. There is a clearly apparent contradiction between the ambitious goals of the program and the dwindling resources available
to pursue them.

28
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

Despite the nominal increase of $8 million in the Vehicle Technologies Program

budget, proposed funding for this work has actually declined because elements of
the Hydrogen Technology budget have been moved into Vehicle Technologies. In fiscal year 2008, Vehicle and Hydrogen Technologies together received $424.1 million.
The fiscal year 2009 request cuts these combined budgets by $56.7 million. The proposed transferal, elimination or postponement of certain activities in the Hydrogen
Technology Program appears reasonable in many cases, and in particular begins to
rectify disproportionate allocations in prior years to hydrogen and fuel cells relative
to other vehicle and fuel technologies. However, given the great opportunities and
needs at present in the area of vehicle efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction, it
is imprudent to simply eliminate funds from this program, rather than transferring
some of the funds to underfunded areas in Vehicle Technologies. In the fiscal year
2009, DOE proposes to cut a variety of important vehicle programs: Hybrid Electric
Systems declines by $5.8 million (6 percent, net of the Technology Validation activity transferred from the Hydrogen Technology Program), Technology Integration by
$2.2 million (13 percent), Advanced Combustion loses $11 million (25 percent), Materials Technology loses $2.7 million (7 percent), and Fuels Technology loses $1.7
million (10 percent), relative to fiscal year 2008 appropriations. Also, funding for the
21st Century Truck Partnership declines in the budget proposal, for a total 40 percent reduction since fiscal year 2007. We recommend that some of these cuts be restored by adding $37 million to the fiscal year 2009 request, which is still a cut of
about $20 million relative to the combined fiscal year 2008 Vehicle and Hydrogen
budgets.
Hybrid Electric Systems.The proposed reduction in the Vehicle and Systems
Simulation and Testing activity relates in part to heavy vehicle systems optimization R&D, which warrants greater attention. We recommend that $7.1 million be
restored to Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing, bringing funding for this
activity back to $28.2 million. Furthermore, energy storage efforts need to be accelerated. We recommend that the Energy Storage R&D activity be funded at $59.5
million, an increase of $10 million above the proposed budget.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D.The explanation offered for the proposed
cut, namely that resources should go to R&D that has a higher potential for oil
savings is not persuasive given the considerable remaining opportunities in this
area for both light- and heavy-duty engines. We recommend that Combustion and
Emissions Control be funded at $38.8 million, restoring $10 million to this activity.
Materials Technology.Reaching DOEs stated goal of a 50 percent reduction in
the weight of body and chassis for a passenger vehicle will require a sustained effort, including continued exploration of high-risk concepts, as referenced in DOEs
budget explanation. We recommend funding of $30 million for Lightweight Materials Technology, which restores $2.9 million cut in the budget and adds a further
$7.7 million.
OTHER PRIORITIES

Weatherization Assistance Program.This program has steadily improved, and according to the last nationwide evaluation of the program, is reducing energy use in
participating homes by about 20 percent. DOE has proposed to eliminate this program, in order to save money. With the economy heading into a recession, this is
a particularly bad time to cut our countrys safety net. We recommend funding this
program at least at the fiscal year 2008 level of $227 million.
Energy Information Administration Energy Consumption Surveys.EIAs Energy
Consumption surveys are an important resource for energy analysis and energy program planning. These three surveys (residential, commercial and manufacturing)
are widely used and provide important information for accurate forecasting and
planning. Unfortunately, due to declining funding, sample sizes are smaller (making
regional data less precise) and the surveys are now every 4 years, instead of the
every 3 years called for in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. In fiscal year 2008, the
consumption surveys have a $3.6 million budget. We recommend that $2 million be
added to the EIA request in order to return to the every 3 year schedule, increase
sample sizes and speed up processing of surveys so they can be released more quickly.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT WORKING GROUP

The United States must successfully compete in todays global marketplace to provide opportunities for all of its citizens and future generations. Two of the major

29
issues affecting our competitiveness are the lack of energy security and our major
contributions to the global greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory. The first issue is economic and costs the U.S. taxpayers several billion USD daily. Additionally, innumerable jobs in industries that depend on reasonably priced and abundant fossil
feedstock continue to move offshore. The second is more subtle. Our GHG emissions
cost us in terms of international reputation and accelerate the adverse effects of
global climate change. We must become much more efficient in our use of energy,
but this step is not sufficient to address the critical issues to keep our economy
strong. We must aggressively pursue technological solutions that provide energy for
all sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner. One of the
technologies that can address both of these critical issues utilizes a proven energy
source, nuclear fission, for a broad range of applications beyond its traditional role
of generating electricity.
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project provides the basis for the
commercialization of this technology in the form of a new generation of advanced,
passively safe, modular nuclear plants that use High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) technology. This technology offers enhanced safety plus improved reliability, higher efficiency (requiring less fuel and cooling water), proliferation resistance, security and waste management capabilities. Further, at current and projected
natural gas prices and costs for CO2 management, the HTGR will be competitive
for a broad range of applications, including:
High efficiency electricity generation for small to medium markets, particularly
if suitable for cogeneration with water desalination or dry cooling;
High quality steam for use in heavy oil recovery, including tar sands, or the
broad range of process steam/cogeneration based industries;
High temperature process heat for industrial chemical and petrochemical facilities, preserving natural gas for feedstock; and
High temperature process heat for hydrogen production and cogeneration for
the petrochemical and refinery industries plus the clean conversion of coal to
liquid and gaseous fuels or the direct use of hydrogen transportation fuel in the
future.
Advanced HTGR plants can help improve U.S. industrial competitiveness, promote the utilization of indigenous coal and uranium, and eventually, our oil shale
resources. Their use will extend domestic oil and gas resources and preserve them
for feedstock for products that would otherwise be unattainable, thereby reducing
costs and risks associated with imported oil and natural gas.
The NGNP Project is essential to demonstrate the commercial potential of the
HTGR and support timely NRC Design Certification and commercialization. An industry based Consortium is being created to support the public/private partnership
with the Department of Energy to focus the development and deployment of the
NGNP and help provide the infrastructure for follow-on commercialization. A cost/
risk sharing model between the U.S. Government and industry will assure a new
commercialization phase for nuclear energy for production of process heat and cogeneration without carbon emissionsat the lowest costs and risks for the U.S. taxpayers.
With a balanced approach to risk management and timeliness to attract end-user
support, the recommended NGNP Project schedule targets startup of the demonstration plant in the 20182019 timeframe. Near-term priorities in support of this date
follow:
Establish reference design and baseline costs
Advance licensing strategy and pre-application program with the NRC
Advance critical-path enabling technology development and testing
Establish Public-Private Partnership and costs/risks sharing concept
Establish Project plan, vendor team and international cooperation frameworks
During the past year significant technical progress and milestones have been
achieved in the following key areas of the NGNP Project: preliminary design evaluations for the competing concepts, including trade-off studies to resolve critical issues
and establish technology development needs; licensing strategy development, technology development including fuel manufacturing process development and testing;
and, bounding cost estimates.
For fiscal year 2009, the NGNP Alliance recommends a NGNP Project budget of
$210 million (versus the DOE budget of $59.5 million) plus a $28 million budget for
the related Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (versus the DOE budget of $16 million). The
working group also recommends a budget of $10 million for NRC licensing and required R&D activities related to the NGNP Project. A licensing framework and a
process appropriate for the enhanced safety features of the HTGR is essential and
is a critical path to the deployment of the NGNP Project.

30
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
and the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (NYSDHCR)
welcome the opportunity to present this testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development, and look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure the most appropriate and effective Federal funding of essential programs and
operations. This testimony will address proposed funding of two Department of Energy programs which are issues of concern to NYSERDA, namely funding for the
West Valley Demonstration Project (West Valley, Project), identified for funding
from the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Program at $57 million, and the
State Energy Program (SEP), identified for funding at $59 million. In addition, this
testimony addresses one program of particular importance to NYSDHCR, the
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), funding for which was cut completely in
the Presidents proposed fiscal year 2009 budget proposal. NYSDHCR asks that
funding for this program be restored to at least fiscal year 2008 levels of $243 million.
WEST VALLEY

The State of New York and NYSERDA are extremely concerned about the proposed cut in Federal funding to the West Valley Demonstration Project, a radioactive waste cleanup project located near Buffalo, New York. The Presidents budget
for fiscal year 2009 would provide only $57 million for activities of the Department
of Energy at West Valley. The State strongly urges full funding of the West Valley
Demonstration Project at the level of $95 million.
Federal funding had been more than $100 million as recently as 2004, but had
been reduced to $75 million in recent years. The proposed cuts will result in lengthening the term of the cleanup and ultimately only increase the total project costs.
Moreover, as will be discussed below, important risk reduction work that has been
agreed upon between the State and Federal governments will not be funded in 2009
and as many as 50 trained workers will have to be laid off.
The Federal funding responsibility for this project was established in 1980, when
Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Public Law 96368.
The West Valley Demonstration Project Act directed the U.S. Department of Energy
to carry out a high-level radioactive waste (HLW) management demonstration
project at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York.
The WVDP Act directs the Department of Energy to:
Solidify the 600,000 gallons of liquid high-level radioactive waste.
Develop containers for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW.
Transport the solidified HLW to a Federal repository for permanent disposal.
Decontaminate and decommission:
the tanks and other facilities in which the HLW were stored,
the facilities used in carrying out solidification, and
the material and hardware used in connection with the Project.
Dispose of the low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste produced in
conducting the Project.
The West Valley Demonstration Project Act requires the Secretary of Energy to
enter into an agreement with New York State for carrying out the Project. Under
the requirements of the act, New York State pays 10 percent of the Project costs
and the Federal Government pays 90 percent, making New York the only State that
has contributed to the cleanup of HLW. New York State has provided approximately
$242 million toward completion of the Project to date.
Decontamination and decommissioning of the West Valley site is necessary to protect public health and safety. The Department of Energy has solidified the bulk of
the liquid high-level nuclear waste that was stored in underground tanks. A total
of 275 HLW glass-filled canisters are in storage at West Valley awaiting disposal
at the Federal repository. However, much cleanup work remains to be done on the
sites contaminated facilities and property, including the decommissioning of the
four underground HLW storage tanks, the Main Plant Process Building, an unlined
lagoon system, a radioactive groundwater contamination plume, and a radioactive
waste disposal area. The Department of Energy must also dispose of the low-level
waste, the transuranic waste, and the vitrified High-Level Waste.
Until recently, progress on significant aspects of the West Valley cleanup had
stalled. The Department of Energy ceased efforts to contain a radioactive groundwater plume and refused to take steps to halt the spread of liquids leaking from
a radioactive waste disposal area under its control. The Environmental Impact

31
Statement that is essential for decisions on the future of the cleanup was also
stalled. In the past year, there have been some substantial and encouraging changes
at West Valley. Agreements have been reached on steps to control the groundwater
plume and disposal area leaks, and the involved Federal and State agencies have
agreed on an approach to complete the Environmental Impact Statement.
Unfortunately, this progress is threatened by the lack of adequate funding. For
fiscal year 2009, Federal funding at about $95 million is necessary to continue decontamination work on the highly radioactive Main Plant Process Building, remove
liquid from the underground high-level radioactive waste tanks, mitigate radioactive
groundwater contamination that is spreading toward the Project boundary, and ship
waste for offsite disposal. In the absence of this level of funding, important work
to reduce risk from radioactive materials at the site will not get done this year and
up to 50 members of the highly trained workforce at the site will have to be laid
off. For each year that work is delayed, the time until completion and the total cost
of the Project are increased.
For the reasons stated above, New York State and NYSERDA request a restoration of funding for West Valley to $95 million to permit the important work at the
Project to continue at an optimal pace.
STATE ENERGY PROGRAM

The State of New York and NYSERDA are concerned about the proposed level of
Federal funding for the State Energy Program, at $59 million, and request that a
funding level of $75 million for fiscal year 2009 is provided to support this essential
program. This funding level request is made in support of the request of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), which is also submitted to the subcommittee. The $75 million level will help to restore a funding level for SEP which
has experienced significant cuts in program budgets in the past. As noted in both
the CONEG testimony, and by the Department of Energy itself, every Federal dollar
invested by the SEP returns $7.23 in energy cost savings. In addition, every Federal
dollar invested by the SEP also leverages $10.71 in State, local and private resources, providing significant additional economic benefit.
In New York, SEP program dollars are used by NYSERDA to support the deployment of various energy efficiency programs and services. NYSERDA leverages SEP
funds with the State ratepayer-supported System Benefits Charge and other private
sector funds. Most importantly, SEP provides essential funding for programs which
reach across the spectrum of fuel sectors, helps to fill program gaps, and expands
the reach of critical energy efficiency activities to customer sectors which may otherwise be limited from full program participation. In addition to reducing overall energy use in New York, the SEP supports activities that improve productivity, stimulate private investment, retain and create jobs, displace petroleum use, reduce electric peak load, and improve air quality, among other benefits.
Activities supported by SEP dollars include:
NYSERDAs award-winning Flexible Technical Assistance Program, which provides onsite energy engineering services through competitively retained energy
service providers.
Multifamily Residential energy efficiency program which provides energy audits, evaluations and access to loan fund dollars which reduces the cost to building owners to implement energy efficient technologies.
Agricultural Initiatives.
Green Building Projects.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure.
Industrial Improvements.
Expansion of the Home Energy Assistance Program heating oil purchasing program, providing participating low-income energy consumers with discounts on
heating oil purchases.
Obtaining an optimal level of SEP funding will help to ensure the continuation
of these critical program activities.
For the reasons stated above, New York State and NYSERDA request a restoration of funding for SEP to $75 million to permit the important energy efficiency programs in New York to continue and expand at a pace needed to meet energy consumer needs.
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) improves the energy efficiency of

low-income homes every year, helping to reduce the home energy bills of the Nations most vulnerable citizens by 25 percent or more. The New York State Division
of Housing and Community Renewal (NYSDHCR) is very concerned about President

32
Bushs decision to eliminate funding for the program for fiscal year 2009. If the
Presidents cut is sustained, the State program will lose $21.8 million. The State of
New York relies on this funding to help assist its low-income families. With oil
prices at record levels, and cuts to LIHEAP proposed, these cuts would be devastating to low-income families and seniors in New York. Currently, we have waiting lists for this assistance in excess of 18 months. NYSDHCR asks that Congress
work toward funding this program at its fully authorized level.
In conclusion, and as stated herein, NYSERDA and NYSDHCR respectfully requests that the Senate provide, for fiscal year 2009, $95 million for West Valley,
$75 million for SEP, and at least $243 million for WAP. NYSERDA and NYSDHCR
look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure that these program funding levels are provided to ensure that essential energy projects are maintained.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

BIOMASS ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

SUMMARY

This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2009 appropriations for biomass energy
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) conducted by the Department of
Energys (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Biomass
Program. This RD&D is funded by the Energy and Water Development bill and performed under the heading of Energy Supply and Conservation, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
BERA recommends a total appropriation of $275 million in fiscal year 2009 under
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D (Energy Supply and Energy Conservation),
exclusive of earmarks. This is an increase of about $50 million over the Department
of Energy request for fiscal year 2009 for this programmatic area.
We feel this increase is necessary to meet goals for production of fuels from cellulosic biomass as stipulated under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
of 2007. While the proposed DOE Bioenergy budget is an increase of $27 million
over the administrations fiscal year 2008 proposed budget, it reflects a decrease of
$49 million from the DOE Biomass Programs authorized level of (sec. 932) $274
million, and reducing funds available for important Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration Projects (sec. 932(d)). Technology demonstrations reduce technical and
economic risk and accelerate the potential for private investment. They are critical
for reaching goals for biofuels production for 2022 and beyond.
Specific lines items for the DOE biomass RD&D budget are as follows:
$20 million for Feedstock Infrastructure development (regional partnerships,
harvesting and storage technology)
$35 million for Biochemical Conversion Platform Technology (conversion of agricultural residues, wood, forest residues and perennial crops to various fuels)
$35 million for Thermochemical Conversion Platform Technology (conversion of
plants, oil crops, energy crops, wood and forest resources to oils, long chain hydrocarbons, or other fuels/intermediates)
$175 million for Integrated Biorefinery Technologies demonstrations
$10 million for Utilization of Platform Outputs: Bioproducts (chemicals and materials as co-products)
BACKGROUND

On behalf of BERAs members, we would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERAs Board of Directors for
the high-priority programs that we strongly urge be continued or started. BERA is
a non-profit association based in the Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982
by researchers and private organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education and research on the economic production of energy
and fuels from freshly harvested and waste biomass, and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept
Federal funding.
There is a growing realization in our country that we need to diversify our energy
supply, develop technologies to utilize indigenous and renewable resources, reduce
reliance on imported oil, and mitigate the impacts of energy on climate. Economic
growth is fueling increasing energy demand worldwide and placing considerable
pressure on already burdened energy supplies and the environment. The import of
oil and other fuels into the United States is growing steadily and shows no sign of
abating. Industry and consumers alike are faced with rapidly rising and volatile
costs for fossil fuels, especially petroleum and natural gas. A diversified, sustainable

33
energy supply is critical to meeting our energy challenges and maintaining a
healthy economy with a competitive edge in global markets.
Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to directly replace liquid
transportation fuels. It can also be used as a feedstock to supplement the production
of chemicals, plastics, and other materials that are now produced from crude oil. In
addition, gasification of biomass produces a syngas that can be utilized to supplement the natural gas supply and electricity from fossil fuels. Production of power
from biomass co-products for use in biorefinery processes greatly reduces the life
cycle carbon footprint of biofuels. Fuels, chemicals, and power are already being produced from biomass, but on a small scale compared to the potential markets. While
biomass will not solve all our energy challenges, it can certainly contribute to the
diversity of our supply, and do so in a sustainable way, while minimizing impacts
to the environment or climate.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created various incentives for diversifying our energy supply via the use of biofuels. In addition, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 put forth a mandate to increase use of alternative fuels for
transportation, with a substantial portion to come from cellulosic biomass. To meet
the ambitious goals of EISA will require aggressive support for RD&D to move technology forward and reduce technical and economic risk. Incentives are also needed
to accelerate commercialization and deployment.
BERA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. DOE BIOMASS RD&D

BERAs recommendations support a balanced program of RD&D, including

projects to develop and demonstrate advanced biochemical and thermochemical biomass conversion processes, a diverse slate of liquid transportation fuels, and co-production of fuels, chemicals, and power in integrated biorefineries. Our overarching
recommendations are to:
Invest in demonstration of technology (as progress is made) to reduce risk (e.g.,
through loan guarantees, cost-shared projects, other mechanisms) and encourage private sector investment and commercialization.
Explore a variety of fuels beyond ethanol, including green diesel, green gasoline,
jet fuels, algae diesel, pyrolysis oils, mixed alcohols, and others. Include fuels
that can be easily integrated into existing infrastructure, and revolutionary
fuels or feedstocks (algae). This will diversify options for different transport
markets that depend heavily on petroleum.
Fund a variety of conversion technologies, both biochemical and
thermochemical.
Integrate sustainability throughout RD&D to promote the use of biomass technologies that improve environmental performance and minimize impacts to
land, water and air.
BERAs recommendations for funding for DOE biomass RD&D are shown in Table
1 and outlined below. Note that recommended budgets for demonstration projects
do not include industry cost-share, which should be 50 percent or more.

TABLE 1.BIOMASS/BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D, ENERGY SUPPLY & CONSERVATION, EERE

[In millions of dollars]
Program Area

Description of RD&D

Feedstock Infrastructure .........

Regional feedstock partnerships, joint development of storage and harvesting technology.

Conversion of cellulosic biomassagricultural residues, wood/forest residues, perennial grasses.
Conversion of wood/forest residues to pyrolysis oils or syngas.
Developing/validating
biochemical
and
thermochemical conversion technologies in
integrated biorefineries (e.g., 932 projects)
and small scale biorefineries.
Co-production of chemicals and other products
from
biochemical
and
thermochemical output streams.

15.0

5.0

20.0

20.0

15.0

35.0

20.0

15.0

35.0

10.0

165.0

175.0

5.0

5.0

10.0

..........................................................................

70.0

205.0

275.0

Biochemical Conversion Platform R&D.

Thermochemical Conversion
Platform R&D.
Platform Outputs: Integrated
Biorefineries.

Platform Outputs: Bioproducts.

TOTAL .........................

R&D

Demonstration

Total

34
Feedstock Infrastructure.Continue support for regional feedstock partnerships to
ensure the optimal and sustainable production of feedstocks to meet demand on a
regional basis. The Departments of Energy and Agriculture, in partnership with the
Sun Grant Initiative universities and the members of the National Biomass State
and Regional Partnership, established the Regional Biomass Energy Feedstock Partnership. Funding should be continued for these important partnerships, as they will
help ensure that cost competitive biomass feedstocks are widely available in sufficient quantity and at an acceptable market cost. Increase funding for cost-shared
activities with USDA on critical harvesting, storage and transport technologies to
ensure a feedstock delivery infrastructure is available to meet the larger demand.
Platform Outputs: Support Development/Demonstration of Integrated Biorefineries.Activities should address promising biochemical and thermochemical processes in integrated biorefineries producing fuels, high-value products where possible,
and potentially heat and power to meet processing demands. A diversity of technologies and feedstocks should be considered, as well as new fuel options (green diesel, jet fuel, algae, etc.). The object is to improve process efficiency and reduce cost,
taking into consideration design, financing, permitting, environmental controls,
waste processing, and sustained operations; feedstock acquisition, transport, storage, and delivery; and storage and delivery of products to market.
Conversion: Fund Both Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion Platforms as
Foundations for Integrated Biorefineries.The biochemical and thermochemical
platforms are both important and could provide viable technologies for production
of fuels and chemicals. BERA urges that both be funded to accelerate the development and demonstration of large-scale, synergistic integrated biorefinery systems.
BERA urges that biochemical conversion research be funded at the amounts shown
in Table 1, and that thermochemical conversion R&D for biomass gasification, pyrolysis, and synthesis of alternate liquid fuels be given equal priority. Both should
focus on the use of cellulosic biomass, waste biomass, or novel concepts for feedstocks.
Platform Outputs: Invest in R&D to Develop Bioproducts That Enhance the Economic Viability of the Integrated Biorefinery.BERA urges that funding be provided
for R&D to enable economic production of commodity organic and high value chemicals as co-products in biorefineries. Biomass-derived fuels and chemicals combined
would increase the product slate and provide greater opportunity for reducing fossil
fuels consumption, while increasing the economic viability of the biorefinery. BERA
urges that this effort include research on sugar intermediates, but that it be expanded to include direct conversion of other intermediates (such as those derived
from gasification and pyrolysis) to fuels and commodity organic chemicals.
Reduce or Eliminate Earmarks.The level of earmarks in the last few years has
limited new initiatives and led to premature reductions of scheduled programs by
EERE. BERA respectfully asks the subcommittee to carefully consider the impacts
of all earmarks on EEREs biomass energy RD&D.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

CENTER

FOR

ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES

Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Domenici, and members of the subcommittee, I represent the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST),
which is a consortium of seven universities. I appreciate the opportunity to submit
this testimony requesting that your subcommittee add $3 million to the 2008 Fuels
Program budget, Fossil Energy Research and Development, U.S. Department of Energy, for advanced separations research. Research in Advanced Separations Technology Development is authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, title IX, subtitle
F, sec. 962. I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium:
Richard A. Bajura, West Virginia University; Peter H. Knudsen, Montana Tech of
the University of Montana; Rick Q. Honaker, University of Kentucky; Jan D. Miller,
University of Utah; Ibrahim H. Gundiler, New Mexico Tech; and Maurice C.
Fuerstenau, University of Nevada-Reno.
FUNDING REQUEST FOR CENTER FOR ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES

CAST was formed initially as a partnership between Virginia Tech and West Virginia University in 2001 to address the needs of the U.S. coal industry. In 2002,
five other universities (University of Kentucky, Montana Tech, University of Utah,
University of Nevada-Reno, and New Mexico Tech) joined to form a consortium,
with Virginia Tech as the lead institution. The objective of the consortium is to develop Advanced Separation Technologies that can be used to produce cleaner fuels
from domestic resources with minimal environmental impact.

35
PROPOSED WORK

The United States faces an energy crisis created by an imbalance between domestic supply and demand. While the United States makes up only 4.6 percent of the
worlds population, it consumes 24 percent of the worlds energy resources, 25 percent of the oil, and 44 percent of the motor gasoline, while its domestic energy production lags behind. As a result, the United States imported 30 percent of its energy
needs in 2006, a number expected to grow in the future. On the other hand, the
United States is fortunate to have large amounts of untapped energy resources
within its borders, which include 271 billion tons of recoverable coal, 2.6 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale, and 20 billion barrels of oil in oil sands. In addition, the United States has 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of methane deposited in
the form of hydrates in ocean floors and permafrost. The amount of energy deposited
as methane hydrates far exceeds the amounts of all fossil energy resources combined. The advanced separation technologies developed by CAST will be useful for
developing these resources in an environmentally acceptable manner and help the
United States achieve its energy independence.
A major concern in developing these domestic resources is the greenhouse gases
(GHG) emitted from the utilization of fossil energies, which account for 85 percent
of the total energy consumed in the United States. Therefore, the country is seeking
to increase energy efficiencies and develop renewable energies. However, the renewable energies account for only 7 percent of the total, including hydroelectric power
(2.9 percent), bio-fuels (0.8 percent) and others. Recognizing that the crux of the energy crisis lies in the shortages of transportation fuel liquids, the country is striving
to increase the production of bio-fuels. In 2005, the United States produced about
4 billion gallons; however, the United States consumed 180 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel combined in the same year. Thus, ethanol accounts for only a
small percentage of the transportation fuel need. According to a publication by the
National Academies, the energy from biomass will likely increase by 60 percent, and
those from wind, solar and other renewable resources are likely to nearly triple by
2030. But the net effect of all these activities will probably raise the total renewables from 7 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States to about 8
percent in 2030. Thus, the United States will have to rely on fossil energy resources
for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, the scientific debate on global warming seems to be over, and
the country is prepared to reduce CO2 emissions by legislation. But Congress recognizes that the United States cannot stop global warming single-handedly. Developing countries, such as China and India, should also participate in limiting their
own CO2 emissions. If the United States reduced the emissions unilaterally, the cost
of producing American goods would increase relative to those manufactured in countries without emission limits, resulting in the relocation of U.S. industry and manufacturing jobs.
It is projected that developing countries will account for more than three-quarters
of the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030, and these countries
overall shares in world emissions are expected to rise from 40 percent in 2005 to
nearly 55 percent by 2030. In 2006, China and India alone produced 3.1 billion tons
of coal, representing 46.2 percent of the world production, while the United States
produced 1.16 billion tons of coal accounting for 19.3 percent of the world production. In the near term, the major focus of these countries is on economic development and reducing poverty. Therefore, it would be desirable for the United States
to develop affordable clean coal technologies (CCT) that can be used in these countries.
A serious problem in China and India is that much of the coal is burned as mined
without cleaning, causing low thermal efficiencies. The thermal efficiencies for
power generation are 29 percent in these two countries as compared to 38 percent
in the United States. By improving the quality of coal used for power generation,
China can increase the efficiency to 33 percent and reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Currently, only 12 percent of the coal burned in China for electricity generation is cleaned coal. Thus, increased use of advanced coal cleaning technologies, representing the most affordable CCTs, should help China reduce CO2 emissions substantially. According to a recent IEA report, India could reduce CO2 emissions by
55 percent using state-of-the-art technologies relating to coal quality, boiler/generator design, instrumentation and control, and high voltage distribution systems. Unfortunately, much of the coals burned in India for power generation are of low quality, assaying 3542 percent ash.
It is, therefore, an objective of CAST research to develop advanced technologies
that can be used to separate various impurities such as ash, sulfur, and mercury
from coal so that they can be burned more cleanly and efficiently. The Chinese Gov-

36
ernment considers pre-combustion coal cleaning an important element in their strategy to increase energy supply and improve energy transportation systems, as
stressed in their plan to implement CCTs. Recently, India passed a law requiring
coals to be cleaned if they are to be transported more than 1,000 km.
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

Thanks to your support, CAST has become the world leader in developing advanced separation technologies for the coal industry. Many of the solid-solid and
solid-liquid separation technologies developed by CAST are marketed commercially
worldwide under license agreements. For example, the Microcel flotation technology
is used to remove ash, sulfur, mercury, and other impurities from coal in the United
States, Australia, and China. In addition, an advanced fine coal dewatering technology has been tested successfully in full-scale tests, and is marketed commercially.
More recently, another fine coal dewatering technology has been tested successfully
at pilot-scale and is expected to be commercialized before the end of this year. With
the commercialization of these advanced separation technologies, the U.S. coal industry will no longer have to discard fine coal due to the lack of appropriate separation technologies. These new technologies will help coal companies produce cleaner
solid fuels without causing environment damage.
The advanced separation technologies developed at CAST will soon be implemented in India. As part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate (APP) program, the U.S. Department of State (DoS) provided major funding
for CAST through a competitive solicitation process to implement advanced separation technologies in India. Also, CAST has submitted a proposal to Coal India Limited (CIL), which produces 86 percent of the coal in the country, to implement the
advanced fine coal beneficiation technologies developed by CAST in a demonstration
plant.
Some of the advanced separation technologies developed for cleaning coal have
cross-cutting applications. For example, the methods of separating fine particles are
used for producing potash (KCl) from previously unminable resources in New Mexico. For another, methods of separating coarse particles are used for producing phosphate fertilizers in Florida.
NEW INTITIATIVES

Coal is the most abundant energy resource the United States has, and it is difficult to displace it with renewable energy resources in a relatively short timeframe.
Therefore, it is imperative to develop methods of utilizing coal with minimal CO2
emissions. To meet this objective, it is proposed to develop advanced gas-gas separation methods which will have crosscutting applications for many ongoing programs
such as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), Innovation of Existing Plants,
Gasification, and Hydrogen from Coal.
During the course of studying the basic sciences involved in a solid-solid separation process (i.e., froth flotation), CAST has developed a new understanding of the
behavior of hydrophobic species in water. Based on both experimental and theoretical studies, it has been found that hydrophobic surfaces attract each other via
hydrophobic force, which originates from the tendency for water molecules to reorganize themselves around hydrophobic entities. These studies have lead to an improved understanding of how ice (or hydrate) is formed around hydrophobic molecules (e.g., methane on ocean floors), and why different gases (e.g., CO2, nitrogen,
and hydrogen) form hydrates under different conditions, which in turn provide a
basis for separating one type of gas from another.
It is, therefore, proposed to separate different types of gases from each other by
forming hydrates selectively. At present, cryogenic distillation is the only commercially viable method of separating oxygen and nitrogen, and this new method can
potentially reduce the cost of producing oxygen substantially. The same method can
also be used to separate other gases. For example, CO2 and nitrogen present in combustion gases can be readily separated from each other as shown by thermodynamic
calculations and in experiment. It is also found that the kinetics of hydrate formation and, hence, the separation process can be improved in the presence of appropriate additives. The gas-gas separation process based on selective hydrate formation can have higher capacity and lower cost than the methods of using membranes.
The new gas-gas separation method can also be used for producing ultra-pure hydrogen for fuel cell applications, which is a major objective of the Fuels Program.
The proposed research can also lead to the development of efficient methods of
extracting hydrates from permafrost and ocean floors, while, at the same time, allowing CO2 to be sequestered in place. The Blake Ridge deposit off the Carolina
shores alone has 1,300 Tcf of methane, which is about six-times larger than the

37
amount of the conventional natural gas resource in the United States. Thus, the
proposed work offers a new approach for separating gases for CCS and for the production of clean fuels such as methane and hydrogen from coal.
FUNDING REQUEST

It is requested that $3 million of research funding for CAST be added to the fiscal
year 2009 Fuels Program budget, Fossil Energy R&D, the U.S. Department of Energy. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop advanced technologies that can
be used to exploit domestic energy resources and help developing countries reduce
their CO2 emissions. In addition, the new gas-gas separations technologies to be developed at CAST will have crosscutting applications for a wide spectrum of the Fossil Energy R&D programs.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION (NMA)

NMA RECOMMENDATIONS

Department of Energy (DOE)

$156 million for the FutureGen project at Mattoon, Illinois; $382.7 million for
base coal research and development programs; $200 million for the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI); $38.5 billion for the loan guarantee office to support deployment of advanced coal technologies; and $7.5 million for DOEs participation in the
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Program.$180 million for the Regulatory Program. See the table
below for NMAs list of priority lock and dam projects and recommendations for levels of funding required for their completion. NMA opposes the Corps proposed concept of a new inland waterways lockage fee/tax to fund improvements to the Nations inland waterways system.
BACKGROUND

Office of Fossil Energy

NMA strongly supports: $156 million for the FutureGen project at Mattoon, Illinois and opposes the administrations proposal to cancel the project and use the
funding for smaller carbon, capture and sequestration projects. In addition, NMA
supports the $382.7 million in the administrations budget request for base coal research and development programs. However, NMA recommends that CCPI be funded at a level of $200 million, which would enable DOE to conduct a third solicitation
targeting advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide for sequestration.
While the NMA applauds the administrations commitment to accelerating research, development and deployment of technologies that will allow the management of carbon emissions at coal-fueled power plants, the NMA questions the efficacy of DOEs proposal to cancel the FutureGen project as originally configured. Tremendous progress has been made since the FutureGen project was announced in
2003 and the NMA urges the subcommittee to reject the administrations proposal
and to fund the FutureGen project as originally configured with the $156 million
requested.
Technological advancements achieved in the base coal research and demonstration
programs such as gasification, advanced turbines, and carbon sequestration, provide
the component technologies that will ultimately be integrated into the FutureGen
project as currently configured. NMA believes these programs should be funded at
a level of at least the Presidents request of $382.7 million. In addition, the advanced turbine program should be funded at $55 million instead of the requested
level of $28 million. The increase in funding for these and other programs will ensure the FutureGen project meets the intended goals outlined in the DOEs 2004
report to Congress, FutureGen, Integrated Sequestration and Hydrogen Research
IntiativeEnergy Independence through Carbon Sequestration and Hydrogen from
Coal.
The Coal Utilization Research Council and the Electric Power Research Institute
estimate that by 2025, combustion and gasification-based power generation options
can be available commerciallywith the ability to capture and sequester CO2at
a cost of electricity comparable to the cost of new power generation (with CO2 capture) today. This includes the current work on FutureGen. In order to achieve this

38
goal, a Federal investment of $10 billion through 2025 is necessary while the industry investment is expected to be $7 billion over that same time.
In addition, NMA recommends $3 million of funding for the Center for Advanced
Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of seven universities lead
by Virginia Tech. CAST has developed many advanced technologies that are used
in industry to produce cleaner fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner, while
some of them have crosscutting applications in the minerals industry. Further development of advanced separation technologies will help encourage developing countries, such as China and India, to deploy affordable clean coal technologies (ACCT)
and reduce CO2 emissions. Research in Advanced Separations is mandated by the
2005 Energy Policy Act, section 962.
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP)
NMA supports the administrations total request of $52 million for this partnership and specifically, the request of $7.5 million to fund the DOEs participation.
The APP will spur development of cutting edge technologies and practices that
support economic growth while reducing emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. It will result in expansion of market opportunities for U.S. mining and equipment companies and other U.S. businesses.
The APP, involving the United States, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan
and South Korea, is important for a number of reasons:
It Will Result in Real Emissions Reductions.With the participation by China
and India, APP is the only international agreement addressing rapid emissions
growth in the developing world, which is forecast to surpass emissions of industrialized nations in 2010. APP is a voluntary, technology-based approach to
emissions reduction geared towards future economic growth and energy security
and will be more effective than unrealistic mandates or treaties.
It Builds on Methane-to-Markets and Other Successful Programs That Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.The U.S. coal industry has captured and re-used
308 billion cubic feet of coal mine methanethe equivalent of removing 40 million automobiles per year from the roads. APP, working with the EPAs Methane-to-Markets program will use U.S. experience and expertise to accelerate
large-scale capture and recycling of methane in China and India.
It Helps Preserve Coal as an Important Energy Source.The United States,
China, India and Japan will be at the center of a significant rise in population,
economic activity and energy use in the next 50 years. Coal is essential to sustaining Americas competitiveness and vitality in a changing world, as it is in
China and India. APP supports improvements in efficiency in both coal mining
and use through the acceleration of clean coal technologies, industrial technology strategic planning and energy efficiency best practices.
It creates new markets for U.S. companies in the emerging economies of China
and India.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program.NMA supports the administrations request of $180 million
for administering the Corps Clean Water Act (CWA), section 404 permit program
and for implementing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The Corps Regulatory Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy since the
Corps currently authorizes approximately $200 billion of economic activity through
its regulatory program annually. NMA recommends that a portion of the Corps regulatory program funding be used for implementing the MOU issued on February 10,
2005, by the Corps, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), EPA and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The MOU encourages a coordinated review and processing of
surface coal mining applications requiring CWA section 404 permits.
The ability to plan and finance mining operations depends on the ability to obtain
CWA section 404 permits issued by the Corps within a predictable timeframe. In
this regard, the NMA appreciates the subcommittee including language in the fiscal
year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill directing the Corps to work with OSM to develop a more efficient process for expediting permit decisions associated with surface
coal mining operations; in addition to directing the Corps to dedicate sufficient personnel and financial resources needed to support an efficient permit review process.
Civil Works Programs.The NMA understands the Corps intends to provide Congress with a legislative proposal to replace the diesel fuel tax that has been in place
since 1986, with a lockage fee/tax that would more than double the taxes paid by
the towing industry. The coal industry ships approximately 185 million short tons
of coal annually on the inland waterways systems. Therefore, the increase in this
tax will ultimately be borne by the consumers of coal-fired electricity. NMA opposes
such a tax increase and urges Congress to reject this proposal and instead maintain

39
the current diesel fuel tax and change the Inland Waterways Trust Fund cost-sharing formula from 50/50 to 75/25 (Federal/non-Federal) to ensure predictable, consistent, and adequate funding for key inland waterways infrastructure projects.
Below is a table indicating NMAs fiscal year 2009 priority navigation projects.

NMA FISCAL YEAR 2009 PRIORITY NAVIGATION PROJECTS

Construction

Fiscal Year 2008

Enacted

Fiscal Year 2009

Request

Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dams Ohio River, OH/WV ..................................

Kentucky River Lock Addition, Tennessee River, KY ..................................
Marmet Lock and Dam, Kanawha River, WV ............................................
McAlpine Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY ..........................................
Locks and Dams 2, 3, 4, Monongahela River, PA ....................................
J.T. Myers Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY .........................................
Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/KY ............................................
Emsworth Dam, Ohio River, PA .................................................................
Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, KY/OH ..............................................

$905,000
51,168,000
29,520,000
44,280,000
69,175,000
984,000
102,336,000
42,312,000
........................

$1,000,000
22,330,000
9,000,000
6,270,000
40,806,000
........................
114,000,000
25,800,000
........................

NMA
Recommendations

$1,000,000
34,500,000
9,000,000
6,270,000
40,806,000
14,624,000
114,000,000
25,800,000
12,100,000

The National Mining Association (NMA) represents producers of over 80 percent

of the coal mined in the United States. Coal continues to be the most reliable and
affordable domestic fuel used to generate over 50 percent of the Nations electricity.
NMA members also include producers of uraniumthe basis for 20 percent of U.S.
electricity supply. NMA represents producers of metals and minerals that are critical to a modern economy and our national security. Finally, NMA includes manufacturers of processing equipment, mining machinery and supplies, transporters,
and engineering, consulting, and financial institutions serving the mining industry.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

INCREASE THE COMBUSTION BUDGET TO $4.2 MILLION IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 ENERGY
AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR DOE, EERE

Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Domenici, we write today because we are
concerned about the Department of Energy budget request for the Industrial Technologies Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget. In
particular, we are disappointed to see the essential elimination of the Combustion
program within the Crosscutting Industries of the Future area.
The combustion focus at the Department has been on development of next generation boiler technology, applicable to a variety of industrial processes, that is both
much more efficient and environmentally friendly than existing technology. The Gas
Technology Institute, Cleaver Brooks, a boiler manufacturer, and a number of gas
utilities have been working with the DOE, California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and others to develop next generation Super Boiler technology.
Developing a clean, efficient natural gas steam boiler will be a boon to the U.S.
economy. Increasing energy costs and stringent local emissions standards are two
reasons why Americas industrial facilities are re-locating overseas. With 31 percent
of industrial energy used for steam generation, widespread adoption of Super Boiler
technology can significantly reduce costs and emissions.
The Super Boiler system is 94 percent efficient compared to current technologies
which are around 80 percent efficient. This increase in efficiency will provide a 15
20 percent fuel savings, corresponding to a 1520 percent reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions, and a 90 percent reduction in NOX emissions. Technological development efforts for the coming year include fuel flexibility and the use of alternative
fuels for the boiler, scale up, extensive testing and improvements to the heat recovery system that will both further boost efficiency and reduce emissions.
We urge you to fund the DOE Combustion budget at $4.2 million in the fiscal year
2009 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Industrial Technologies Program, Industries of
the Future Crosscutting) for continued development and deployment on Super Boiler
technology.
Thank you for considering this request.

40
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE ALLIANCE FOR MATERIALS

EXCELLENCE (AMMEX)

MANUFACTURING

The Alliance for Materials Manufacturing Excellence (AMMEX) welcomes this opportunity to provide its input to the subcommittee on the proposed budget for fiscal
year 2009 for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) at the Department of Energy. AMMEX organizations include the basic materials manufacturing sector (aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting, steel) in the U.S. economy
along with several stakeholders in materials manufacturing, such as the NortheastMidwest Institute, the National Association of State Energy Officials and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. We are writing to urge Congress to
restore funding to the ITP to the level of $125 million and to restore the structure
of the program to one that emphasizes new process development in all six materials
industries as opposed to cross-cutting research.
This request would align the program with the authorized funding levels and intent of both section 452 (Energy Intensive Industries Program) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was signed into law on December 19,
2007, as well as the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Act of 2007, which
passed the House unanimously on October 22, 2007.
U.S. materials manufacturing continues to face challenges resulting from increased cost and decreased availability of traditional energy supply resources. These
challenges have stimulated innovation in the materials manufacturing sector in
order to create significant energy improvements and to diversify the energy supplies. While the innovations of the past have brought the materials manufacturing
sector a long way, the sector cannot go further without new innovations. In order
to do this, the materials manufacturing processes must be transformed, i.e. new
processes and new innovations must be developed which will use much less energy
and which will be able to utilize diverse forms of energy.
The member organizations of AMMEX have been partners with the Department
of Energys Industrial Technology Program since its inception. ITP is a true publicprivate partnership. DOE and materials manufacturers jointly fund cutting-edge research that addresses the needs of the Nation and materials manufacturers. All
projects have the shared goals of reducing energy consumption, reducing environmental impact, increasing competitive advantage of U.S. materials manufacturers,
and enhancing our national security. The program is unique because we select only
projects with dual benefitsa public benefit such as reduced emissions or petroleum use, justifying the Federal funding; and an industry benefit such as a more
efficient process, justifying the industrial funding. Substantial energy reductions
have occurred as shown below.

41

FIGURE 1.Materials Manufacturers have greatly reduced energy use since 1990
because of their co-investment with DOE
To accomplish these goals, the Federal Government and industry will need to embark upon a co-funded effort to broaden and accelerate inherently high-risk research, development, and deployment of new materials manufacturing processes
that utilize diverse energy sources. This effort will also allow the materials manufacturing sector to lessen dependence on natural gas and oil resources and conventional electricity sourcesthus benefiting consumers through contribution to a stable energy market.
Furthermore, it is critical to recognize the important contributions of ITP to efforts to combat climate change. The development of new technology is an extremely
important facet to dealing with climate change. Most, if not all AMMEX industries
have voluntarily reduced energy intensity by 25 percent since 1990 in partnerships
with DOE and only very small gains in energy use are still possible for todays processes [red area in above chart].
Most of the legislative options being considered to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases employ a target of at least a 50 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by
2050 over a 2000 baseline. It is important to acknowledge that achieving such a goal
with todays manufacturing processes will be very challenging. Thus, we are confronted with the ideal opportunity for ITP and AMMEX industriescollaboration to
accelerate the development and deployment of new, transformational technologies to
help our country reach its CO2 mitigation goals. We would argue there is not a more
appropriate public-private partnership than one focused on our environment. It is
the method of choice employed by our competitors in Europe and Asia.
The infrastructure already exists to create such a programonly a slight re-focusing of the ITP program and a return to historical budget levels is all that is needed
for the Federal Government and materials industries to embark upon a co-funded
effort to broaden and accelerate inherently high-risk research, development, and deployment of new materials manufacturing processes that utilize diverse energy
sources.
Consequently, our request for funding in fiscal year 2009 for ITP entails two
parts:
A return to a total program level of $125 million, bringing the funding amount
closer to the level authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007.
A re-structuring of the program so as to return to the structure that was so successful from 19902003a balanced portfolio of industry-specific research from
the point of view of research impact, i.e., that 50 percent or more of the funding

42
go to industry specific new process development [where the energy savings potential in industry is highest].
AMMEX members have identified their top new process development concepts
[not in priority order] which would be pursued at the funding levels and structure
defined above:
Aluminum
Improved, energy-efficient burners and furnaces for aluminum melting
Improved energy efficiency and recovery rates for recycling technologies
Chemicals
Development of alternative feedstocks for the chemical industry to reduce dependence on petroleum and natural gas derived feedstocks
Nano-manufacturing scale-up methodologies for key unit operations: synthesis,
separation, purification, stabilization, and assembly
Development of low-energy, low-capital membrane or hybrid separations technology
Glass
Complete development and deployment to multiple industries of Submerged
Combustion Melter
Waste Heat Recovery and Use as Electrical or Chemical Energy
Low Residence Time Glass Refining Technologies
Forest Products
Advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping
Gasification of Spent Pulping Liquors and Biomass Residuals
Metal Casting
Simulation of Dimensional Changes and Hot Tears
Engineered Coatings for Aluminum Pressure Dies
Developing a lightweight production cast aluminum metal matrix composite
alloy
Steel
Ironmaking by Molten Oxide Electrolysis
Ironmaking by Flash Smelting using Hydrogen
Demonstration of the Paired Straight Hearth Furnace Process
The United States also faces serious shortages in the science and engineering
manpower that is needed to keep Americas competitive edge in world markets
through technology innovation and timely application. From the Presidents recent
State of the Union Addresses to recent legislation passed by Congress, the Nation
is awakening to the need for a re-energizing of our commitment to technology education. Our proposal to the subcommittee is an effort to both rebuild Americas materials manufacturing industries and meet shared national energy and environmental goals.
On behalf of the AMMEX coalition, we thank you for the opportunity to submit
this statement. We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee as
you move forward on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations legislation for the Department of Energy.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN FOREST

AND

PAPER ASSOCIATION

AGENDA 2020 TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE

The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, a Special Project of the American Forest
& Paper Association (AF&PA) welcomes this opportunity to provide the subcommittee with our views on the industrys key public-private partnerships within
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and to urge increased
funding to adequately address industrys challenges in fiscal year 2009. The EERE
Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) and Office of Biomass Programs (OBP) provide vital funding for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of technologies that dramatically reduce the forest products industrys energy intensity and
transforms our industry into producers of carbon-neutral biofuelsthus addressing
strategic national needs associated with energy efficiency, energy security, diversified energy supply, and environmental performance. We recommend increasing the
industry specific funding for the forest products industry in ITP to $6 million. We
support the Presidents request for $225 million for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D in OBP and ask that the subcommittee work to maintain eligibility of

43
forest biorefineries in these programs and keep the appropriations unencumbered to
allow for full funding of competitive biomass systems and biorefinery RD&D grants.
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance is an industry-led partnership with government and academia that holds the promise of reinventing the forest products industry through innovation in processes, materials and markets. The collaborative, precompetitive research, development, and deployment supported through Agenda 2020
provide the foundation for new technology-driven business models that will enable
our industry to address market demands for materials from renewable sources,
while also contributing solutions to strategic national needs including energy reduction and sustainability. The technology approaches developed through Agenda 2020
are aligned to provide solutions to the competitive challenges faced by the U.S. forest products industry, which accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S.
manufacturing output, employs more than a million people, and ranks among the
top 10 manufacturing employers in 42 states with an estimated payroll exceeding
$50 billion.
As is the case with many U.S. manufacturing industries, we face serious domestic
and international challenges. Since early 1997, more than 145 pulp and paper mills
have closed in the United States, contributing to a loss of 86,000 jobs, or 40 percent
of our workforce. An additional 80,000 jobs have been lost in the wood products industry since 1997. New capacity growth is now taking place in other countries,
where forestry, labor, and environmental practices may not be as responsible as
those in the United States. Several drivers have heightened the need to develop new
energy efficiency technologies: the recent volatility of energy markets, especially for
natural gas; renewed national focus on climate change and environmental performance; and aging process infrastructure. Global competition, coupled with massive industry restructuring due to financial performance pressures from Wall Street, continue to hinder the ability of U.S. companies to make new investments. Each year
without new investments, new technologies and new revenue streams, we lose
ground to our overseas competitors.
Currently, energy is the third largest manufacturing cost for the forest and paper
industry at 18 percent for pulp and paper millsup from 12 percent just several
years ago. For some of our mills, the cost of energy is about to eclipse employee compensation.
Since 1994, the forest products industry has been one of DOEs Industries of the
Future, partnering with ITP through the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance in
RD&D that has yielded successful advances towards our national energy and environmental goals. Agenda 2020 stands as an example of successful industry-government collaboration to develop technologies that hold the promise of reinventing industry, while providing real solutions for strategic national energy needs. Every
Federal $1 spent on ITP saves $7.06 in annual energy costs and 1.3 million in annual source BTUs (2004 estimates). As recently as 2003, the ITP/Agenda 2020 portfolio included a total shared DOE and industry investment of almost $48 million,
with nearly 55 percent coming from direct project cost shares by industry.
Today, after several years of continuous and substantial cuts, the ITP/Agenda
2020 budget has been reduced by over 80 percent since fiscal year 2002. This undermines our progress in achieving crucial energy efficiencies at a time when energy
and response to climate change are major factors in the survival of the U.S. forest
products industry. Projects rescoped or cut in recent years due to budget shortfalls
resulted in a lost energy savings potential of 5 trillion BTUs/yr. Recent reductions
make us unable to pursue projects in key priority areas such as advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping, which represents a lost savings potential of 100
200 trillion BTUs/yr. In fiscal year 2009, a further funding reduction is proposed
and emphasis shifted from industry specific funding. Unfortunately, the types of
technologies that cross all industries are not those from which we can achieve the
maximum savings for energy and environmental emissions. Furthermore, the proposed funding of $1.448 million is barely sufficient to fund ongoing projects, let
alone address the high priority R&D needs specific to the forest products industry
that have been jointly identified by industry with the DOE.
This comes at a crucial time when the forest products industry, like many energyintensive industries, is facing unprecedented pressures due to the rising costs of energy and potential climate change mandates. Although we are nearly 60 percent
self-sufficient (using biomass), it is imperative that we seek solutions as diverse as
fuel switching, finding new energy sources, and options for reducing energy consumption. Thus we are in greater need than ever for the technology-based energy
efficiency solutions that could be provided through our Agenda 2020 partnership
with ITP. AF&PAs recommended ITP funding for forest products research ($6 million) would help our industry partially recover its capacity to develop and deploy
vital energy efficiency technologies. Restoring Agenda 2020 funding to pre-fiscal

44
year 2005 levels will not only help the competitive position of American industry,
but will also serve national strategic goals for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Second, the Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery (IFPB) is a key Agenda 2020
technology platform and a top technical and economic priority for our industry. The
objective is to develop and deploy core technologies that can be integrated into existing processing infrastructure, which would be transformed into geographically distributed production centers of renewable green bioenergy and bioproducts. This
can be done while co-producing existing product lines, creating higher skilled and
better paying jobs, strengthening rural communities, and opening new domestic and
international markets for U.S. forest products companies.
The IFPB technology has the potential to integrate agricultural wastes, agricultural producers, forest landowners, agricultural landowners, forest product producers, and the petrochemical industry to produce clean renewable bio-fuels to support our local economies and the Nation. Widespread application of this technology
would not only reduce the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, it would
also increase the viability of agricultural, forest products, and other industries that
use waste heat. It will create new high paying jobs, both direct and indirect, increasing tax revenue. From an energy perspective, the IFPB has the benefit of making
the forest products industry even more energy self-sufficient, serving the DOE strategic goal of reduced energy intensity in industry by reducing fossil energy consumption. In addition, the IFPB would permit the industry to become a producer of renewable, carbon-positive bioenergy and biofuels, contributing to DOE strategic goals
to dramatically reduce dependence on foreign oil and to create a new domestic bioindustry.
In light of these realities, AF&PA and Agenda 2020 also support the administrations announced $225 million budget initiative in fiscal year 2009 for biorefinery
research and demonstration in OBP. This initiative provides much needed funding
to advance core enabling IFPB technologies, as well as providing major capital costshare for commercial scale biorefinery demonstration. The forest products industry
is an ideal partner to develop and commercialize integrated biorefineries. We have
much of the infrastructure and expertisewood harvesting, transportation and storage, manufacturing and conversion infrastructure, waste handling and recovery
needed to achieve the goals of integrated biorefineries. By and large, they are located in rural communities where they can help realize important synergies between agricultural and forest-based feedstocks.
Recent estimates from Princeton University show significant potential for net environmental benefits of IFPBs, inclusive of offsetting other fossil fuel consumption
in the mill. The industrywide potential is to reduce nearly 100 million tons of carbon
emissions annually from IFPBs. The study also estimates the cumulative value of
savings due to reduced CO2, SO2, and NOX emissions is $6 million to $40 billion.
A core enabling technology for part of the IFPB is black liquor gasification (BLG),
which converts the by-product of the chemical pulping process into a synthetic gas.
The synthetic gas can subsequently be burned to directly produce clean, efficient energy, or converted to other fuels such as hydrogen, renewable transportation fuels,
and/or other high value chemicals. If fully developed and commercialized, a biorefinery based on BLG can produce up to 10 billion gallons of other renewable transportation fuels, and as much as 20,000 MW of biomass power.
However, private/public investments in RD&D are critical to bring IFPB technologies into full commercial use. Co-investment for RD&D can help mitigate the
technical risks (especially integration with capital-intensive, legacy infrastructure)
of early adopters of emerging IFPB technologies. Risk mitigation is an important
factor in achieving the benefits of IFPBs, especially for integrating biorefinery technologies with existing manufacturing infrastructure. Federal support through research funding and other investments, such as loan guarantees and tax credits, is
critical.
In order to achieve the promise of IFPB technologies for the industry and for the
Nation, we need greater stability and availability of funds provided through the
OBP budget. We urge the subcommittee to preserve the proposed $225 million funding of the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D program, so that there will be sufficient appropriations to fund biorefinery demonstration and commercialization
projects. We also urge the subcommittee to ensure that forest-based materials are
eligible for this and future biorefinery research and demonstration funding. Forestbased materials can sustainably produce enough biofuels to displace up to 10 percent of the countrys petroleum production. They are a vital feedstock for achieving
reduced dependence on foreign oil and facilitating bioindustries domestically and
should be included in programs for biomass and biorefinery RD&D.

45
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance appreciate the subcommittees interest in
ensuring sustained and adequate funding for RD&D partnerships and look forward
to working with you to advance industry and national interests.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE VISION2020 TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP, GLASS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, COPPER DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL COPPER ASSOCIATION, HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE, PUMP SYSTEMS MATTER,
AND THE VANADIUM PRODUCERS & RECLAIMERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that the subcommittee grant restoration
of appropriations funding in the fiscal year 2009 Department of Energy Appropriations bill to match the $190 million authorized for the Industrial Technology Program (ITP) within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Act of 2007.
The submitting coalition represents a broad range of energy intensive sectors including chemical and chemical allied industries, the copper industry including mining, producer and fabricating companies, organizations focused on hydraulic and
pump system technology, the domestic glass industry sectors including flat, container, fiber and specialty glass and the domestic vanadium producers and reclaiming companies. We believe that the Industrial Technologies Program is critical to
boost Federal and corporate R&D investments into novel applications that will help
move our industries towards higher energy efficiency.
Environmental quality, economic vitality and national security are all at risk due
to the inability of the United States to effectively conserve energy as the country
continues to grow and expand the national standard of living. Energy conservation
is now a national goal. While renewable energy processes are one part of the solution, undertaking energy efficiency is as necessary as ever before. Both President
Bush and the Congress have recognized that technology is the key to both energy
efficiency and renewable energy.
In the United States, industry accounts for over one-third of all energy consumption. Of that, the majority is consumed by several heavy industries including chemical, glass and metals production, aluminum, mining, petroleum refining, forest and
paper products, and supporting industries. These groups all consume high amounts
of energy per unit of production, making them a prime target for energy efficiency
efforts. In addition, the rising cost of energy has the potential to put these industries at a competitive disadvantage with other nations.
While the President and Congress have continually supported industrial energy
efficiency efforts, the funding provided has not matched the problem. Funding has
dropped from $175 million in fiscal year 2000 to $57 million in fiscal year 2007. The
House Committee on Science and Technology noted on September 25, 2007 that
these funding levels reflect a dramatic shift in priorities away from industrial efficiency R&D. Fortunately, Congress recognizes the need to increase funding levels
through its own authorization of $190 million in fiscal year 2008 for the Industrial
Technology Program.
The Industrial Technology Program (ITP) is a competitive, public-private partnership program which works to utilize research and development in cutting edge,
high-value cost sharing methods to improve the energy efficiency of Americas industrial sector. The ITP operates through coordinated research and development, validation, and dissemination of energy-efficiency technologies and operating practices.
ITP projects have already won dozens of R&D 100 Awards and have generated
over 150 patents on exciting new technologies. Dual use benefits for both public and
industrial uses are required by the ITP. Nearly 200 technologies have reached the
commercial market assisting over 13,000 U.S. manufacturing plants and leading to
$23 billion worth of energy savings.
All programs which are awarded competitive funding must meet the shared goal
of reducing energy consumption, reducing environmental impacts and increasing the
competitive advantage of U.S. material manufacturers. In addition, while cross-cutting technologies are valuable, the application of ITP technologies to individual industries is critical and needs to be strengthened with additional funding. It is in
this application at the factory level where the vast majority of the actual energy
savings and environmental protection will be recognized.
In order to fully recognize the potential benefits of the ITP, it is imperative that
Congress fully fund the ITP at the level of $190 million. This is the level seen as
necessary by the authorizing committees with jurisdiction and rightly so, given the
environmental benefits, national security needs for energy independence, and economic productivity gains which can be realized in energy efficiency efforts aimed at
the U.S. industrial sector. A national imperative focused on the ITP will help get
us there.

46
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

To the chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological Institutes perspective on fiscal year 2009
appropriations for geoscience programs within the subcommittees jurisdiction. The
Presidents budget request for Department of Energy (DOE) research programs provides no funding for oil and gas research and development (R&D), eliminates mandated direct spending of $50 million for unconventional onshore and ultra deep
water offshore natural gas R&D, includes a decimating cut to hydropower R&D and
does not fulfill some of the geothermal and carbon sequestration R&D funding authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Given the interest of the administration and Congress to reduce the Nations foreign oil dependence, reduce prices on fossil fuels and mitigate carbon emissions from
fossil fuels, it seems like an inopportune time to eliminate or under fund programs
that could help with these objectives. We hope that Congress will support wise investments for all energy resource programs and carbon sequestration R&D. AGI applauds the requested 18 percent increase for the largest supporter of physical
science research in the United States, DOEs Office of Science, and encourages the
subcommittees full support for this increase. We applaud the request of $30 million
for geothermal R&D and an increase of about $35 million for carbon sequestration
R&D, both of which partially fulfill the Energy Act of 2007. We ask for the subcommittees continued support for oil and gas, unconventional natural gas, geothermal, hydropower and carbon sequestration R&D so the Nation can develop a diverse portfolio of energy resources while enhancing carbon mitigation strategies to
secure clean, affordable and secure energy supplies for now and the future.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional associations that
represent more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other earth scientists.
The institute serves as a voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major
role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness
of the vital role that the geosciences play in societys use of resources and interaction with the environment.
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the
physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental
sciences, and computational science and, under the Presidents budget request,
would grow by about 15 percent from about $3.9 billion last year to $4.7 billion. AGI
asks that you support this much needed increase.
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program supports
fundamental research in focused areas of the natural sciences in order to expand
the scientific foundations for new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. BES also discovers knowledge and develops tools to strengthen national security.
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) would remain the largest program in the office
with an increase of 24 percent from $1.27 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $1.57 billion
in fiscal year 2009 in the Presidents request. Within the BES, Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences and Biosciences would receive a $75 million increase over their fiscal
year 2008 budget for a total of $297 million. The Geoscience program provides peerreviewed grants to universities and DOE national laboratories for fundamental
Earth science research in geochemistry, hydrology, rock mechanics, and geophysical
imaging. The $7.5 million increase specifically for the Geoscience research program
is focused on solid earth geophysics and geochemistry to understand the stability
and transformation of deep carbon sequestration, nanoscale geochemistry, chemical
imaging, experimental and theoretical studies of complex subsurface fluids and midscale instrumentation.
The Presidents request for the Office of Science only partially fulfills the carbon
sequestration R&D and large-scale demonstration project, which was authorized to
receive $240 million in fiscal year 2009 and the carbon sequestration universitybased R&D which was authorized to receive $10 million in fiscal year 2009. An additional $30 million is requested for carbon sequestration R&D and demonstration
within the Office of Fossil Energy to partially satisfy the wise investments called
for in the Energy Act of 2007. AGI requests that funding for carbon sequestration
R&D in the Office of Science and the Office of Fossil Energy be increased to fulfill
the intent of the Energy Act of 2007.

47
DOE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Within DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Presidents fiscal year
2009 budget request would cut funding by 27 percent or $467 million. We are concerned about the cuts to alternative energy R&D programs, in particular the reduction of more than 70 percent (a cut of almost $7 million) for hydropower R&D which
would decimate the program. A balanced portfolio of R&D across many promising
energy resources should be maintained with steady funding to help ensure energy
supplies in a changing world.
AGI applauds the $30 million requested for geothermal R&D and greatly appreciates previous support from Congress for this key alternative energy resource. The
geothermal research program within the Renewable Energy account, which funds
Earth science research in materials, geofluids, geochemistry, geophysics, rock properties, reservoir modeling, and seismic mapping, would receive an increase of 51
percent from fiscal year 2008 enacted levels only one year after the administration
slated the program for termination. The new funds for geothermal satisfy in part
an authorization in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which calls
for $90 million for geothermal R&D in fiscal year 2009.
DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

AGI urges you to take a critical look at the Department of Energys Fossil Energy
Research and Development (R&D) portfolio as you prepare to craft the fiscal year
2009 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Over the past 8 years,
Members of Congress have strongly emphasized the need for a responsible, diversified and comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. The growing global competition
for fossil fuels has led to a repeated and concerted request by Congress to ensure
the Nations energy security. On February 28, 2007 this subcommittee held a hearing on the 10-Year Energy Research and Development Outlook in which the Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso noted the Nations need for fossil fuels
over the next 30 years and the other expert witnesses noted the critical need to continue R&D on fossil fuels and all other energy resources. The Presidents proposal,
which provides no funding for oil and gas R&D, is short sighted and inconsistent
with congressional concerns and expert testimony presented to your subcommittee.
No funding for oil and gas R&D will hinder our ability to achieve energy stability
and security.
The research dollars spent by Fossil Energy R&D go primarily to universities,
State geological surveys and research consortia to address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and unconventional sources that are the future
of our natural gas supply. This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps
American businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the subcommittee to ensure a balanced and diversified energy research portfolio that does not ignore the Nations primary sources of energy, fossil fuels, for at least the next 30 years.
Todays domestic industry has independent producers at its core. With fewer and
fewer major producing companies and their concentration on adding more expensive
reserves from outside of the contiguous United States, it is the smaller independent
producers developing new technologies concentrated on our domestic resources.
However, without Federal contributions to basic research that drives innovation,
small producers cannot develop new technologies as fast, or as well, as they do
today. The program has produced many key successes among the typical short-term
(1 to 5 years) projects usually chosen by the DOE. And even failed projects have
proven beneficial, because theyve often resulted in redirection of effort toward more
practical exploration and production solutions.
In 2003, at the request of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the National
Academies released a report entitled Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?
Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. This report found that
Fossil Energy R&D was beneficial because the industry snapped up the new technologies created by the R&D program, developed other technologies that were waiting for market forces to bring about conditions favorable to commercializing them
and otherwise made new discoveries. In real dollars from 19862000 the Government invested $4.5 billion into Fossil Energy R&D. During that time, realized economic benefits totaled $7.4 billion. This program is not only paying for itself, it has
brought in $2.9 billion in revenue.
Unfortunately, despite this success, the Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget request continues the alarming reduction of energy R&D funding by eliminating all
funding for our primary energy resources, oil and gas. Federal funding for renewable, fossil and nuclear R&D has decreased dramatically from $5.5 billion in 1978

48
to $793 million in 2005 according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs. Such significant under-investment in energy R&D over many decades hinders progress on cost-effective and environmentally-sound exploration and extraction of raw energy resources and clean and
efficient development, production and use of energy products.
The Federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when it comes
to longer-range research with diversified benefits. In todays competitive markets,
the private sector focuses dwindling research dollars on shorter-term results in
highly applied areas such as technical services. In this context, DOEs support of
fossil energy research, where the focus is truly on research, is very significant in
magnitude and impact compared to that done in the private sector, where the focus
is mainly on development. Without more emphasis on research, we risk losing our
technological edge in the highly competitive global market place.
Perhaps one of the most promising areas of R&D for domestic oil supplies are in
the ultra deep waters where drilling is allowed in the Gulf of Mexico. The Energy
Policy Act of 2005, set aside $50 million annually from collected offshore royalties
for ultra deep water and other unconventional oil and gas R&D to support clean and
efficient exploration and extraction in the Gulf. The Presidents budget request
would repeal this program and provide no funding for ultra deep water and other
unconventional oil and gas R&D. AGI asks that you consider R&D spending or other
incentives to encourage the private sector to invest in clean and efficient technological advances to enhance our unconventional fossil fuel supply in offshore regions
where drilling is allowed and significant infrastructure already exists.
The research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve the efficiency
and productivity of the domestic energy industry. Continued research on fossil energy is critical to Americas future and should be a key component of any national
energy strategy. The societal benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as
economic and national security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of
the trade deficit. The Nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its principal
transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural gas is growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production not be allowed to prematurely decline
at a time when tremendous advances are being made in improving the technology
with which these resources are extracted. The recent spike in oil and natural gas
prices is a reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the face
of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are necessary to maintaining
our resource base and ensuring this countrys future energy security.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP SCIENCE
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, AND THE SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Dear Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici and members of the subcommittee, the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and
Soil Science Society of America (ASACSSASSSA) are pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2009.
For the Office of Science, ASACSSASSSA recommend a funding level of $4.722
billion, an 18 percent increase over fiscal year 2008 ($3.973 billion). For the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding level of
$1.843 billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2008. We recommend a funding
level of $6.094 billion, a 7 percent increase, for the Office of Environmental Management. Specifics for each of these and other budget areas follow below.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASACSSASSSA
are the largest life science professional societies in the United States dedicated to
the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASACSSASSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences through the publication of quality journals and
books, convening meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and
public information programs, providing scientific advice to inform public policy, and
promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy and crop and soil
sciences.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE

The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil
Science Society of America (ASACSSASSSA) understand the challenges the House
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for fiscal year 2009. We also recognize that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill has
many valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the subcommittee for

49
funding the DOE Office of Science in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations
bill at $3.973 billion. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 10958), the
Office of Science is authorized to receive $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2009. Congress
approved the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 11069), recognizing
that an investment in basic (discovery) scientific research is essential to providing
America the brainpower necessary to maintain a competitive advantage in the global economy and keep U.S. jobs from being shipped overseas. The Presidents request
of $4.722 billion is consistent with the America COMPETES Act, which authorizes
the doubling of the Office of Sciences budget over a 7-year period. Such an investment is needed to keep U.S. science and engineering at the forefront of global research and development in the biological sciences and geosciences, computing and
many other critical scientific fields. The Office of Science supports graduate students
and postdoctoral researchers early in their careers. Nearly one-third of its research
funding goes to support research at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide. Moreover, approximately half the users at Office of Science user facilities are
from colleges and universities, providing further support to their researchers. The
Office of Science also reaches out to Americas youth in grades K12 and their
teachers to help improve students knowledge of science and mathematics and their
understanding of global energy and environmental challenges. This recommended
funding level of $4.722 billion is critical to ensuring our future energy self-sufficiency and as a means to address major environmental challenges including global
climate change. Finally, a funding level of $4.722 billion will allow the Office of
Science to: maintain and strengthen DOEs core research programs at both the DOE
national laboratories and at universities; provide support for 1,000 of PhDs,
postdoctoral associates, and graduate students in fiscal year 2009; ensure maximum
utilization of DOE research facilities; allow the Office of Science to develop and construct the next-generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in scientific research; and enable DOE to continue to pursue the tremendous scientific opportunities outlined in the Office of Science Strategic Plan and in its 20 Year Scientific Facilities Plan.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Program is a multipurpose, scientific research effort that fosters and supports fundamental research to
expand the scientific foundations for new and improved energy technologies and for
understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. ASA
CSSASSSA support the Presidents fiscal year 2009 request of $1.568 billion, a 23
percent increase over fiscal year 2008, for BES. The portfolio of programs at BES
supports research in the natural sciences by focusing basic (discovery) research on,
among other disciplines, biosciences, chemistry and geosciences. Practically every
element of energy resources, production, conversion and waste mitigation is addressed in basic research supported by BES programs. Research in chemistry has
lead to the development of new solar photoconversion processes and new tools for
environmental remediation and waste management. Research in geosciences leads
to advanced monitoring and measurement techniques for reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical nature of photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo-energy conversion.
Within the Basic Energy Sciences Program, the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences,
and Energy Biosciences subprogram supports fundamental research in geochemistry, geophysics and biosciences. The Geosciences Research Program supports
research focused at developing an understanding of fundamental Earth processes
that can be used as a foundation for efficient, effective, and environmentally sound
use of energy resources, and provide an improved scientific basis for advanced energy and environmental technologies. The Biosciences Research Program supports
basic research in molecular-level studies on solar energy capture through natural
photosynthesis; the mechanisms and regulation of carbon fixation and carbon energy
storage; the synthesis, degradation, and molecular interconversions of complex hydrocarbons and carbohydrates; and the study of novel biosystems and their potential
for materials synthesis, chemical catalysis, and materials synthesized at the
nanoscale.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Program, for more than five decades, has advanced environmental and biological
knowledge that supports national security through improved energy production, development, and use; international scientific leadership that underpins our Nations
technological advances; and research that improves the quality of life for all Ameri-

50
cans. BER supports these vital national missions through competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and private institutions. In
addition, BER develops and delivers the knowledge needed to support the Presidents National Energy Plan. ASACSSASSSA support a 7 percent increase for
BER which would bring the funding level to $582,504,790 for fiscal year 2009. ASA
CSSASSSA support a variety of programs within BER including the Life Sciences
subprogram which supports Carbon Sequestration Research (we recommend a 7 percent increase, bringing the funding level to $7,625,890), and the Genomes to Life
(GTL) program (we also recommend a 7 percent increase to bring funding to
$163,422,170). Within Genomes to Life (GTL) are programs supportive of bioenergy
development including GTL Foundation Research, GTL Sequencing, GTL Bioethanol
Research, and GTL Bioenergy Research Centers, all playing an important role in
achieving energy independence for America. Also within BER is the Environmental
Remediation subprogram and its Environmental Remediation Sciences Research
program, both critical programs to advancing tools needed to clean up contaminated
sites. ASACSSASSSA support the Presidents budget request for the Climate
Change Research subprogram in BER which calls for a 13 percent increase bringing
the funding level to $154,927,000. This subprogram supports many important areas
of climate change research including: Climate Forcing which supports the Terrestrial Carbon Processes program and supports the Ameriflux network of research
sites (which should receive a 7 percent increase, bringing funding to $14,379,730),
as understanding the role that terrestrial ecosystems play in capturing and storing
carbon is essential to developing strategies to mitigate global climate change. An additional program of high importance within the Climate Change Research subprogram is the Climate Change Response and its associated programsEcosystem
Function and Response, and Education. Finally, also under the Climate Change Research subprogram is the Climate Change Mitigation program, part of BERs support to the Climate Change Technology Program, which will continue to focus only
on terrestrial carbon sequestration.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Biomass is currently the only clean, renewable energy source that can help to significantly diversify transportation fuels in the U.S. DOEs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program is helping transform the Nations renewable and
abundant biomass resources into cost competitive, high performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) manages Americas investment in the research and development (RD&D) of
DOEs diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science portfolio. For
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding
level of $1.843 billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year
2009 EERE budget maintains focus on key components of the AEI and Twenty in
Ten including the Biofuels Initiative to develop affordable, bio-based transportation
fuels from a wider variety of feedstocks and agricultural waste products.
Note: ASACSSASSSA strongly oppose the use by the Department of the term
agricultural wastes. Crop residues, e.g., corn stover, play a very important role in
nutrient cycling, erosion control and organic matter development. Recent studies
have shown that excessive removal of crop residues from agricultural lands can lead
to a decline in soil quality. By no means should they ever be referred to as wastes.
BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS

Within EERE, the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems plays an important role providing support for Regional Biomass Feedstock Development Partnerships and Infrastructure Core R&D programs, both within Feedstock Infrastructure. Activities
included within this program are resource assessment, education, sustainable agronomic systems development, and biomass crop development. The mission of the Biomass Program is to develop and transform our domestic, renewable, and abundant
biomass resources into cost-competitive, high performance biofuels, bioproducts and
biopower through targeted RD&D leveraged by public and private partnerships.
ASACSSASSSA support the Presidents request for a 25 percent increase for the
Feedstock Infrastructure program which would bring the funding level to
$15,500,000.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ASACSSASSSA urge the subcommittee to provide the Office of Environmental

Management (EM) a 7 percent increase for fiscal year 2009 which would bring total
funding for EM to $6.094 billion. EM supports high-priority soil and ground water
remediation and excess D&D at Portsmouth, Paducah, Los Alamos, Savannah River,

51
Oak Ridge, Idaho, Hanford, and other sites. Technology Development and Deployment supports tank waste, soil and groundwater, and facility D&D.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

ASACSSASSSA urge the subcommittee to continue to provide strong support

for Climate Change Research to the following programs as follows: Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP), $145,940,000; Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI),
$23,672,000; and Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), $833,301,000. These
three programs together will increase our understanding of the impacts of global climate change and also develop tools and technologies to mitigate these impacts.
BASIC AND APPLIED R&D COORDINATION

The Office of Science continues to coordinate basic research efforts in many areas
with the Departments applied technology offices. Within this area is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage R&D (we recommend a 7 percent increase, bringing total
funding to $18,055,000). The BER research includes understanding, modeling, and
predicting the processes that control the fate of carbon dioxide injected into geologic
formations, subsurface carbon storage, and the role of microbes and plants in carbon
sequestration in both marine and terrestrial environments.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES

The Office of Science manages 10 world-class laboratories, which often are called
the crown jewels of our national research infrastructure. The national laboratory
system, created over a half-century ago, is the most comprehensive research system
of its kind in the world. Five are multi-program facilities including the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. In the 2007 fiscal year, these facilities were used by more than
21,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, private industry, and
other Federal science agencies.
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY (NETL)

NETLs Carbon Sequestration Program is helping to develop technologies to capture, purify, and store carbon dioxide (CO2) in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without adversely influencing energy use or hindering economic growth. Terrestrial sequestration requires the development of technologies to quantify with a
high degree of precision and reliability the amount of carbon stored in a given ecosystem. Program efforts in this area are focused on increasing carbon uptake on
mined lands and evaluation of no-till agriculture, reforestation, rangeland improvement, wetlands recovery, and riparian restoration. ASACSSASSSA urge the subcommittee to direct the Department to increase funding for its terrestrial carbon sequestration program, specifically The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships,
which are collaborations between Government, industry, universities, and international organizations funded by DOE to determine the most suitable technologies,
regulations, and infrastructure needs for carbon capture and sequestration.
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY (ORNL)

ORNL is one of the worlds premier centers for R&D on energy production, distribution, and use and on the effects of energy technologies and decisions on society.
Clean, efficient, safe production and use of energy have long been our goals in research and development. At ORNL, unique facilities for energy-related R&D are
used both for technology development and for fundamental investigations in the
basic energy sciences that underpin the technology work.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

FRIENDS COMMITTEE
(QUAKERS)

ON

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) makes the following

recommendations on budget request of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2009 (fiscal year 2009):
Reliable Replacement Warhead.Under the Weapons Activities/Directed Stockpile Work program, delete all funding from the $10 million requested. Include
in the committee report the same language that was in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008: No funding is provided for the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

52
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation.Under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, increase funding by $195 million, from
the requested $430 million to $625 million for fiscal year 2009. This would be
the same amount as was appropriated for fiscal year 2008.
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D.Under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, we oppose the administrations proposed budget cut of
$112 million and support a funding level closer to the fiscal year 2008 level of
$387 million, but make no specific suggestion.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative.Under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, we strongly support the administrations proposed increase of $26
million for fiscal year 2009, to $220 million.
Reliable Replacement Warhead.Congress wisely rejected the administrations request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead for fiscal year 2008. The arguments
have not changed since last year.
The Joint Explanatory Statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2008 explains:
As stated in both the House and Senate reports, Congress believes a new strategic nuclear deterrent mission assessment for the 21st century is required to define
the associated stockpile requirements and determine the scope of the weapons complex modernization plans. The NNSA is directed to develop a long-term scientific capability roadmap for the national laboratories to be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations.
FCNL agrees. The United States still has no 21st century nuclear weapons policy
in place. Until the reports mandated by the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization
bill are completed, there is no framework to base long-term nuclear stockpile decisions on.
The nuclear stockpile continues to be annually certified as safe and reliable by
the Secretaries of Defense and Energy. There remains no need to rush to replace
the plutonium pits in warheads, which have been found to have lifetimes of a century or more.
Additionally, further development of RRW could have serious adverse international security consequences. Proceeding with RRW would send the wrong message to would-be proliferators, and undermine ongoing efforts to curb the nuclear
programs of Iran and North Korea. Development of a new U.S. warhead would also
provide nuclear weapons advocates in Russia with effective material to lobby for
more aggressive Russian nuclear weapons modernization programs. Senator Sam
Nunns 2007 testimony before your House Subcommittee counterpart remains as relevant today:
[I]f Congress gives a green light to this [RRW] program in our current world environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by our allies; exploited by our
adversaries; and complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear
weapons.
Finally, FCNL rejects the Energy Department (DOE) assertion that pursuing the
RRW program is the only way to elicit the data needed to address stockpile certification concerns raised by the September 7, 2007 review of RRW by the JASON Defense Advisory Group.
We believe DOE can address the stockpile certification concerns raised by the JASONs review without developing RRW. The Joint Explanatory Statement to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008 also reaches this conclusion. By
creating the Advanced Certification campaign to address these certification issues
and simultaneously zeroing out the RRW program, the subcommittee (in conjunction
with your House counterpart) determined that these issues could be pursued without advancement of the RRW program.
Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs.Hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons materials are stored at inadequately secured facilities in Russia and perhaps 20 other
countries. One hundred and ten pounds of highly enriched uranium could be fashioned into a crude nuclear weapon by a committed group of violent extremists. Such
a weapon would destroy downtown New York, killing more than half-a-million people from the immediate effects of the explosion. The cost would be well over $1 trillion from the staggering economic disruption. A nuclear detonation in any U.S. city
would cause devastation that would make the 9/11 attack and the Katrina hurricane
pale in comparison.
These programs continue to enjoy strong support across the political spectrum, as
evidenced by these statements from the past few months (emphasis added):

53
. . . the Department of Defenses Cooperative Threat Reduction program and the
Department of Energys nuclear nonproliferation programs . . . address perhaps the
single biggest threat to the U.S. homeland, the threat of nuclear terrorism and other
weapons of mass destruction. Rep. Ike Skelton, Chairman, House Armed Service
Committee, press release, December 7, 2007.
Nuclear nonproliferation programs such as the NNSAs Global Threat Reduction
Initiative, GTRI, are some of the most important tools we have to curb the threat
of nuclear material being acquired by those who wish to do us harm. Sen. Pete V.
Domenici, Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, Congressional Record, December 12, 2007, p. S15228.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains the number one national security threat facing the United States and the international community.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Remarks at the Defense in Depth against WMD CPC Conference, Chantilly, VA, January 30, 2008.
The House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009 also reaches the same conclusions:
It is the policy of this resolution that . . . implementing the recommendation of
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly
referred to as the 9/11 Commission) to adequately fund cooperative threat reduction
and nuclear nonproliferation programs (securing loose nukes) is a high priority and
should receive far greater emphasis than the Presidents budget provides; H. Con.
Res. 312, sec. 502, March 7, 2008 (emphasis added).
Even the administrations budget request agrees:
The convergence of heightened terrorist activities and the ease of moving materials, technology and information across borders have made the potential for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the most serious threat facing
the Nation. Preventing WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists is the top national security priority of this administration. Department of Energy, Fiscal Year
2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1, p. 453, February 2009 (emphasis added).
However, the administrations budget request does not match its rhetoric. We ask
the subcommittee to increase the nuclear nonproliferation programs to at least last
years levels.
We greatly appreciate the termination of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We also appreciate the additional funds the subcommittee provided for nuclear nonproliferation
programs in the Continuing Resolution, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act. We believe the country is more secure because
of your actions. We urge you again to apply those priorities to your fiscal year 2009
bill.
Thank you for your consideration.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

US FUEL CELL COUNCIL

Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, and distinguished members of the

subcommittee, on behalf of the 110 organizations of the US Fuel Cell Council
(USFCC), I want to thank this subcommittee for supporting fuel cell funding over
the years. We are writing to urge strong support for fuel cell and hydrogen programs managed by the Department of Energy. Specifically, we request the subcommittee to consider the following:
Provide $20 million to establish a Market Transformation program.
Restore $39 million to continue Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D.
Add $15 million to Technology Validation (managed by Vehicle Technologies
Hybrid Electric Systems).
Add $5 million to restore EERE Manufacturing R&D.
Add $10 million to Fossil Energys SECA program.
Add $4 million to Safety Codes and Standards, and maintain current jurisdiction.
Maintain Education jurisdiction under the Hydrogen Technology Program and
fund at $4 million.
Restore $2 million to continue Fuel Processor R&D.
Fuel cells are a family of technologies that are being developed for portable, stationary and transportation applications.

54
These technologies offer a unique combination of benefits. And while our industry
has invested billions to develop fuel cells for portable, stationary and transportation
applications, we view our partnership with the Federal Government as vital. Funding for other worthwhile technologies must not come at the expense of the hydrogen
program, as we feel this would impede efforts to become more energy independent.
Establishing a Market Transformation program is a top priority for industry. Last
year the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee provided funding
for this endeavor; however, the measure was not included in the final appropriations
bill. The program, when funded, will fulfill congressional intent as outlined in sections 782 and 783 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Market Transformation program will allow the Department of Energy to assist other agencies to purchase portable, stationary and transportation fuel cell systems. The program, which is voluntary, is seen by industry as a key component to
commercialization as it would also help fuel cell manufacturers increase output,
thereby reducing costs and creating economies of scale. It would also allow more
Federal agencies to comply with new energy efficiency guidelines as directed by Executive Order.
Unfortunately, the Presidents fiscal year 2009 request cuts or changes a number
of critical path programs, including Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D; Fuel
Processor R&D; and Manufacturing R&D. These programs are designed to maximize
availability of fuel cells and hydrogen at an affordable price.
With regard to Hydrogen Production R&D and Delivery, the administration justifies the elimination of the program by stating that the core technology readiness
goals established for 2015 can be met with the technologies for producing hydrogen
from natural gas that were developed in prior years, so . . . near-term hydrogen
production is no longer a critical-path barrier. We disagree. Cost-effective and environmentally benign methods of reforming hydrocarbons are still not commercially
feasible. Several technical challenges remain, including low cost desulfurization
methods. Current refining methods often produce flammable and/or hazardous
waste. While alternative desulfurization materials can avoid these problems, they
are prohibitively expensiveas much as 10 times the current cost. If reinstated by
Congress, the Department should be instructed to fund improvements in removing
sulfur-containing odorants from natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. In addition, a coordinated, nationwide (or even international) effort to replace sulfur-containing odorants with non-sulfur-containing odorants should be initiated.
In the transportation arena, there is growing support for ethanol and other
biofuels, and for hybrid vehicles as responses to our energy challenge. These programs would not, by themselves, solve our problem. They would, however buy us
time to make the transition to hydrogen. Automakers still view hydrogen as the ultimate transportation fuel as it allows long range driving, short fueling time with
little to zero-emissions. The public/private partnership in fuel cells is working, and
more development and demonstration is needed.
Work performed by the Technology Validation program is designed to demonstrate
the performance of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell systems under real world
operating conditions. If development work were to stop due to lack of funding it
could take years or even decades to revive the effort. By restoring funding to fiscal
year 2008 levels, the Department and private industry will continue to collect necessary data to continue development of fuel cells for vehicles
Manufacturing R&D was also eliminated in the fiscal year 2009 request. Last
year, the administration put significant focus on this program as it was critical to
cultivate a robust domestic manufacturing capability in evolving hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell technologies, vital to establishing U.S. economic leadership
in emerging hydrogen and fuel cell industries. After 1 year and a single round of
solicitations awarded, the administration now feels the program is not a criticalpath barrier to achieving the programs core technology readiness goals for 2015.
Once again, we disagree with the Presidents plan. The Department, in cooperation with private industry, has made great strides in reducing the high-volume cost
of fuel cells. Eliminating this program in its infancy will only delay efforts to bring
the cost of fuel cells down.
With regard to the Fossil Energy (FE) activities, we request $70 million for fuel
cell activities, which includes funding for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). The SECA program is designed to develop high-efficiency fuel cells
that are capable of utilizing a variety of domestically available fuel, including coal
gas, ethanol and other biofuels.
Proposed program cuts aside, we feel that most of the program reorganizations
suggested are unnecessary. For example, a proposal to move hydrogen Education
and Codes and Standards staff from the hydrogen program to the vehicle tech-

55
nologies program, in the name of consolidation, is misguided. Department leadership describes these as complementary activities, however we strongly disagree.
If altered, we fear the Department will not be able to accomplish its stated mission to educate the public, code and safety officials, and support DOE Market Transformation activities. Given the transformational nature of hydrogen, we believe
these positions properly should remain within the hydrogen program for maximum
effectiveness, and in any event reorganization ought to be left to the next administration.
Supporting the remainder of the Presidents fiscal year 2009 planHydrogen Storage R&D, Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D, and Distributed Energy Fuel Cells Systemswill maintain the integrity of the competitively awarded projects administered by the Department of Energy and continue our public/private partnership designed to fully commercialize fuel cell and hydrogen technologies.
Over the past 4 years, shortfalls in fuel cell and hydrogen core program funds
have slowed and in some cases stopped high-priority research and development. Full
funding can restore program momentum, and give the country some hope that we
can break the cycle of energy dependence. Competition for energy supply and security of supply are both urgent concerns, and the Nations investment, we believe,
ought to match that urgency.
Thank you for considering our requests.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF

STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dub Taylor of Texas and
chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs. Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $75 million
for the State Energy Program (SEP). SEP is the most successful program operated
by DOE in this area. Within a $75 million funding level for SEP we would support
the administrations proposed $10 million competitive program, but we do not support such an effort at the proposed funding level of $25 million for the core SEP
activities and $25 million for the competitive program. SEP is focused on direct energy project development, where most of the resources are expended. SEP has set
a standard for State-Federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical Federal and State energy goals. We also support $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). These programs are successful and have a strong record
of delivering savings to low-income Americans, homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support an increase in the budget for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to $120 million, including an increase of $600,000 for EIAs State
Heating Oil and Propane Program, in order to cover the added costs of increasing
the frequency of information collection (to weekly), the addition of natural gas, and
increasing the number of State participants. EIAs new State-by-State data is very
helpful. EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency preparedness and response. NASEO continues to support funding for a variety of critical deployment
programs, including Building Codes Training and Assistance ($10 million), Rebuild
America ($5 million), Energy Star ($10 million) and Clean Cities (Vehicle Technologies Deployment) ($12.5 million). NASEO supports funding for the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, at least at the fiscal year 2006 request
of $161.9 million, with specific funding for the Division of Infrastructure Security
and Energy Restoration of $18 million, which funds critical energy assurance activities. We also strongly support the R&D function and Operations and Analysis function. The industries program should be funded at a $74.8 million level, equal to the
fiscal year 2005 levels, to promote efficiency efforts and to maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially in light of the loss of millions of these jobs in recent years.
Proposed cuts in these programs are counter-productive and are detrimental to a
balanced national energy policy. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) also has a number of exemplary provisions which should also receive funding, including the new commercial buildings initiative. EISA also reauthorized SEP
(section 531) and Weatherization (section 411) through fiscal year 2012. We remain
concerned that a number of programs authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005) have received no direct funding. Of special interest are sections 124,
125, 126, 128 and 140 of EPACT 2005.
Over the past 7 years, both oil and natural gas prices have been rising in response to expanded Chinese and Indian use, other international events, increased
domestic use, the falling dollar and the result of the 2005 hurricanes. We expect
$100 oil to continue for an extended period of time, with an expanded problem
as summer approaches. Gasoline prices may spike to $4/gallon. Diesel prices are al-

56
ready over $4/gallon. In addition, we now have quantifiable evidence of the success
of the SEP program, which demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on investment to the Federal taxpayer of SEP. Every State gets an SEP grant and all
States, the District of Columbia and territories support the program.
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a study and
concluded, The impressive savings and emissions reductions numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . . indicate that the State Energy Program
is operating effectively and is having a substantial positive impact on the Nations
energy situation. ORNL updated that study and found that $1 in SEP funding
yields: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; (2) $10.71 in leveraged funding from
the States and private sector in 18 types of project areas; (3) annual energy savings
of 47,593,409 million source BTUs; and (4) annual cost savings of $333,623,619. The
annual cost-effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings are
equally significant: (1) Carbon826,049 metric tons; (2) VOCs135.8 metric tons;
(3) NOX6,211 metric tons; (4) fine particulate matter (PM10)160 metric tons; (5)
SO28,491 metric tons; and (6) CO1,000 metric tons. The energy cost savings is
much higher today, in light of higher prices. State monitoring and verification has
confirmed SEPs effectiveness.
State Energy Program Special Projects and Other Deployment Programs.
Through fiscal year 2005, SEP Special Projects provided matching grants to States
to conduct innovative project development. It had been operated for 10 years and
has produced significant results in every State in the United States. We support
funding of DOEs new, proposed SEP competitive program, but only above a minimum $55 million SEP appropriation for the base SEP program. The States with
lower populations are disadvantaged by this program.
EISA authorized a new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program
(section 541548). We look forward to working with Congress and the administration to make this program a reality. We hope start-up funding can be provided in
fiscal year 2009. However, we remain concerned that a structure that requires DOE
to review and process thousands of local government grant applications each year
will be unworkable. With the elimination of the DOE/EERE Regional Offices, DOE
contracting processes have become slower. There is now a more attenuated connection between State and local governments with DOE. We look forward to working
with Congress, local governments and DOE to correct this situation. Joint planning
needs to occur immediately. State energy offices have partnered with local governments for decades. This program should allow us to supplement and enhance those
activities.
Industrial Energy Program.A funding increase to a level of $74.8 million for the
Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is warranted. This is a public-private partnership in which industry and the States work with DOE to jointly fund cuttingedge research in the energy area. The results have been reduced energy consumption, reduced environmental impacts and increased competitive advantage of manufacturers (which is more than one-third of U.S. energy use). The States play a major
role working with industry and DOE in the program to ensure economic development in our States and to try to ensure that domestic jobs are preserved. State energy offices are working effectively with DOE on the Save Energy Now campaign.
Funding for distributed generation should be included above these amounts.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.The States have implemented thousands of projects. Here are a few representative examples.
California.The California Energy Commission has operated energy programs in
virtually every sector of the economy. The State has upgraded residential and nonresidential building codes (including major 2008 upgrades), developed a school energy efficiency financing program (including $100 million for high performance
schools), and instituted a new replacement program for school buses utilizing the
newest natural gas, advanced diesel and hybrid technologies. The buildings program
has reduced consumption by enormous amounts over the past few years, through
alternative financing programs and outreach. Californias greenhouse gas mitigation
plans and a new solar initiative are moving forward.
Colorado.The State is conducting training to implement the new statewide energy code. The energy office is pushing hard to promote the use of biofuels and create infrastructure for the dispensing of the fuel. The Colorado Carbon Fund has
been developed to help individuals and businesses develop and purchase offsets. In
addition, the State is working promoting community-based small wind projects, geothermal energy, commercial buildings energy efficiency and a variety of solar energy
programs.
Hawaii.After enacting significant legislation (Energy for Tomorrow), the State
is focused on implementing a plan to diversify the energy sources utilized in the
State. Distributed generation and utility scale solar projects are being installed. An

57
aggressive hydrogen promotion program is ongoing. The State has a variety of energy performance contracting projects. They have upgraded their tropical energy
building code. Extensive utilization of bioenergy and biofuels is a priority and has
been expanded.
Kentucky.The energy office has been working on Energy Star promotion activities and high performance energy programs for schools. They are working to promote energy efficiency programs in the agricultural sector as well, including the
Kentucky Rural Energy Consortium activities. They have been executing energy
performance contracts for a variety of State facilities.
Louisiana.The State recently upgraded building energy codes. Now they are embarked on an extensive training program to ensure that the code will be followed
and understood. In the alternative fuels area the State has instituted projects including CNG fueling, hybrid electric buses and bio-diesel promotions. Significant attention has been paid to energy efficient reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina.
Mississippi.The energy office has been working on an extensive energy education program, ranging from school children to higher education initiatives. The
State has also been active in promoting alternative motor fuels, rural business opportunities with the agricultural sector, energy efficiency in State buildings and Energy Star product promotions.
Missouri.The energy office in Missouri has been operating a low-interest energy
efficiency loan program for school districts, colleges, universities and local governments. Thus far, public entities have saved more than $93 million, with more than
400 projects. The State energy office has also worked with the Public Utility Commission and the utilities within the State to get $20 million invested in residential
and commercial energy efficiency programs, with a significant incremental increase
to $20 million in investments in 2008 alone. A new revolving loan for biodiesel has
also been initiated. The energy office and the air agency have developed a program
to set-aside NOX allowances for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
New Jersey.The States Clean Energy Program expended approximately $171
million in 2006 alone, with the expected electricity and natural gas bill reductions
for the life of these projects expected to be over $2.3 billion. New Jersey has an extremely aggressive solar energy program. Recent innovative projects have included
a pilot photovoltaics power systems program in Phillipsburg, a wireless energy management demonstration project, an alternative fuel vehicle and a bio-diesel vehicle
rebate program, etc.
New Mexico.After adoption of new energy legislation in 2007, the State is pushing for new renewable energy transmission projects, the implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, expanded promotion of the sustainable buildings tax
credits, use of energy bonds, promotion of solar roofs, and encouraging manufacturers to utilize the alternative energy product tax credit. They have been training
green building professionals and promoting clean fuels and efficient transportation
options.
North Dakota.The energy office in North Dakota has focused on promotion of
alternative fuels, wind energy projects (including a wind-to-hydrogen demonstration), biomass gasification (with the EERC Center for Renewable Energy in Grand
Forks), energy efficiency for schools and local governments and deployment of renewable technology.
South Dakota.The energy office has instituted a energy efficient grants program
for higher education projects, including a 50 percent match. Recent projects have included lighting, energy recovery and heating and controls upgrades. The energy conservation loan program is focused on State agencies and recent projects have included a biomass boiler conversion. These projects have been instituted throughout
the State.
Texas.The Texas Energy Offices Loan Star program has long produced great
success by reducing building energy consumption and taxpayers energy costs
through efficient operation of public buildings. This saved taxpayers more than $224
million through energy efficiency projects. In another example, the State promoted
the use of sleep software for computers, which is now used on 136,000 school computers, saving 42 million kWh and reducing energy costs by $3 million annually.
This is part of a broader energy efficiency program that has helped 3,500 schools
and local governments thus far. The State has initiated the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan/Texas Energy Partnership in 41 urban counties to reduce emissions
through cost-effective energy efficiency projects.
Utah.The State has recently upgraded their building codes and they have been
pushing to train builders, local code officials, architects and engineers. They also developed a zero-interest loan program for school districts. A State renewable energy
tax credit has been utilized for large projects. The Governor has instituted a new
renewable energy initiative.

58
Washington.The energy agency has been working on promoting energy efficiency
and renewable energy tax incentives, net metering and biofuels development. The
State is also working on promoting Energy Star products and they are working regionally on building energy efficiency activities. They have also instituted a regional
energy planning process.
West Virginia.The Energy Division is focused on promotion of energy efficiency
in the industries of West Virginia, including work in the steel, aluminum, chemical/
polymer, glass, metal-casting, wood products and mining industries. They are also
promoting Energy Star products, especially in the residential sector. The recently
developed State energy plan is being utilized to promote a diverse energy future for
the State.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN SOCIETY

OF

PLANT BIOLOGISTS

The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) urges the subcommittee to approve the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Office of Science of $4.7 billion. Please support the Office of Basic Energy Sciences request for $1.568 billion. Included with the Departments budget request for Basic
Energy Sciences is $297,113,000 for leading research in the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy Biosciences Division. We urge you to support the Departments
budget request for the division, including $35.6 million for Energy Biosciences research. ASPB supports the DOE budget request of $568.5 million for the Office of
Biological and Environmental Research.
Research the subcommittee supported within the Energy Biosciences program has
led to many breakthroughs including increased understanding of the composition of
the cell wall. These findings help allow scientists and the Department to project further research advances leading to cost-competitive production of cellulosic ethanol.
Many years of basic research supported in Energy Biosciences led to these cell wall
findings. The highly regarded Energy Biosciences program also funded basic research leading to the landmark discovery of an enzyme that can convert cellulose
into sugar for facile ethanol production.
Sunlight is the ultimate energy source for the earth. Harnessing even a fraction
of this sunlight would provide us sufficient energy for years to come. Plants do this
naturally through photosynthesis, also an area of research that has garnered continuous support from the DOE Energy Biosciences program. The burning of fossil fuels
releases stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
Photosynthesis has the ability to recapture carbon dioxide, making plants a carbon
neutral contribution to our energy needs.
We credit the subcommittee, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences Director and
Under Secretary for the Office of Science for maintaining each year standards for
peer-review selection based on the highest merit of science proposals submitted to
the Energy Biosciences program and other programs within the Office.
These findings on the cell wall and enzymes are being built upon in a missionrelated basic research effort by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
aimed at achieving advances that make possible cost-competitive production of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. The three Bioenergy Research Centers awarded by
BER will increase understanding of cell wall and enzyme modifications needed to
more cost-effectively capture sugars in the cellulose and hemicellulose in plant cell
walls. We urge continued support for the three Bioenergy Research Centers. The
Centers will also make possible advances in converting sugars to ethanol, biobutanol
and other biofuels for the Nations motorists. Cellulose is the most abundant biological material on earth. What was once only a dream of capturing and converting this
abundant, renewable and sustainable resource into transportation fuels will become
a reality thanks to continuing advances in plant and microbial science that the subcommittee is making possible. Advances in the fundamental understanding of oil
crops such as soybean will contribute to increased biodiesel fuel production.
We urge support for the $100 million initiative in Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). Under this initiative, universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit firms will be invited to compete, singly or in partnerships, to establish an EFRC. Centers will be selected by scientific peer review and
funded at $25 million per year over a 5-year period. These integrated, multi-investigator Centers will conduct fundamental research focusing on one of more of several grand challenges recently identified in major strategic planning efforts by the
scientific community. The purpose of these centers will be to integrate the talents
and expertise of leading scientists in a setting designed to accelerate research toward meeting our critical energy challenges.

59
One of our most pressing energy challenges is in transportation fuels. I wrote a
letter to the editor on the exciting next generation of biofuels that was published
in The Washington Times on March 6, 2008. Following is the commentary:
[From The Washington Times, Mar. 6, 2008]

THE NEXT GENERATION OF BIOFUELS

Oil closed at $100 a barrel February 19, for the first time. The Washington Times
reported on February 20, (Oil tops $100 on refinery, OPEC, Business) that fears
that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries may cut production
contributed to the price increase.
Some analysts see this $100 mark as just a stop on the way to $200-per-barrel
oil, possibly by the end of this decade. The reason cited is similar to newspaper reports on the bump to $100 per barrelOPECs control of supply.
In addition to the economic and political challenges imposed by our reliance on
foreign oil, we also need to be concerned that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel contribute significantly to global warming, evident
from observed increases in global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and a rising global average sea level. Is there a large-volume alternative to the use of increasingly costly oil with its high GHG emissions? There will
be.
We are at the early stages of research on the next generation of biofuels using
plant cellulose. Plant stems, stalks and leaves will become low-cost feedstocks for
biofuels. A 2005 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy projects that there will be enough biomass (cellulose) to meet
more than one-third of the current U.S. demand in transportation fuels.
At the same time, next-generation biofuels will greatly lower emissions of stored
carbon compared to gasoline. Biofuels will be better for Americans pocketbooks and
the environment.
The President and Congress are to be commended for initiating needed investments in new-generation biofuels research. Additional investment is needed in all
phases of plant research. This will help hasten the day when biofuels make up 33
percent instead of 3 percent of the transportation fuels used in the United States.
C. ROBERTSON MCCLUNG,
President, American Society of Plant Biologists, Professor, Dartmouth College.
Understanding plant growth and development at a systems level feeds into increasing biomass, as does understanding basic mechanisms of abiotic and biotic
stress tolerance. Understanding how cell walls are synthesized and their composition determined is not only fundamental to our knowledge of basic plant biology, but
also is a central issue in biomass production and conversion. The same can be said
of understanding how plants synthesize and regulate the production of lipids and
oils as well as many other plant constituents and processes.
Please support increases in fiscal year 2009 for the Office of Biological and Environmental Research Program for Ecosystem Research (PER). PER sponsors experimental research to develop a better scientific understanding of potential effects of
climatic change on U.S. terrestrial ecosystems and their component organisms. Field
or laboratory studies are directed at understanding cause-and-effect relationships
between temperature change and the abundance or geographic distribution of terrestrial vascular plants or animals in the United States. During the last decade
there have been significant advances in the mechanistic understanding of how the
component elements of terrestrial ecosystems are responding to elements of global
change. These include changes in: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, precipitation
amount and seasonal distribution, and in daily and seasonal temperature cycles. As
the primary producers of terrestrial ecosystems, the response of plants to multiple
and interactive effects of global change drive the overall ecosystem response. This
mechanistic research involving state-of-the-art physiological, biochemical, molecular,
and genomic approaches has been almost exclusively conducted on individual plants
exposed to global change scenarios under controlled environment conditions. Over
the same period of time there have been tremendous strides made in the phenomenological characterization of the response of terrestrial ecosystems to interactive effects of global change. Again this research effort has centered on plants as the drivers of the central ecosystem processes of carbon, nitrogen, and water cycling. Plants
also support the major biotic and trophic interactions within ecosystems and there
has been intense interest to characterize the response of these interactions to global
change.

60
The emergent research frontier where breakthroughs are most needed is in bridging mechanism and phenomenology to understand the systems biology of a functioning ecosystem under realistic global change treatments.
ASPB is a non-profit society of 5,000 scientists based primarily at universities.
ASPB publishes the most frequently cited plant science journal in the world, Plant
Physiology and the plant science journal with the highest impact factor, The Plant
Cell. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these comments to the subcommittee. Please let us know if we could provide any additional information.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

ELECTRIC DRIVE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

In the Nations two newest comprehensive energy laws, the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05), Congress recognized the need to invest in technologies and policies that will result in
greater energy independence. Those bills authorize research and development, demonstration and deployment and manufacturing innovation programs to promote electric drive technologies, which use electricity to displace oil.
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) applauds the Senates support for electric drive technologies, which reduce petroleum consumption and decrease emissions of greenhouse gases and of air pollutants. Using electricity, by
itself or in conjunction with another fuel, electric drive technologies power the
wheels of vehicles in use today and numerous others in development. These vehicles
can be passenger vehicles, trucks, tractors, locomotives or ground support equipment. Electric drive also powers transportation infrastructure, such as truck auxiliary power units and truck stop electrification facilities, which allow idled trucks to
power with clean, alternative electricity.
Multiple fuel and vehicle technologies, including hybrids, battery electric vehicles,
fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in versions of these electric drive vehicles, will be needed
to end our unsustainable dependence on oil. The Department of Energys Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs to accelerate development of
electric drive vehicle technologies are pivotal to the effort to reduce oil consumption.
The Senates budget resolution provides $2 billion over the Presidents request for
these programs. As you allocate fiscal year 2009 funding for the important programs
in the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, we respectfully request
that you provide the resources necessary to realize the electric drive advances outlined in EISA and EPAct05.
ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Specifically, we support expanded funding for energy storage research and development at the Department of Energys Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), in particular, in the Vehicle Technologies program.
Advanced batteries and other energy storage innovations are the key to commercialization of plug-in electric drive and will accelerate advances in all electric drive
vehicles. The administrations request for the existing DOE program is essentially
level with fiscal year 2008 funding and does not reflect the intent of Congress as
detailed in EISA.
Fiscal year 2009 funding in the Hybrid Electric Systems account should be expanded to include resources for the EISA section 641 energy storage competitiveness
program. This program, which is authorized at $295 million, includes basic and applied research, development and demonstration programs to support U.S. competitiveness in energy storage for electric drive vehicles and stationary applications.
FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

We also urge you to ensure that the national effort to develop hydrogen fuel cell
options is able to advance toward its goals. The fiscal year 2009 request for the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies program is $33 million, a reduction from fiscal
year 2008 levels. The Departments proposed program realignment should not undermine the ongoing work that is yielding technology breakthroughs and will ultimately yield necessary longer term transportation options.
For instance, the request for the Technology Validation program cuts funding to
$15 million, half of the fiscal year 2008 level. In this program, hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell systems are certified under real world conditions. This work
guides research agendas and helps establish the real world data collection necessary to develop fuel cell vehicles. Consequently, we believe this program should
be funded at least at the fiscal year 2008 level of $30 million.

61
Other programs necessary to the push toward commercialization are also cut or
unfunded entirely, including a $3.5 million reduction in Safety Codes and Standards
and a complete elimination of funding for Manufacturing R&D (which received $5
million in fiscal year 2008).
Section 782 of EPAct05 authorizes Federal and State Procurement program funding to help government fleets acquire fuel cells vehicles. The program is designed
to reduce the initial market barriers for advanced technology vehicles by covering
the cost premium of the early Federal and State fleets of fuel cell vehicles. Congress
should provide the $25 million authorized by EPAct05.
The Department of Energy should not abandon its hydrogen production and delivery activities, as the administration requests, and funding for the Transportation
Fuel Cell Systems Account should be restored to at least the fiscal year 2008 level
of $8 million.
DEPLOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATION

Other new and existing demonstration and deployment programs have the potential to accelerate commercial deployment of electric drive technologies, with the appropriate resources.
Specifically, the EISA section 131 Transportation Electrification (b) Plug in Electric Drive Vehicle Program and (c) Near Term Transportation Electrification Program can help industry partners to work together to put on-road and non-road electric drive vehicles in use, enabling manufacturers and consumers to identify real
world performance and establish initial market opportunities. The programs are authorized at a total of $185 million. We ask that you provide substantial funding to
allow rapid ramp-up of these programs in their initial year.
The Clean Cities program is another example of a successful, ongoing effort to deploy advanced vehicle technologies. The Clean Cities program consists of voluntary
local and regional coalitions working to build clean and efficient private and municipal fleets, with advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles. We appreciate
the Congress history of support for the program and request that you provide the
technology- and fuel-neutral fund at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, $12.5 million.
Another important activity at DOE in fiscal year 2009 will be the rulemaking that
will be required to implement new EPAct fleet requirements. EISAs section 508
amends the existing fleet requirements to finally, explicitly include electric drive
(fuel cell, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, medium and heavy duty hybrid electric vehicles
and neighborhood electric vehicles) and investments in alternative fuel infrastructure. The $1.8 million in the request is insufficient to ensure an expeditious and effective rule making process, and will delay the ability of covered fleets to comply
with hybrid and other electric drive vehicles.
MANUFACTURING INNOVATION

We also support building domestic capacity for advanced batteries and vehicles as
envisioned by EISA 2007. The Senate Budget resolution also endorses the effort, explicitly providing an additional $2.7 billion for green jobs initiatives, including loan
guarantee and grant programs for . . . production of fuel efficient vehicles.
We respectfully ask that you direct the maximum available funds toward programs authorized in the EISA that will help new and existing manufacturers to
produce advanced batteries and vehicles in the United States and expand employment in these fields.
Specifically, we are referring to the section 136 Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing Incentive Program, which provides grants for up to 30 percent of the
cost of re-equipping or establishing advanced vehicle and component manufacturing
facilities, equipment investment and engineering integration, and section 132: Domestic Manufacturing Conversion, which authorizes grants to manufacturers of fuel
efficient vehicles and component suppliers to modernize production facilities.
In addition, we recommend that additional funds be allocated to the existing Loan
Guarantee Program to include the battery and component manufacturing guarantees activities authorized in EISAs section 134 Loan Guarantees for Fuel Efficient
Automobile Parts Manufacturers and section 135 Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee
Programs. The administration request includes $10 billion of $38.5 billion for advanced and innovative energy; that amount should be increased with funds directed
to the EISA-authorized manufacturing activities.
EDTA appreciates the subcommittees support for electric drive and for EEREs
Vehicle and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology programs. We respectfully ask that
the subcommittee use the funds available in the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution
to build on that support and establish the electric drive programs authorized in en-

62
ergy legislation and to ensure the continuing advancement of electric drive technology.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

GE ENERGY

The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE) for the consideration of the subcommittee during its deliberations regarding the fiscal year 2009
budget requests for the Department of Energy (DOE). Among GEs key recommendations are: (1) support for the $241.6 million funding request for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to develop new U.S. nuclear generation; (2) $40 million
in added funding for the GNEP program, for total funding of $341 million, to start
the necessary activities for technology demonstration and to help industry provide
DOE with the information necessary to support the 2008 Secretarial Record of Decision; and (3) $27 million additional for the Advanced Turbines program, DOEs
major research effort focusing on gas turbines for electricity production which also
addresses key needs for hydrogen turbines. Investments in these and the other important programs discussed below will help to meet the challenges of assuring a diverse portfolio of domestic power generation resources for the future.
NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear Power 2010.The NP2010 Program provides vital funding in three areas
that are essential to the development of new nuclear generation capacity in this
country. The program provides support for: (1) certification of new reactor designs,
such as GEs advanced light water reactor technology (ESBWR); (2) advancement
of detailed design and deployment planning to support new nuclear plant construction; and (3) preparation, submittal and NRC approval of two Combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL). These activities are currently advancing with
co-funding support from GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and Westinghouse. Adequate DOE funding in fiscal year 2009 is necessary to maintain the schedules supporting certification, COL license approval and construction initiation.
The administration has requested $241.6 million for fiscal year 2009 to support
the NP2010 Program. GEH supports this funding level, which reflects the additional
funding needed above initial estimates to facilitate continued ESBWR detailed design and deployment activities at levels that support industry expectations.
Among other things, funding is needed to support critical detailed design activities including piping and instrumentation diagrams development, process flow diagrams, system design spec development, 3D pipe routing and pipe stress calculations and the development of procurement specifications for long lead and highly engineered equipment. These detailed design activities are required for advanced module design, simulation assisted engineering, and critical path construction activities.
Moreover, these detailed engineering activities are critical to the refinement of the
ESBWR capital cost estimate. Deployment planning activities include the development of site utilization plans, crane lift plans, construction execution plans, procurement strategies, warehousing strategies and craft labor planning. These are required to allow the ESBWR to be successfully deployed in the desired timeframe
well within the next decade.
The costs to complete these activities have escalated due to a number of contributing factors that have changed versus baseline assumptions made in 2005. These
factors include, but are not limited to, NRC rate increases, large volume of additional NRC RAIs (Request for Additional Information), recent changes in regulatory
position related to aircraft impact and Human Factors Engineering design process,
customer expectations of increased design and COL standardization, and performance of COL compliance reviews. Additionally, higher resource demands from increased industry activity as well as the FOAKE nature of the effort have placed a
substantial cost burden on the project. These and other factors have led to significant additional program cost above baseline assumptions. The fiscal year 2009 funding requested by the administration will help offset some of these cost escalations.
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP).The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), initiated in early 2006,
benefits from DOEs research and development work currently conducted under the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and previously conducted in the Advanced
Liquid Metal Reactor program (circa 1985 to 1995). GNEP seeks to expand the use
of nuclear power in a proliferation-resistant manner, and to use nuclear waste by
reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The key emphases are on
solutions for proliferation resistant fuel separations and long-term nuclear waste reduction.

63
In support of the broad GNEP goals and to help the DOE prepare for the 2008
Secretarial Record of Decision, DOE in October 2007 issued awards to four commercial teams, including the team led by GEH, for technical and conceptual design
studies to provide information on commercial methods that are available to close the
fuel cycle. The GEH team has explored the technical and business parameters that
could support a viable system in a four-part submittal. The submittal included
drafts of a Business Plan, a Technology Development Roadmap, a Conceptual Design and a Communication Plan. The Business Plan explored the current market,
examined the financial viability of the Advanced Recycling Center and proposed policy direction for solutions to spent nuclear fuel. The cost and schedule report, a part
of the Conceptual Design, served as the bridge between the technical details from
the conceptual design and provided key financial input to the Business Plan. The
Conceptual Design submittal (approximately 4,000 pages long) demonstrated indepth knowledge developed during the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program,
GE-funded programs and our current experience. The Technology Development
Roadmap recommended direction on a future research and development program
that could be started in fiscal year 2009 to engage U.S. universities and national
laboratories that would allow the United States to lead within the GNEP policy
framework as well as have better collaborations with foreign governments. Finally,
the Communication Plan provided guidance on how the DOE may communicate scientific, technical and practical information related to closing the nuclear fuel cycle.
For fiscal year 2009, an additional $40 million above the administrations budget
request, for total GNEP funding of $341 million, is needed. The recommended additional funding should be used to help industry conduct technology demonstration
projects, such as the manufacture and demonstration of: (1) key reactor components
(e.g., reactor vessel); (2) electrometallurgical based fuel separation; and (3) a reactor
and fuel separation simulator. GEH further recommends that adequate funding
through the GNEP program be provided to both the U.S. industry and the laboratories for electrometallurgical separations and the PRISM reactor in support of the
GNEP policy goals.
FOSSIL ENERGY

Coal is facing a challenging landscape. In anticipation of carbon constraints, coal

will require carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) if it is to continue serving as
a major national energy resource. It is therefore necessary that the viability and efficacy of CCS be proven at large scale, for multiple projects and over a range of geologic settings. Only a major initiative and investment will provide the necessary confidence for the commercial and public acceptance of CCS. Meeting this challenge will
require the combined resources of industry and government at all levels working in
partnership.
Financial incentives alone will not be sufficient to achieve the goal of validated
and commercially robust CCS. Reducing the risk and time required to identify and
characterize potential storage sites, to obtain Federal, State and local government
commitments related to long-term liability issues, to conduct the necessary reviews
and to complete permitting will also require a substantial effort by all levels of government. The DOE must acknowledge this challenge in all programs related to CCS
and provide specific assistance in addressing these issues. For this reason, the commitment of government to assume long-term liability for monitoring and safety of
the stored CO2 should be sought in forthcoming solicitations for CCS development.
Without such assurances it is not likely that industry participation will be forthcoming.
FutureGen.DOEs decision to restructure the FutureGen program correctly targets the deployment of CCS technology at a commercial scale. The proposed restructuring recognizes that carbon capture ready IGCC can be commercially supplied
today; GEs commercial 630 MW IGCC plant already is carbon capture ready. To
be successful, FutureGens restructuring must address two overarching needs: (1)
validation of CO2 sequestration at a large scale; (2) in multiple geological settings
and (3) demonstration that utility powerplants with carbon capture can be successfully integrated with sequestration. DOEs proposed restructuring can provide the
platform to satisfy these needs and thus be a major step forward toward assuring
a strong future for coal-based power generation. As the Department further develops
the restructured FutureGen program, care must be taken, however, to avoid burdening large-scale CCS projects with unneeded additional complexity and cost.
Nothing in the programs new structure should be allowed to divert attention from
the central objective of proving that the most challenging goal can be met: that
large-scale sequestration is viable and safe.

64
Clean Coal Power Initiative.GE supports CCPI and its role in validating and
testing advanced technology. With the potential refocusing of FutureGen, that programs function as a platform for introduction and validation of advanced IGCC carbon capture technologies will not be available. CCPI must be ready to serve a larger
role in the validation and deployment of those technology advancements that are
needed to meet DOEs goal of no more than 10 percent additional cost for CCS.
However, mounting multiple projects within the overall anticipated funding of $250
million for Round 3 of CCPI will be challenging. Front-end-engineering and detailed
site characterization for a CCS project alone could account for $40$50 million.
After capital expenses for carbon capture equipment and sequestration pipeline and
site development, there will be little if any funding remaining for the additional
costs of CCS operation needed to validate sequestration capacity. For example, for
a single 300 MW IGCC train equipped with carbon capture, the minimum 50 percent capture requirement of CCPI will result in over 1 million tons/year of captured
CO2 with potential annual incremental operating costs as high as $40$50 million.
In recognition of these cost challenges, the expectation for multiple project awards
within the available CCPI funding needs to be reassessed.
IGCC.With its pre-combustion carbon capture, IGCC provides a significant advantage over combustion technology. Despite its current 20 percent cost premium
over pulverized coal combustion, IGCC can provide a lower cost of electricity with
carbon capture. However, it should be recognized that IGCC is still in an early
phase of commercial deployment and at the very beginning of a steep cost learning
curve. Investment in technology development promises to have a high return.
DOEs goal of a maximum 10 percent premium in cost of electricity for IGCC with
carbon capture will not be met with current technology. It will require technology
advancements. Key technology areas that can significantly lower cost and improve
performance are advanced carbon shift, CO2 capture and separations, overall process efficiency plus advancing IGCCs capability for subituminous coals. Therefore we
strongly endorse the administrations request to increase fiscal year 2009 funding
for IGCC by $15.5 million over the fiscal year 2008 level to $69 million.
In addition, cost reduction must be pursued vigorously for IGCC to realize its potential in maintaining coal competitiveness in a carbon-constrained environment.
From this perspective, the clearest and quickest path to reducing the cost of carbon
capture is the accelerated deployment of IGCC and elimination of its cost premium.
In order to achieve this, we recommend a continuation and broadening of the investment tax credits under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from 6 to 12 IGCC projects
and covering a scope that helps to offset both the cost premium of IGCC as well
as the incremental cost of carbon capture.
Carbon Sequestration.GE also endorses the administrations requested technology funding increase of $30 million from fiscal year 2008 levels to $149 million
for carbon sequestration. Research in sequestration needs to move forward as rapidly as possible. A primary focus needs to be the development of science-based requirements for site characterization, monitoring and CO2 quality. Advancements in
these areas are necessary to guide commercial-scale sequestration. The DOE also
needs to quickly move forward with the demonstration programs authorized under
section 702 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in order to apply
and gain experience with modeling, monitoring and rapid sequestration site characterization.
Advanced Turbines.GE recommends that funding be increased by $27 million to
a total of $55 million for the Advanced Turbines Program. This program represents
the Departments high priority research effort focusing on the development of enabling technologies for high efficiency hydrogen turbines for advanced gasification
systems. Gas turbine R&D is focused on advanced combustion and high temperature
turbine technology for syngas/hydrogen fuels that will result from IGCC and carbon
capture type power plants. The program addresses those gas turbine elements
where the technology required for the use of syngas/hydrogen fuels differs from the
requirements for natural gas fueled gas turbines. Development of these technologies
will help offset some of the efficiency and output penalties associated with CO2 capture. Unless the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Advanced Turbines program is increased, funding will be inadequate for this promising high priority work, and the
progress and benefits of this research will be delayed accordingly.

65
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

ENERGY COMMITTEE
COMMUNITIES

OF

ASMES TECHNICAL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the ASME Energy Committee
is pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2009 budget request for research and development programs in the Department of Energy (DOE).
INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE ASME ENERGY COMMITTEE

The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide professional, educational

and technical Society. The Energy Committee of ASMEs Technical Communities
comprises 30 members from 17 divisions of ASME, representing approximately
40,000 of ASMEs members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced energy supply mix to meet the Nations energy needs, including advanced coal, petroleum, nuclear, natural gas, biomass, solar,
wind, hydroelectric power, and energy efficient building and transportation technologies. Sustained growth will also require stability in licensing and permitting
processes not only for power stations but also for transmission and transportation
systems.
Over the past few years, concerns have been growing among policymakers and the
general public about adverse security and environmental impacts resulting from
Americas dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. As a result, the current administration and Members of Congress have made calls to diversify our energy supply and increase R&D on advanced energy technologies. The Energy Committee
fully supports their efforts.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced, sustained levels of funding
for R&D as well as Government policies that encourage deployment and commercialization. The Energy Committee supports much of the fiscal year 2009 budget request, especially the increases in funds for fundamental scientific research. We wish
to emphasize that increased funding in all areas is essential to meeting our national
energy needs.
CRITICAL ISSUES

The Energy Committee would like to point out some critical energy issues:
There is a critical worldwide shortage of trained persons in the work force at
all levels. This includes persons in the building trades, persons in the manufacturing industry, persons who will be available to operate and maintain the energy systems, and engineers and scientists at all levels who will perform the
R&D and design functions for all energy systems.
International programs in energy are growing and will continue to do so in
order to make use of shared resources. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
programs are examples of this. The ITER program includes seven international
partners and the GNEP program now includes 21 countries. Consistent and sustained funding is required to demonstrate that the United States is a reliable
partner in these efforts.
Investment guarantees for construction of new renewable and nuclear facilities
were enacted in previous energy legislation. These guarantees will enable lower
financing costs for a variety of energy technologies leading to lower energy costs
for the American public. Extending these programs further into the future will
allow a reasoned rate of increase in construction and application of these technologies for electric generation.
FOSSIL ENERGY

The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $754 million for fossil energy represents
an increase of $11 million over the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The Energy Committee supports the increase in coal research programs to $624 million. The effective
use of coal in todays environment demands an increase in efficiency and a decrease
in release of environmentally harmful emissions. The Energy Committee agrees
with the DOE in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be operational by 2015. This approach builds on technological R&D advancements in IGCC and CCS technology
achieved over the past 5 years.
The use of advanced integrated gasification combined cycle technology and carbon
sequestration may allow the United States to utilize its coal resources in a more
environmentally sound and cost effective manner. We encourage strong and consistent funding for these programs now and in future years.

66
ADVANCED FUELS RESEARCH

The Energy Committee agrees that the advanced fuels research should be aimed
at fuels used in the transportation system. We believe that the development of
transportation fuel systems that are not petroleum based is a critical part of our
future national energy policy. The fiscal year 2009 budget for biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D is increased by $27 million to $225 million. The Energy Committee encourages Congress to ensure that these research programs continue to receive adequate funding. We are also pleased to see the increase to $221 million in
the effort related to vehicle technologies with a program emphasis on plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
NUCLEAR ENERGY

The Energy Committee is encouraged to see the increase in the DOE Nuclear Energy budget to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009. Nuclear power, as a non-greenhouse
gas-emitting resource, is a critical component of a diverse U.S. power generation
mix and should play a larger role in the Nations base power supply.
Proposed increases in the Nuclear Energy Budget are most evident in the Nuclear
Power 2010 program with an increase of $108 million and the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative with an increase of $122 million over the fiscal year 2008 Appropriation.
The Energy Committee believes that nuclear generated electricity is important to
the Nation, especially in a more carbon conscious environment. Therefore continued
R&D looking at advanced nuclear systems is critical.
The GNEP program is vital to the international future of nuclear energy. Agreements are already in place to establish cooperative efforts. The U.S. based R&D elements of this program are now part of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The Energy Committee concurs with the DOE goal to establish a full scale demonstration
of the required facilities, including a burner reactor and fuel recycle plant that will
not produce a pure plutonium product stream. The successful implementation of the
GNEP initiative will lead to a minimization of high level nuclear waste, enhance
the safeguarding of nuclear materials by keeping them in the reactor fuel cycle, lead
to an effective and efficient use of all the potential energy contained in uranium and
allow cost effective generation of electricity.
The university reactor assistance and education assistance program has been successfully integrated into other programs within the Nuclear Energy budget. The Energy Committee supports the continuation of this change.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages Americas investment in research, development and deployment of the Department of Energys (DOE) diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science portfolio. The fiscal year 2009 request of $1.25 billion provides a balanced and diverse
portfolio of solutions to address the urgent energy and environmental challenges
currently facing our Nation. Most of the key EERE programs, including Biomass,
Building Technologies, Geothermal Energy, Vehicle Technologies, and Wind Energy,
have received increases in funding to support the growth of renewable energy that
the United States needs. The potential to meet the growing need for domestically
produced energy justifies sustained and increased support for these programs.
The Hydrogen Program is reduced $65 million; however, $32 million has been
added to hydrogen related activities and funding in the Vehicle Technologies Program. The Energy Committee encourages fully funding the Hydrogen Program as
requested and recommends restoring a minimum level of $2 million in funding to
the Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D activity to coordinate efforts with other
Hydrogen Production R&D activities in other DOE offices.
The funding to the Water Power Program reflects increasing interest in ocean energy resource characterizations but it neglects the need for sustained support for
conventional hydropower R&D. Hydropower is our Nations largest renewable energy source. This includes pumped storage hydro and repowering existing hydropower facilities with advanced, environmentally benign equipment. The Energy
Committee recommends increasing the fiscal year 2009 funding level of the Water
Power Program to $10 million to continue supporting development and deployment
of advanced conventional hydropower and ocean energy technologies.
The integration of renewable electric generating systems into the operation of the
electricity distribution system is critical to economic operation of these systems. The
Energy Committee believes that R&D related to the integration of the electric grid
and its control as a national system is imperative to the growth of renewable energy
generating technologies and we encourage full funding for such research.

67
SCIENCE AND ADVANCED ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The Energy Committee is pleased by the increased request for the Office of
Science (OS), $4.72 billion or $749 million over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated
amount, which attempts to restore the funding trajectory mandated in the America
Competes Act of 2007 (Public Law 11069). OS programs in high energy physics,
nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences, and
advanced scientific computing, serves every student in the country. These funds
support research at the DOE Laboratories and at a large number of universities and
colleges. We believe that basic energy research will also improve U.S. energy security over the long term, through its support for R&D on cellulosic ethanol, advanced
battery systems, and fusion.
Of the fiscal year 2009 requested increase, $214 million is for the ITER fusion
energy international agreement taking place in Cadarache, France. This program
did not receive funding in fiscal year 2008. The Energy Committee is encouraged
by this cooperative agreement and the enormous potential it holds.
The Energy Committee would like to impress upon the members of this subcommittee and their colleagues that high energy physics and nuclear physics programs are very important to all branches of engineering. The information gathered
allows the development of data related to material formation and failure which
guides the selection of materials for many day to day applications.
OTHER DOE PROGRAMS

DOE is also very active in areas outside of R&D. The environmental remediation
program that funds the decommissioning and decontamination of old DOE facilities
is one such program. The Energy Committee questions the advisability of the budget
decreases in this program. Congress should appropriate the budget to ensure that
this work is accomplished in an expeditious manner.
CONCLUSION

Members of the Energy Committee consider the issues related to energy to be one
of the most important issues facing our Nation. The need for a strong and coherent
energy policy is apparent. We applaud the administration and Congress for their
understanding of the important role that scientific and engineering breakthroughs
will play in meeting our energy challenges. In order to promote such innovation,
strong support for energy research will be necessary across a broad portfolio of technology options. DOE research can play a critical role in allowing the United States
to use our current resources more effectively and to create more advanced energy
technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding both the R&D and
other parts of the proposed budget for the DOE. The ASME Energy Committee is
pleased to respond to additional requests for additional information or perspectives
on other aspects of our Nations energy programs.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT

RESOURCES

OF

NATURAL

Dear Chairman Dorgan and Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I

appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony outlining the urgent need for energy-related research and resource assessment in Alaska. Specifically, scientific
work performed and funded in Alaska through the U.S. Department of Energy provides an invaluable service to the Nation by helping address energy security and
development of technologies for the challenges unique to the Arctic. Alaska is one
of the few places in the United States where the scientific unknowns are so ubiquitous, and the task so daunting, that Federal and State agencies seldom compete
for the most high profile projects; there are too many to go around. In fact, we compliment each others efforts in an attempt to tackle the many challenges that face
us all. The Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
Arctic Energy Office, plays a critical role in this collaborative effort.
Federal land-management responsibility in Alaska is significant. Although final
conveyances are not complete, the current Federal land allotment stands at 243 million acres, or about 64 percent of the total Alaska land surface. The State of Alaska
manages about 24 percent, or 90 million acres, and the Native corporations about
10 percent. Additionally, the energy potential in offshore Alaska Federal waters
dwarfs nearly all other areas in North America. Those regions are now becoming
the next global exploration frontiers of major international oil and gas companies.
For example, the most recent lease sale, in the Chukchi Sea, astounded even the

68
most optimistic of explorationists by the bonus bids that were recorded ($2.6 billion).
Many of the geologic attributes that were targeted by the bidding extend onshore
to the east into the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA). Additionally, the
formidable challenges that will be faced to safely bring any discovered commodities
to market will require the collaboration of many entities.
Arguably, Alaska has the greatest potential for undiscovered conventional resources of any area in the United States. Current mean-case technically recoverable
resource estimates (calculated by the U.S. Geological Survey for on-shore basins and
Minerals Management Service for offshore Alaska basins) stand at 200 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas potential, and 46 billion barrels of oil. These probabilistic estimates are for undiscovered conventional resources only, and do not include the vast
amount of natural gas in unconventional reservoirs such as gas hydrates, coalbed
methane, shale-bed gas, and low permeability reservoirs. Additionally, Alaska contains the largest reserves of coal in all of the United States. Given that fossil energy
will realistically play a key role in the energy portfolio of America for the foreseeable future, it is imperative that all hands remain on deck and agencies like the
NETL Arctic Energy Office remain in full functional operation. The alternative will
only put us farther behind and even more dependent on the volatilities of the global
energy market.
The many important projects being managed from the NETL Arctic Energy Office
attest to the critical role they play. Programs that collaborate with other agencies
and address key aspects of national energy supply, Arctic engineering, environmentally sensitive exploration and development technologies, and rural energy supply will not be fully realized without committed and long-term participation by the
Federal Government. The State of Alaska is rightfully spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these efforts, but we cannot do it alone.
Many changes are needed in the national energy policy, including a focus on and
facilitation of dramatic conservation efforts, development of non-fossil energy
sources that make environmental and economic sense, technological development for
better use of fossil fuels, and continued pursuit of new conventional and unconventional reserves. Nevertheless, whether or not we stand ready, energy demand in the
United States is forecast to increase by 19 percent by the year 2030. Even more
alarming, global demand for energy is forecast to increase by 57 percent in that
same time period. We shall either prepare for the inevitability of dwindling resources, shrinking supply and shortfall, and increasing dependence on foreign energy resources, or pray this calamity is not upon us and continue to cut budgets and
hope that a miracle is just around the corner. I believe we should spend the capital to prepare now.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY RESEARCH
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INSTITUTIONS (ASERTTI)

AND

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive

Director of the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI). ASERTTI is submitting this testimony in support of funding for
a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs. State and local governments host
a wide range of public interest energy organizations, including State research and
technology transfer institutions, municipal energy organizations, land grant colleges,
universities, and others. The members of ASERTTI focus on State- and local-level
public interest, applied clean energy research and technology transfer. Our work
aims to develop and improve clean energy technologies, rapidly transfer those technologies to the private sector, and aid in the transformation of markets. ASERTTI
promotes and facilitates communication and collaboration in the above-mentioned
areas among its State and local members, as well as with other organizations, such
as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories. Each year, our
members invest hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local energy funds. We
believe improved collaboration with our Federal partners would significantly leverage our efforts and State fundsimproving our Nations energy future. In this regard, ASERTTI wishes to highlight a number of funding priorities, as follow, within
DOEs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs for the
Industrial, Building, and Vehicle Efficiency Technologies, as well as for the Biomass,
Solar, and Weatherization Assistance Programs.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES

The administrations fiscal year 2009 budget request would cut the Industrial
Technologies Program by $2.3 million, compared with fiscal year 2008, and contains

69
cuts in several very important programs. Following are ASERTTIs priorities within
the Industrial Technologies Program.
Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC).The IACs are part of the industrial programs crosscutting budget. The IAC program is unique in that it trains university
engineering students in conducting energy audits of small- and medium-sized facilities and, in so doing, helps the facilities identify and implement energy saving
measures. We recommend that the program be restored to fiscal year 2006 funding
levels of $6.4 million in fiscal year 2009, with additional increases in funding and
in the number of centers in future years. This is $2.4 million above the fiscal year
2008 funding level.
Distributed Generation (DG/Distributed Energy).Over the past decade, this program area has played a key role in the development of high-efficiency clean technologies like combined heat and power (CHP). These activities were moved around
within DOE between EERE and the Office of Electricity. For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated $14.5 million for these activities. However, the administrations
fiscal year 2009 request is only $1.5 million. The program is now part of the crosscutting piece of the Industrial Technologies Program. ASERTTI recommends a robust funding increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level for Industrial DG.
Within this DG (or DE) program, it is especially important to restore critical Centers that have become the cornerstone for regional DG activities, providing technical
assistance and becoming involved in State and local interconnection and emissions
issuesgreatly leveraging Federal, State, and private resources. Section 451 of the
recently enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expands these
Clean Energy Application Centers (formerly Regional Application Centers) and authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 2009. ASERTTI strongly supports this authorization level. These Centers also would support market transformation activities to facilitate deployment and help reduce regulatory and institutional barriers. The Centers also would encourage public private partnerships to achieve these goals. Efficiency can be as high as 85 percent in CHP applications when compared to central
station power generation efficiencies of 3055 percent. These activities are estimated
to contribute as much as 11 trillion BTUs of displaced energy and 0.2 MMTCE in
carbon savings in 2020.
Industrial Best Practices.This is one of DOEs most effective industrial energy
programs. ASERTTI urges strong support for this program and recommends funding
it at the administrations fiscal year 2009 request level of $15.5 million.
Industries of the Future (specific).This valued program enables cost-shared research with industry at major State and local research institutions. The program
focuses on energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminum, glass and metal
casting. This program was reduced from $63 million in fiscal year 2002 to $11 million in fiscal year 2008. The administrations fiscal year 2009 request of $11.4 million represents a cut over the previous year, since most research funding is multiyear, and funding from earlier years is not being replaced. Moreover the glass portion of the program has been eliminated. Congress authorized an expanded EnergyIntensive Industries program under the Energy Independence and Security Act focused on industry-specific research. This program authorized a focused approach
that responds to the needs of individual industries and requires their long-term
commitment. To begin implementing this approach, ASERTTI recommends fiscal
year 2009 funding of $24.2 million$12.8 million above the administrations $11.4
million request.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative.The buildings sector in the U.S.

accounts for about 40 percent of total energy consumption and 40 percent of carbon
dioxide emissions, and nearly half of those emissions and of that consumption comes
from commercial buildings. A large multi-year initiative is critical to achieve deep
savings throughout the commercial buildings sector. This public-private collaboration will combine RDD&D, as well as better tracking of real energy performance,
strategic research, and a market transformation plan. This newly-authorized program will be run by DOE with input from an industry consortium and is a priority
for ASERTTI. Thus, ASERTTI recommends $20 million in fiscal year 2009 to fund
this new Initiative, in addition to the administrations request of $13 million for the
existing Commercial Buildings Integration program, for a total of $33 million for
these activities.
Building Application Centers.It is critical to ensure that technologies developed
under various building research programs make it into the marketplace. This important initiative within Building Technologies consists of a regional approach to transferring technologies to the marketplace by providing hands-on, cost-shared technical

70
assistance to builders, communities, and others. This approach has substantial
State, local, and private support and is delivering results. To date, only two regions
have been provided funding to move emerging technologies from the laboratory into
the marketplace. ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to encourage DOE to expand
and support these Centers in each region of the Nation.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the administration has proposed a variety
of cuts to important vehicle programsrelative to fiscal year 2008 levels for the
combined Vehicle and Hydrogen budgetsthat would help save energy at a time of
record-high gasoline prices and would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
ASERTTIs priorities are as follows:
Hybrid Electric Systems.The Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing activity relates in part to heavy vehicle systems optimization R&D, which warrants
greater attention. The administrations proposed reduction in funding for this activity is a concern. ASERTTI recommends that $7.1 million be restored to Vehicle and
Systems Simulation and Testing, which would restore funding for this effort to
$28.2 million. Furthermoreand quite criticallyenergy storage efforts must be accelerated. ASERTTI therefore recommends that the Energy Storage R&D activity be
funded at $59.5 million, an increase of $10 million above the administrations request for R&D efforts focused on electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicle battery
storage capabilities.
Following on from these activities, State and local energy institutions together
with DOE created the Nations first demonstration fleet of plug-in hybrid electric
school buses. More than one dozen of these buses are now transporting students to
and from schools around the Nation. ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to provide
plug-in hybrid deployment funds for heavy duty vehicles to both expand the early
adoption of these breakthrough vehicles and to support ongoing incremental improvements that will create a self-sustaining market for these lead by example
buses. The market for plug-in hybrid school buses offers a means to reduce harmful
air and greenhouse gas emissions, and the opportunity to create niche markets in
the public sector that can grow into commercial opportunities that transform the
market. These heavy duty plug-in hybrid applications are critical to meeting the Nations energy and climate goals.
BIOMASS PROGRAM

ASERTTI Supports the Administrations Fiscal Year 2009 Request of $225 Million.To this end, ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to support funding that targets regional coordination of biomass research, demonstration, and technology transfer programs that emphasize the alignment of State and Federal resources. Currently, little attention or funding is provided to achieve joint State-Federal coordination in this critical research area. We believe the Nation could reach the goal of costcompetitive cellulosic-derived biofuels more rapidly if State and Federal research
and demonstration resources were better aligned. ASERTTI also encourages Congress to fund analysis and communication activities that better inform the public
about the value of biofuels. ASERTTI urges DOE to substantially increase the
RDD&D under this program area for stationary applications, including the development of bio-based products and renewable, pipeline-quality biogas. Energy innovations resulting from ongoing cellulosic RD&D should be leveraged to address stationary application challenges, such as the need to increase yield from anaerobic digesters, improve thermochemical gasifiers, refine renewable gas cleanup for use in
both power generation and direct use applications. These stationary applications
also have the ability to improve the economics, and further reduce the carbon footprint, of biofuels production.
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM

The solar thermal research program is dominated by water-intensive technologies

for cooling. It is critical, particularly as water resources are already scarce in some
areas, and becoming more so throughout the United States, to focus additional
RDD&D efforts on dry cooling systems. ASERTTI urges Congress to restore the
Solar Energy Program to at least the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level of $168.5
million, which is $12.4 million above the administrations fiscal year 2009 request
of $156.1 million. ASERTTI also strongly recommends that there be a particular emphasis going forward on dry cooling systems.

71
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ASERTTI supports the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), as it helps

low-income households, the elderly, and the disabled by improving the energy efficiency of low-income housing. Each year the program has exceeded its target and
has weatherized approximately 100,000 homes. The program also is reducing energy
consumption in participating homes by about 20 percent. Increased funding would
allow WAP to expand quickly to reduce energy usage by approximately 25 percent
in each assisted home. This represents savings that families can use to pay for other
critical needs, while reducing the Nations energy demand by the equivalent of 18
million barrels of oil every year. The administrations request to eliminate funding
for the program should be rejected, and ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to fund
WAP at no less than $300 million.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR

RESEARCH (UCAR)

ATMOSPHERIC

On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and

the university community involved in weather and climate research and related
education, training and support activities, I submit this written testimony for the
record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development. We urge you to fund the DOE Office of Science at the requested level of $4.7 billion or higher as authorized by the America COMPETES
Act.
UCAR is a 71-university member consortium that manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs that support and extend the countrys scientific research and education capabilities. In addition to its member research universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and over 50 international universities and laboratories. UCARs principal support is from the National Science
Foundation with additional support from other Federal agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE).
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

The atmospheric and related sciences community is concerned about the final outcome for basic research in many areas of the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, including the DOE Office of Science. We do understand that appropriators were faced with extremely difficult funding choices, but the negative consequences of not investing now in science that contributes to our economy, standard
of living, and safety and security, will only multiply in the future as this countrys
global competitors invest on a broader scale than ever before. We appreciate your
support for last years America COMPETES Act and urge you to reinstate the doubling track for the Office of Science with the fiscal year 2009 budget, and/or with
a supplement to the fiscal year 2008 budget.
There will surely be immense budget pressures facing you again in your deliberations this year, but we ask that you focus on science as a national priority. We urge
you to fund the DOE Office of Science at the requested level of $4.7 billion or higher
as authorized by the America COMPETES Act, ask that you make the Office a national priority when difficult choices have to be made at the end of the budget process, and that you enable the agency to apply the entire appropriation toward
planned agency research priorities.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
program has as a key goal, the development of knowledge necessary to identify, understand, and anticipate the potential health and environmental consequences of energy production and use. These are goals that are essential to our countrys well
being and security. Peer-reviewed research programs at universities, national laboratories, and private institutions play a critical role in the BER program by involving the best researchers the Nation has to offer, and by developing the next generation of researchers. All BER research projects, other than those that have been in
the extra projects category, undergo regular peer review and evaluation.
I urge the subcommittee to fund Biological and Environmental Research at the
level of the fiscal year 2009 budget request, $568.9, a 4 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2008 level, and to enable BER to apply that entire amount toward
planned agency research priorities that are peer-reviewed and that involve the best

72
researchers to be found within the Nations university research community as well
as the DOE labs.
BERs Climate Change Research Program
Within BER, the Climate Change Research subprogram addresses some of the
most critical research priorities facing the world today including developing the ability to predict climate change and its impacts on global and regional scales, exploring
the impacts of high levels of CO2 on the Earth system, and providing the scientific
foundation necessary to help mitigate those impacts.
One example of the compelling work being done is a BER contribution to the
International Polar Year (IPY) utilizing the Community Climate System Model to
simulate eight future emission scenarios. The results projected a decline in sea ice,
with one scenario showing the Arctic becoming ice-free in summer at the end of this
centuryan occurrence that could change sea level, economies, world trade, and political stability. Such advanced modeling activities supported by the BER Climate
Change Research are obviously critical to our understanding of the current global
climate and areas that are being transformed by rapid change, but they are also
critical to our understanding of what a changed world may look like in the very near
future.
In 2009, Climate Change Research funded work will continue to focus on resolving
the role of clouds and aerosols in climate change and their interaction with solar
radiation. While great progress has been made in recent years, this remains one of
the greatest scientific uncertainties in climate change prediction. As we learn more
about climate change and the anthropogenic influences that are forcing change at
an unnatural rate, those results must be made accessible to researchers working to
understand the regional and local impacts that climate change will produce. A new
Climate Change Research effort is strengthening the connections between the climate modeling research communities and those that address integrated assessment
of impacts in addition to exploring adaptation methods. To be of use at regional
scales (where details make tremendous differences at local ecosystem levels where
we all live), models must be resolved at ever higher resolutions to project local impacts with any reasonable certainly. Running models at these resolutions presents
complex problems of data retrieval, archiving, analysis, and dissemination for which
BER is developing the tools and capabilities necessary.
The Climate Change Research goal to deliver improved regional climate data and
models is critical to the ability of policy makers and stakeholders to provide stewardship resulting in a healthy planetand it is particularly important as signs of
increasingly dramatic change in our climate and environment continue to appear.
The Climate Change Research Request of $154.9 million for fiscal year 2009 is
a 13.2 percent increase over fiscal year 2008 which will make up some of the ground
lost in previous years. Within this amount, Climate Change Modeling receives $45.4
milliona critical 46 percent increase over fiscal year 2008. These additional resources are absolutely necessary for the work that must be accelerated at the regional level. I urge the subcommittee to fund Climate Change Research at the fiscal
year 2009 requested level of $154.9 million, and to enable DOE to apply the entire
amount toward planned national research priorities.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
Within DOEs Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
delivers leading edge computational and networking capabilities to scientists nationwide, enabling advances in computer science and the development of specialized
software tools that are necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by the Office of Science. Development of this capacity is a key component
of DOEs strategy to succeed in its science, energy, environmental quality, and national security missions.
ASCRs continued progress is of particular importance to atmospheric scientists
involved with complex climate model development, research that takes enormous
amounts of computing power to address the interaction of the earths systems and
global climate change. ASCR is one of the most important resources supporting climate work in this country.
Within ASCR, several programs are of particular importance to climate change
computer modeling work, particularly through the development of complex software.
The Leadership Computing Facility (LCF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) provides a high performance computing resource and, in 2009, will continue
the development of its world class facility with over 80 percent of its resources being
made available to unclassified scientific research. In addition, the National Energy
Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) operated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) are also important

73
enablers for climate research, as is Argonne National Laboratory (ALCF) which is
strengthening its infrastructure to prepare for future computing capacity. These
computational and networking resources play a vital role in the progress of U.S. climate research.
The high performance computing facilities for the Office of Science serve thousands of scientists throughout the country at laboratories, universities, and other
Federal agencies. Computing time is awarded to research groups based on peer review of submitted proposals. Basic research accomplished at these facilities covers
a wide range of disciplines including climate modeling. ESnet enables researchers
at laboratories, universities and other institutions to communicate with each other
using collaborative capabilities that are unparalleled. This high-speed network enables geographically distributed research teams to collaborate effectively on some of
the worlds most complex problems. Researchers from industry, academia and national labs, through this program, share access to unique DOE research facilities,
support the frequent interactions needed to address complex problems, and speed
up discovery and innovation.
LCF, NERSC, and ESnet play complementary roles in advancing the complex and
challenging science of climate change and other scientific areas of extreme importance to the security and quality of life of our citizens. I urge the subcommittee to
support the Presidents fiscal year 2009 request of $368.82 million for DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Research, a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2008,
and to enable DOE to apply the entire amount toward planned national priorities.
Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
BER and ASCR (through its Computational Partnerships program) partner to
support Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SciDAC), a progressive
program that provides the innovations in computational research and development
for petascale computational and data management endeavors, including climate research. Along with very broad scientific applications, a current SciDAC goal is to
break through the uncertainty still challenging researchers concerning the role of
clouds and aerosols in climate change. Additional SciDAC investments address the
role of land-ice in the climate system, improved representation of ice sheets in global
circulation models, and understanding of climate extremes in a changing climate.
Much of the research is designed to provide global community access to the data
for impact studies as well as national and international assessments (e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) concerning the consequences of global
warming. This work is becoming increasingly critical as evidence mounts that regions of Earth are warming at an alarming rate. SciDAC research activities are
competed through a merit review process and carried out via a synthesis of talent
drawn from universities, national laboratories, and private institutions.
BER funding for SciDAC is requested at $7.7 million for fiscal year 2009 with
ACSR supporting SciDAC Computational Partnerships at $52.0 million. I urge the
subcommittee to support the Presidents fiscal year 2008 requests within BER and
ASCR for overall SciDAC funding.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

RTI INTERNATIONAL

I am writing in support of the following subprogram in the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water appropriations measure: Department of EnergyFossil Energy Research and Development: Coal, Fuels and Power Systems, Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.
I respectfully request that the Presidents $69 million request for the Advanced
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle subprogram be fully funded.
Congress and the administration have highlighted energy as critical to Americas
economic future and national security. It is all too clear that the United States requires cost-effective technologies for clean use of coal to generate electricity and fuel
vehicles, to save jobs, and enable domestic growth in critical industries such as
chemicals, fertilizer, pulp and paper, metals, and glass.
Funded by Congress, the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle subprogram has a historic opportunity to enable such benefits to be achieved in a manner that is environmentally responsible.
DOEs plans for 2009 include scaling up a new technology that greatly reduces
the cost and improves the performance of a crucial step in any clean use of coal:
cleaning the synthetic gassyngasthat is made from coal. In every opportunity
for clean use of coal, the first steps are to make and then clean the syngas. The
new technology, called warm-gas clean-up, has lower capital and operating costs
than existing technologies, and does a better job of removing pollutants. This tech-

74
nology meets or exceeds requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for reduced
sulfur and mercury emissions, contributes to meeting the EPACTs requirements for
efficiency, and enhances the opportunity for carbon capture. Furthermore, this technology provides 10 percent greater efficiency compared with current technologies for
generating electricity from coal, which causes a 10 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions without additional costs or equipment.
The administration has included sufficient funds for DOEs plans to scale up this
syngas-cleaning technology. DOEs plans are well-timed, because there is substantial industry interest in scaling up the technology.
Time is of the essence to lower the costs of gasification. Worldwide, electric utilities, chemical companies, and other industries are making decisions today about
how they will use coal in the near future. Better technology at lower costs will enable expanded use of gasification, with all of its environmental benefits, instead of
conventional approaches. For example, gasification for generating electricity emits
less carbon dioxide than conventional power plants. Warm-gas clean-up prevents
acid-forming pollutants without the solid waste and carbon dioxide problems that
come with scrubbing sulfur from power plants emissions. Further, warm-gas cleanup enables a cleaner syngas, which means cleaner exhaust gas from the electric generating turbine at greater thermal efficiency. That in turn yields benefits such as
significantly reduced cost to capture carbon (and the EPA already notes that carbon
capture will be much less costly with gasification than with conventional power
plants).
To realize the environmental and economic benefits of gasification, DOE must
have sufficient funds to implement the bipartisan intent of Congress expressed in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
I recognize the constraints by which the subcommittee is bound. I appreciate your
consideration of my request that the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle subprogram in DOEs Fossil Energy Research and Development be funded at
or above the Presidents $69 million request for fiscal year 2009.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to
contact me. I look forward to working with you as the fiscal year 2009 Energy and
Water appropriations bill takes shape.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Florida State University is seeking $4,000,000 from the U.S. Department of Energy (Electricity Transmission and Distribution) for our Electric Power Infrastructure, Security R&D Program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to present testimony before this subcommittee. I would like to
take a moment to briefly acquaint you with Florida State University.
Located in Tallahassee, Floridas capitol, FSU is a comprehensive Research university with a rapidly growing research base. The University serves as a center for
advanced graduate and professional studies, exemplary research, and top-quality
undergraduate programs. Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment
to quality in teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors including Nobel laureates,
Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members of the National Academy of Science.
Our scientists and engineers do excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of
the results of their research. Florida State University had over $190 million this
past year in sponsored research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from every State in the Nation and
more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed to high admission
standards that ensure quality in its student body, which currently includes National
Merit and National Achievement Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. Since 2005, FSU students have won more than 30 nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships including 2 Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman Scholarships, Goldwater, Jack Kent Cooke and 18 Fulbright Fellowships.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as well as our
emerging reputation as one of the Nations top public research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today.
The electric power system is critical as a fundamental enabling infrastructure for
every aspect of the economy, national security, and defense. Large-scale failures in
the electrical grid systems of North America and Europe have made us aware of the
critical nature of our dependence on the availability of electrical power. A contrib-

75
uting factor to these failures was a lack of detailed understanding of the system response to an initial minor disturbance. Lack of investment in power systems grids
over the last 2030 years has eroded the redundancy traditionally built into the system. Over time, this lack of investment in R&D resulted in the loss of many power
engineering educational programs. The Nation is now facing an acute shortage of
power engineers.
This multi-university project will build on existing expertise at FSU, other Florida
universities, and several of DOEs National Laboratories. The research conduced
will focus on critical issues associated with modernizing the U.S. electric grid to improve reliability, security, and efficiency and to support new technologies. Much of
the research will include industrial partners, thereby ensuring rapid technology
transfer from research-to-practice. These activities include:
Employing the real time digital simulator capability at FSU to simulate realtime behavior of regional and local power systems and interconnections and to
examine areas of vulnerability to major outages and cascading failures. We plan
that this will become a national user facility with remote access capability over
high-speed connections.
Use of the real-time digital simulator through comparisons of concurrent real
time modeling and an actual system to assess new technologies.
Investigation into technology needs for enabling wide area measurement, communications, and control advances for improved coordination over large areas.
Advanced materials R&D for superconductivity applications in power systems.
Through coordinated efforts across multiple universities, FSU will lead the initiative to address future needs to assure reliable energy. We are seeking $4,000,000
in fiscal year 2009 for this important project.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL

Honorable Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, the following request by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is for continued funding in
fiscal year 2009, of the U.S. Dept of Energys Oil Technologies-Effective Environmental Protection: Risked Based Data Management (RBDMS) and Cost Effective
Regulatory Approaches (CERA) programs. The request for fiscal year 2009 is at the
fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $1.2 million (RBDMS) and $500,000 (Energy Efficiency).
RBDMS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.Data utilities from the Risk Based Data
Management System are installed and under use in 25 States and 1 Indian Nation. The use of RBDMS streamlines State oil and gas permit and response
times, enhances ground water protection, provides improved public and industry
joint access to data and records, saves money for State and Federal agencies,
reduces paper reporting, increases production for small independent domestic
operators, and creates real time efficiencies in State and Federal domestic oil
and gas programs. Over the life of this successful program, the States have
matched Federal funding with their own funds at a 3:1 ratio. If state in-kind
contributions are added, the State-to-Federal participation ratio increases substantially. This has been, and continues to be, a sound investment of Federal
funds.
Fiscal year 2009 funding would provide:
E-Commerce.The development of new RBDMS e-commerce applications in fiscal
year 2009 will increase environmental monitoring and compliance and at the same
time decrease both cost and time allocation for small oil and gas producers. The result is money saved by State governments, Federal agencies and increased domestic
oil and gas production.
Cost Effective Regulatory Approaches.The GWPC will focus on three cost effective priorities: (1) reducing the costs of information exchange between the oil
and gas and mining industries and regulatory agencies, (2) eliminating duplicative reporting requirements across State and Federal jurisdictions, while (3)
providing the reference data needed to make informed decisions about environmental protection and resource development.
Energy-Water Sustainability.The USDOE has a goal of minimizing water consumption by energy producing industries. The GWPC will develop applications
that will aid State agencies in tracking water quality and quantity data related
to oil and gas production. This will assist States in the analysis of related water
consumption. Public education efforts through our Ground Water Report to the
Nation series will emphasize ground water availability facts and realistic short
and long term conservation efforts that can be made locally.

76
CO2 Geo-Sequestration.Capture of CO2 from power plants is one potential tool
for decreasing the release of this gas to the atmosphere. However, storage or
sequestration of its liquid form in geologic formations must be done with protection of underground sources of drinking water in mind. The GWPC will continue to work in cooperation with State and Federal agencies to apply sound
science in the development of effective regulations, policy and technical guidance, with a focus on protecting the Nations invaluable ground water resources.
With additional funds we would be able to develop a geo-sequestration volume
information tracking system.
THE GWPC.GWPC is a respected national organization of State ground water,
UIC, and oil and gas regulatory agencies with a successful track record of providing
solutions to ground water protection related issues that are environmentally protective, scientifically based, cost effective and publicly accepted. We are the proud recipient of the Secretary of Energys Energy 100 Awardgiven to the top 100 most
successful and publicly beneficial projects (RBDMS) in the last 30 years of USDOE.
We hope the subcommittee will continue to support these efforts in fiscal year 2009
at the fiscal year 2008 level of $1.2 million (RBDMS) and $500,000 (Energy Efficiency).
We are grateful for your past support and would like to also request that the subcommittee continue to support the USDOE Office of Fossil Energy, and the National
Energy Technology Lab (NETL). Without their national presence not only our successes, but those of many others would not have been accomplished. The programs
they administer serve a valuable purpose and are important to the long term efficiency of the front line State and Federal agencies and the small domestic operators
who would not otherwise have been able to extend the life of domestic reservoirs
and increase environmental and ground water protection at the same time.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NATIONAL HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION

The National Hydropower Association (NHA) 1 appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement regarding hydropower funding priorities for the fiscal year 2009
appropriations budget cycle. NHA requests $54 million in fiscal year 2009 Energy
& Water Appropriations for the Department of Energys Waterpower Program.
HYDROPOWERS CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL AS THE NATIONS MOST ROBUST,
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE

Congress is currently examining the implications of climate change on the environment, economy, and energy security of the United States. Crucial to the climate
debate is the need for policymakers to work together to promote the development,
deployment and expanded use of existing renewable resources, as well as innovative
new technologies, that can play a significant role in addressing climate issues while
maintaining a reliable and affordable electricity supply system. Hydropower of today
and new water power technologies of tomorrow can provide significant benefits to
these national energy and environmental goals.
Currently, hydropower provides sizeable benefits. As the leading renewable energy resource in the country, it accounts for 7 percent of all of the Nations electricity in terms of actual generation and approximately 9 percent in terms of actual
capacity. Overall, hydropower accounts for 77 percent of actual renewable electricity
generation and 83 percent of the Nations renewable energy capacity.
As an important source of electricity, hydropower offers advantages over other
generation options. Importantly, hydroelectric units are able to start, stop, and
change output quickly, which provides important grid stability and reliability benefits. As such, hydro has the ability to firm intermittent resources such as wind and
solar, a benefit which becomes all the more important as the Nation moves to incorporate more renewables in its energy portfolio. Finally, hydropowers non-power benefits include water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation and recreation.
Hydropowers potential contribution is notablefrom efficiency improvements and
capacity upgrades at existing projects, to new development at existing non-powered
dams, to significant new capacity gains from emerging waterpower technologies,
such as ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic projects. According to a March 2007
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report titled, Assessment of Waterpower
Potential and Development Needs, the potential for increases in capacity, mostly
without the need to build dams, is conservatively estimated at 23,000 MW by 2025,
1 NHA is a non-profit, national trade association dedicated to promoting the Nations largest
renewable resource and advancing the interests of the hydropower and new ocean, tidal and
instream hydrokinetic industries and the consumers they serve.

77
with an overall estimate of 85,000 to 95,000 MWs with appropriate public policy
support. This includes:
2,300 MW capacity gains at existing conventional hydropower facilities;
5,000 MW of new conventional hydropower at existing non-powered dams;
2,700 MW of new small and low head power conventional hydropower (<30 MW
installed capacity);
10,000 MW from ocean wave energy technologies; and
3,000 MW from hydrokinetic technologies (river-based).
Realization of these capacity gains will require continued and increased research,
development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) support and other economic
incentives as well as planning, testing and impact evaluation assistance. As stipulated in EPAct 2005, the Secretary of Energy is required to conduct R&D for conventional and new waterpower technologies.2
NHAS STATEMENT REQUESTS FULL FUNDING OF THE SUITE OF INITIATIVES IDENTIFIED
IN THE EPRI REPORT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYS NEW WATERPOWER R&D
PROGRAM AT A LEVEL OF $54 MILLION PER FISCAL YEAR

Waterpower Technology Development Needs

Through direct contact with NHA members, which include hydropower owners
and operators, ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic technology developers, and
the analysts and experts cited in the EPRI report, NHA analyzed the reports suite
of development recommendations and concluded that the EPRI report provides a
useful model, a roadmap from which to guide activities under the DOE Waterpower
R&D program. As such, this statement highlights and summarizes the various R&D
initiatives outlined in the report. These directives are intended to address the needs
left unfunded by the previous RDD&D program for hydropower and would expand
the Departments efforts.
Waterpower Realization Committee.To provide the initial guidance and future
oversight to benchmark results of the RDD&D program in terms of real waterpower
capacity and generation gains. This committee, made up of representatives from industry, government resource agencies and non-governmental organizations would
guide RDD&D efforts and monitor progress to ensure the realization of the capacity
gains. The committee would measure on an annual basis the capacity gains from
the various initiatives and make recommendations for refinement of the program,
as necessary.
Waterpower Performance Initiatives.The suite of activities and programs available to meet the goals of the program are outlined below.
Advanced Water Energy Science
Statement of Need.The industry has identified the need for advanced scientific
techniques to support the following activities:
Advance Water Energy Science
Work that would support the industrys need to better predict flow measurement. Accurate flow values are needed for a variety of operation and environmental performance topics.
Modeling work to improve hydraulic modeling techniques.
Turbine research in order to develop better materials resistant to cavitation
and erosion damage.
Generator research in order to discover materials suitable for use as stator
core; build one prototype stator core; and study it over a period of time.
Meteorological Forecasting and Optimal Dispatch of Energy/Water Systems.
Work in this area will examine and determine the benefits of integrating wind
and other intermittent renewable energy resources with hydropower and
pumped storage resources. Specific work could include:
Near-term forecasting of meteorological conditions will help identify needs for
improving meteorological data and instrumentation.
Long-term projections of global climate change and effects of other cycles and
other factors on regional meteorological conditions and future regional electricity and water demand, energy and electricity supply mix, and fuel costs.
2 EPAct 2005, title IX, sec. 931Conduct a program of research, development, demonstration
and commercial application for cost competitive technologies that enable the development of new
and incremental hydropower capacity, adding diversity of the energy supply of the United
States, including: (i) Fish-friendly large turbines. (ii) Advanced technologies to enhance environmental performance and yield greater energy efficiencies. (. . .) The Secretary shall conduct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs for(i) ocean energy,
including wave energy (. . .) and (iv) kinetic hydro turbines.

78
Research into the integration of meteorological information and load, energy
price, and other forecasts with energy and water system operations.
Integration and Control of Renewable Energy Technologies.Greater opportunities to adopt renewable energy technologies and their integration with water resources can be realized if research is provided to develop advanced integration
and control mechanisms. Funding could be directed to the development and
demonstration of hybrid control systems to include real time pricing, resource
optimization and optimal economic value methodologies.
Hydropower Environmental Performance
Statement of Need.The following objectives will improve hydropower performance by maximizing hydroelectric generation and protecting fisheries resources.
Complete RDD&D for Fish-Friendly Turbines.Continued work on fish-friendly
turbine development offers the opportunity to address energy and environmental impacts and needs. Activities under this category include:
Continue prototype Alden/Concepts NREC turbine development in preparation for commercialization. Additional fish survival testing.
Continue testing of the advanced turbines at Wanapum dam.
Perform power efficiency testing, and
Deploy and evaluate the Alden/Concepts NREC design at School Street
Project, NY or other location.
Bioengineering for Fish Passage and Entrainment Mitigation.Technologies are
needed to solve the problem of fish mortality involving hydropower structures.
Continued work activities include:
Basic research on the effect of hydraulic process on fish movement.
Utilize biocriteria in the development of new turbine and fish passage designs.
Conduct demonstrations of new technology to determine effectiveness in realworld applications.
Water Quality Mitigation Technology.New and more cost-effective and less
water intensive solutions are needed to address dissolved oxygen and water
temperature issues involving water quality. Research is needed to:
Review state of the art techniques for addressing these issues.
Develop new technologies and target test sites for testing.
Conduct cost-shared demonstrations of new technologies.
Advanced Weirs for Flow Re-regulation and Aeration.More work is needed to
optimize the design of weirs and demonstrate how they can be used to improve
the efficiency of existing projects. Research activities could include hydraulic design studies, coupled with model tests and prototype demonstrations.
Hydropower Operational Performance
Statement of Need.Improved forecast models and the implementation of advanced technologies can play a crucial role in enhancing the operational performance of hydropower facilities. The following objectives will improve operations at facilities.
Hydropower Operation Decision Support Analysis.Need to understand various
hydropower generation sensitivities to various processes. Research activities
could include:
Determination of sources of hydropower generating variability across spatial
and temporal scales.
Develop improved climate/meteorological stream flow forecast models.
Incorporate understanding and forecast models into optimization and decision
support models.
Demonstrate benefits of using improved decisions support models.
Demonstration Testing of the Advanced Hydropower Turbine System (AHTS) to
Increase Use of Efficient Designs.Demonstration activities will help potential
users understand and overcome potential risks of using new technologies.
Advanced Electrical Equipment for Renewable Integration.More research into
these technologies would increase efficiency and reliability by providing ancillary services to the electric grid.
Waterpower Technology Development.This part of the program would use funds
to advance hydrokinetic and ocean energy technology in four program areas:
Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment
Statement of Need.New generation technologies are on the threshold of implementation, but require additional site assessment and a mapping program to outline
the criteria for development. A complete resource assessment and criteria protocol
for hydrokinetic sites in the United States is required and should be available to

79
potential developers, similar to the resource assessment for small hydropower completed by DOE.
Hydrokinetic Environmental Profiling
Statement of Need.Advanced technologies on the threshold of implementation
often are stalled because prospective users cannot justify implementation risks and
lack of knowledge among developers regarding the environmental and institutional
barriers. Research to develop minimum time environmental data collection and
analysis techniques for use in site evaluation of hydrokinetic machines is needed.
This research would standardize monitoring techniques for evaluating the environmental impacts of hydrokinetic technologies and help expedite the deployment of
these technologies.
Hydrokinetic Technology Improvement
Statement of Need.Instream kinetic, tidal/wave energy and kinetic hydropower
and pressure systems for manmade conduit systems all require test support and
demonstration funding to support development, deployment and realization of their
potential. Research is needed to determine proof of concepts with single prototype
units and demonstrate operational viability and environmental effects with pre-commercial multiple unit projects. Support is also needed to identify universities, labs,
and other entities where proof of concepts and operational tests can be conducted
and environmental effects assessed.
Advanced Ocean Energy
Statement of Need.Federal funding of ocean energy RDD&D and required regulatory activities would enable the United States to develop new domestic energy
supplies, create jobs and capture an emerging global export market. Research is
needed to develop an ocean wave energy technology industry to commercial deployment level including research into marine resources and converters; energy conversion, delivery and storage; environmental and cost monitoring; and field deployment.
CONCLUSION

Hydropower is already a major source of energy for the Nation. The nascent
ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic technologies are at the beginning stages of
commercial deployment. Yet both technologies have a tremendous growth potential
that could be realized through sustained Federal RDD&D support. These renewable
resources are clean, climate-friendly technologies that can provide significant base
load power to the United States at a time when our demand for electricity continues
to increase dramatically. By expanding the funding for the DOE Waterpower R&D
program, the Nation could soon realize the tremendous energy and environmental
benefits of maximizing existing hydropower projects and infrastructure as well as
the suite of emerging waterpower technologies.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY

This written testimony for the record for fiscal year 2009 requests reinstatement
of funding for the Nuclear Education program appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2008 to include at least $1.5 million for support of health physics programs, students, and faculty. This support is necessary to
address the shortage of health physicists, which is an issue of extreme importance
to the safety of our Nations workers, members of the public, and our environment.
As explained below, justification by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to rescind the NRC Nuclear Education program is not applicable to the health physics academic programs.
Health Physics is the profession that specializes in radiation safety, which is necessary for the safe and successful operation of the Nations energy, healthcare,
homeland security, defense, and environmental protection programs. Although radiation safety is fundamental to each of these vital national programs, there is no single Federal agency that serves as a home and champion for the health physics profession as this profession cuts across all these sectors. However, health physics is
necessary for all these sectors to exist as it supports the principle disciplines in
these programs that are championed by multiple Federal agencies, such as engineers, medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, military personnel, and
environmental scientists.
As the Nations development and use of radioactive materials grew following the
end of World War II, the Nations demand for health physicists increased in the
areas of energy, defense, public health, and environmental protection. This need was
mainly supported by student fellowships and scholarships from the Atomic Energy

80
Agency (energy and defense) and Public Health Service (public health and environmental protection). However, over the years agencies and their missions changed,
the nuclear power industry faltered and the Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear
weapons complex downsized following the end of the cold war. This resulted in the
academic program support from Federal agencies dwindling until the last remaining
support from DOE was terminated in fiscal year 1999. With this dwindling support,
the supply of new health physicists declined and the age of the existing health physics workforce increased despite the continued need for health physicists in energy,
defense, public health, and environmental protection programs as well as an exponential growth in the medical and academic community. Due to these circumstances
a human capital crisis was created in health physics.
As the health physics human capital crisis grew and loomed in the early years
of the 21st century, Congress and the DOE took action to add support to the nuclear
engineering academic programs through DOE programs in the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and eventually agreed that this was an appropriate support mechanism
for the health physics academic program. In fiscal year 2005, just 4 years ago, Congress appropriated money to DOENE for a health physics fellowship and scholarship program as part of the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support budget
item. Shortly thereafter, Congress reinforced its position that DOE needed to support the health physics academic programs in provisions of section 954 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Despite the fact that the need for an increased supply of
health physics professionals continued to exist, the DOE ceased funding the Congressionally authorized DOENE health physics fellowship and scholarship program
after only 2 fiscal years of funding the programs at minimal levels.
In fiscal year 2008, Congress transferred appropriations for a Nuclear Education
program, including health physics programs, to the NRC. The Health Physics Society (HPS) applauds this insightful action. The NRC does have a vested interest in
the radiation safety associated with most of the sectors covered by the health physics profession. Although the NRC quickly addressed the demands of starting a new
education support program by opening two grant opportunities for student and faculty support, the administration has not included continuation of the program in
their budget for fiscal year 2009.
The OMB has provided a justification for rescission of the Nuclear Education program. This OMB assessment is patently wrong with regards to health physics programs.
The OMB states . . . target levels for the undergraduate enrollment have been
met . . . and Since the 1990s, enrollment levels in nuclear education programs
have tripled . . .
Specific to target levels, since DOE has only funded health physics programs for
2 years, they have never established target levels for health physics program enrollments nor has there been time to assess the effect of those 2 years of funding
on health physics program enrollments. The DOENE HP fellowship and scholarship program thus far has provided three graduate fellowships in fiscal year 2006
and zero undergraduate scholarships. In 2004, the HPPDO developed a plan for revitalizing the academic programs to a level that could meet the projected shortfall
of health physicists. The Health Physics Program Directors Organization (HPPDO)
plan calls for an initial target of 20 graduate fellowships and 20 undergraduate
scholarships, i.e., target levels well above the actual performance of the Nuclear
Education Programs.
In addition, the HPS does not feel that undergraduate levels are an appropriate
metric to measure the success of an academic program. Undergraduate levels are
not viewed significant by university Deans looking to justify graduate programs at
the Masters and Doctorate level. Furthermore, university administrators will not
commit to replacing an increasingly large number of retiring health physics faculty
unless the Federal Government demonstrates its commitment to investing in the research and academic health physics infrastructure necessary to support new faculty
hires in this vital profession.
The OMB justification also states . . . and the number of universities offering
nuclear-related programs also has increased. Actually, the number of health physics programs graduating at least 5 students annually decreased from 20 programs
in 1995 to less than half that number in 2005, which belies the OMB statement.
We find the OMB justification ignores the value of Federal long-term investment
in academic infrastructure and ignores the value of professional radiation safety
professionals to the successful protection of workers, members of the public, and the
environment while benefiting from the use of nuclear technologies.
We consider it would take approximately $1,000,000 to get to the HPPDO plan
of 20 fellowships and 20 scholarships in health physics. In addition, funding of
$500,000 should allow for up to two young faculty members in health physics aca-

81
demic programs to receive grant support at the level offered by the NRC fiscal year
2008 grant opportunities. Considering the DOE budgets for the HP Fellowship and
Scholarship programs for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 combined have totaled $500,000 and only produced 3 fellowships, we feel this request is very modest
while we recognize it will not begin to provide the long term support that will eventually be required if we are to have enough safety professionals for our energy,
healthcare, homeland security, defense, and environmental protection programs.
However, it will go a long way to help building the student and faculty infrastructure needed to reach this goal.
The subcommittees favorable consideration of this request will help meet our Nations radiation safety needs of the future.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

GAS TURBINE ASSOCIATION

The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to provide the
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development with our industrys statement regarding fiscal year 2009 Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) Advanced Turbines R&D at
$55 million and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) Distributed Energy at $60 million funding levels.
From Connecticut to California, States are working to put in place regulations to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, our economy will
be demanding more electric power to maintain its growth. Without new technology,
the power generation industry will be hard pressed to produce additional electric capacity, while at the same time meet the strict greenhouse gas emissions standards
being set by States and the Federal Government.
Federal investment in research and technology development for advanced gas turbines that are more versatile, cleaner, and have the ability to burn hydrogen-bearing reduced carbon synthetic fuels and carbon-neutral alternative fuels is needed to
ensure the reliable supply of electricity in the next several decades. Domestic coal
based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture and sequestration is one such approach that would significantly supplement available supplies of domestic natural gas to guarantee an adequate supply of clean and affordable electric power. Alternative fuel choices range from imported LNG, coal bed
methane, and coal-derived synthetic or process gas to biogas, waste-derived gases
and hydrogen. Research is needed to improve the efficiency, reduce capital and operating costs, and reduce emissions.

$55 MILLION FOR DOE FE ADVANCED TURBINES

$60 MILLION FOR DOE EERE ITP DISTRIBUTED ENERGY

Supporting these programs provides the following benefits:

Efficient and reliable turbine technologies for alternative fuel, near-zeroemission power plants
Energy security by utilizing domestic energy sources to reduce the demand
for foreign energy imports
Globally competitive electricity prices for U.S. industries, businesses and
homes, with reduced greenhouse gas emissions from power plants
Because policy makers have begun implementing rigid CO2 regulatory mandates,
failure to invest now will translate into stifled economic growth and the loss of our
global competitiveness later. The Advanced Turbines program needs $55 million and
the Distributed Energy budget needs to be restored to $60 million in fiscal year
2009 to ensure a smooth transition into a low-carbon economy.
GAS TURBINES REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The gas turbine industrys R&D partnership with the Federal Government has
steadily increased power plant efficiency to the point where natural gas fired turbines can reach combined cycle efficiencies of 60 percent, and quick-start simple
cycle peaking units can reach 46 percent. The gas turbines clean exhaust can be
used to create hot water, steam, or even chilled water. In such combined heat and
power applications, overall system efficiency levels can reach 60 to 85 percent LHV.
This compares to 4045 percent for even the most advanced thermal steam cycles
(most of which are coal fired).

82

Gas turbines already play a very significant role in minimizing greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide. Gas turbines are both more efficient and typically burn lower
carbon fuels compared to other types of combustion-based power generation and mechanical drive applications. The Nation needs to reinvigorate the gas turbine/government partnership in order to develop new, low carbon power plant solutions
without increasing our reliance on natural gas. This can be done by funding research to make gas turbines more capable to utilize hydrogen and synthetic fuels
as well as increasing the efficiency, durability and emissions capability of natural
gas fired turbines. If Congress provides adequate funding to DOEs turbine R&D efforts, technology development and deployment will be accelerated to a pace that will
allow the United States to achieve its emissions and energy security goals.
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADVANCED IGCC/H2 GAS TURBINEREDUCING THE PENALTY FOR
CO2 CAPTURE

The turbines and related technologies being developed under the DOE FE Advanced Turbines program will directly advance the performance and capabilities of
future power generation with CO2 capture and sequestration. Advances are needed
to offset part of the power plant efficiency and output reductions associated with
CO2 capture. Program funding is required to cost-share in the technology development of advanced hydrogen/syngas combustors and other components to realize the
DOE goals.
Several GTA member companies are working cost-share programs with the DOE
to develop technologies for advanced gas turbine power plants with carbon capture.
These technologies will: (1) increase plant efficiency; (2) increase outputs; and (3)
allow further reductions in combustion emissions of hydrogen rich fuels associated
with CO2 capture and sequestration. This will help offset some of the efficiency and
output penalties associated with CO2 capture. These programs are funding technology advancement at a much more rapid rate than industry can do on their own.
The need for increased levels of Federal cost-share funding is immediate. The fiscal year 2009 funding request for the Advanced Turbines program is inadequate to
meet DOEs 2010 Advanced Power System goal of an IGCC power system with high
efficiency (4550 percent HHV), near-zero emissions and competitive capital cost. To
meet this 2010 goal, the researchers must demonstrate a 2 to 3 percentage point
improvement in combined cycle efficiency above current state-of-the-art Combined
Cycle turbines in IGCC applications.

83
The plan for the IGCC-based FutureGen-type application is to develop the flexibility in this same machine with modifications to operate on pure hydrogen as the
primary energy source while maintaining the same levels of performance in terms
efficiency and emissions. The goal is to develop the fundamental technologies needed
for advanced hydrogen turbines and to integrate this technology with CO2 separation, capture, and sequestration into a near-zero emission configuration that can
provide electricity with less than a 10 percent increase in cost over conventional
plants by 2012.
The Advanced Turbines program is also developing oxygen-fired (oxy-fuel) turbines and combustors that are expected to achieve efficiencies in the 4446 percent
range, with near-100 percent CO2 capture and near-zero NOX emissions. The development and integrated testing of a new combustor, turbine components, advanced
cooling technology, and materials in oxy-fuel combustors and turbines is needed to
make these systems commercially viable.
The knowledge and confidence that generating equipment will operate reliably
and efficiently on varying fuels is essential for the deployment of new technology.
Years of continued under funding of the Advanced Turbines program has already
delayed the completion dates for turbine R&D necessary for advanced IGCC, as well
as timing for a FutureGen-type plant validation.
MEGA-WATT SCALE TURBINE R&D

In the 2005 Enabling Turbine Technologies for High-Hydrogen Fuels solicitation,

the Office of Fossil Energy included a topic area entitled Development of Highly
Efficient Zero Emission Hydrogen Combustion Technology for Mega-Watt Scale Turbines. Turbine manufacturers and combustion system developers responded favorably to this topic, but DOE funding constraints did not allow any contract awards.
The turbine industry recommends a follow-up to this solicitation topic that would
allow the developed combustion technology to be tested in machines at full scale
conditions and allow for additional combustion technology and combustor development for high-hydrogen fuels.
The turbine industry believes that this technology is highly relevant to industrial
coal gasification applications: (1) site-hardened black-start capability for integrated
gasification combined cycle applications (the ability to restart an IGCC power plant
when the electric grid has collapsed); (2) supplying plant electric load fueled on
syngas or hydrogen; (3) increasing plant steam cycle capacity on hot days when
large amounts of additional power are needed; and (4) in gas turbines for compression of high-hydrogen fuels for pipeline transportation. The development of MWscale turbines (1100 MW) fueled with high-hydrogen fuels will promote the sustainable use of coal. In addition, highly efficient aeroderivative megawatt scale engines operate under different conditions than their larger counterparts and are installed for peaking or distributed generation applications. LNG, syngas and hydrogen combustion are issues for new sites and the legacy fleet. Funding is required
to design efficient and low emissions combustors that accommodate the new fuels.
HIGH-EFFICIENCY, ALTERNATIVE-FUELED DISTRIBUTED ENERGY

The administrations budget request recognizes the need for the development of
alternate and dual fueled combined heat and power gas turbines systems. The budget document states ITP would also pursue the growth opportunity in traditional industry CHP applications below 20 MW, including medium-sized plants that require
both power and process heat. Specific activities would include the development of
alternative/dual fuel capability for turbines that meet the most stringent NOX and
CO regulations (e.g., those in southern California).
However, there are insufficient funds allocated in the request to do any work in
this area. The administrations justification contends full consideration of the new
DG/CHP activity within the context of the fiscal year 2009 request was not possible. If the United States is serious about transitioning to a low-carbon economy,
we must restore the Distributed Energy budget to $60 million in fiscal year 2009
to allow DOE to fund partnerships to develop ultra-high efficiency alternative and
dual fuel CHP systems.
UNIVERSITY TURBINE SYSTEMS RESEARCH (UTSR) PROGRAM

Under the UTSR program, a consortium of 111 U.S. universities located across
42 States conducts fundamental and applied research to resolve critical knowledge
gaps identified by the 17 industrial partners that sit on the UTSR programs Industrial Review Board and by the DOE in support of the IGCC/FutureGen program.
The UTSR program has been described as a model for university/government/indus-

84
try collaboration that is tightly focused on the research needed to support widespread use of syngas and hydrogen fueled gas turbines for power production.
This DOE/industry/university partnership is needed to help power producers
cleanly and efficiently produce electric power from gasified coal, biomass and hydrogen, as well as natural gas. The UTSR program is the only federally-funded university-based program in the gas turbine area. The UTSR programs critical research
efforts is needed to meet the Advanced Turbine program goals of preparing low-cost,
high-efficiency, high-reliability, low-emission gas turbines for electricity production
using IGCC-derived fuels. The UTSR program provides critical gas turbine research
expertise in the United States and graduates with knowledge and training. Without
adequate DOE funding, universities will de-emphasize this area in their own research investments and curriculums and the United States will lose its competitive
advantage in this critical industry.
The Advanced Turbines program needs $55 million and the Distributed Energy
budget needs to be restored to $60 Million in fiscal year 2009 to keep pace with the
rapidly approaching Climate Change emissions mandates.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

SNMADVANCING MOLECULAR IMAGING

AND

THERAPY

SNM, formerly known as the Society of Nuclear Medicine, appreciates the opportunity to submit written comments for the record regarding funding in fiscal year
2009 at the Department of Energy (DOE). SNM is an international scientific and
professional organization of over 16,000 members dedicated to promoting the
science, technology, and practical applications of molecular imaging and therapy.
In fiscal year 2008, Congress restored funding for nuclear medicine research, after
the Federal Government abandoned its over 50-year commitment to funding vital
nuclear medicine research by eliminating funding in fiscal year 2006 for the research at the Department of Energy (DOE) and making no accommodation to transition nuclear medicine programs to other Government organizations. In past years,
nuclear researchers have used Federal funding within DOE to make major accomplishments benefiting millions of patients with heart, cancer, and brain diseases.
The loss of Federal funding for nuclear research adversely impacted future innovation in the field. With the restoration of funding last year and the continuation of
funding in fiscal year 2009 we will be able to get this research back on track. For
that reason, SNM advocates the continuation of funding for fiscal year 2009 at the
level of $17.5 million for the nuclear medicine research program now housed under
the Office of Sciences Biological Research Life Science Radiochemistry and Instrumentation program 1 in the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
WHAT IS NUCLEAR MEDICINE?

Nuclear medicine is an established specialty that performs non-invasive molecular

imaging procedures to diagnose and treat diseases and to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic treatmentswhether surgical, chemical, or radiation. It contributes extensively to the management of patients with cancers of the brain, breast,
blood, bone, bone marrow, liver, lungs, pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and prostate, and
serious disorders of the heart, brain, and kidneys, to name a few. In fact, recent
advances in the diagnosis of Alzheimers disease can be attributed to nuclear medicine imaging procedures.
Annually, more than 20 million men, women, and children need noninvasive molecular/nuclear medicine procedures. These safe, cost-effective procedures include
positron emission tomography (PET) scans to diagnose and monitor treatment in
cancer, cardiac stress tests to analyze heart function, bone scans for orthopedic injuries, and lung scans for blood clots. Patients undergo procedures to diagnose liver
and gall bladder functional abnormalities and to diagnose and treat hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer.
LACK OF FEDERAL FUNDING THREATENS FUTURE INNOVATIONS

The goal of the DOEs nuclear medicine research program is to deliver relevant
scientific knowledge that will lead to innovative diagnostic and treatment technologies for human health. The modern era of nuclear medicine is an outgrowth of
1 Previously nuclear medicine research was funded under the DOEs Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs Medical Applications and Measurement
Science. The BER program has been restructured, as directed by Congress, into two separate
sub programsBiological Research and Climate Change Research. Biological Research included
activities in Life Sciences which is where this research is now housed. They also renamed it
to Radiochemistry and Instrumentation.

85
the original charge of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to exploit nuclear energy to promote human health. This program supports directed nuclear medicine research through radiopharmaceutical development and molecular nuclear medicine
activities to study uses of radionuclides for non-invasive diagnosis and targeted, internal molecular radiotherapy.
Over the years, the DOE nuclear medicine research program has generated advances in the field of molecular/nuclear medicine. For example, DOE funding provided the resources necessary for molecular/nuclear medicine professionals to develop PET scanners to diagnose and monitor treatment in cancer. PET scans offer
significant advantages over CT and MRI scans in diagnosing disease and are more
effective in identifying whether cancer is present or not, if it has spread, if it is responding to treatment, and if a person is cancer free after treatment. In fact, the
DOE has stated that this program supports research in universities and in the National Laboratories, occupies a critical and unique niche in the field of radiopharmaceutical research. The NIH relies on our basic research to enable them to initiate
clinical trials.
The majority of the advances in molecular/nuclear medicine have been sponsored
by the DOE, including:
Smaller, More Versatile PET Scanners.Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL) has completed a prototype mobile PET scanner, which will record images
in the awake animal. The mobile PET will be able to acquire positron-generated
images in the absence of anesthesia-induced coma and correct for motion of the
animal. The long-term goal is to develop PET instrumentation able to diagnose
neuro-psychiatric disorders in children.
Highest Resolution PET Scanner Developed.Scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) have developed the worlds most sensitive PET
scanner. The instrument is 10-times more sensitive than a conventional PET
scanner and became operational in 2005.
Imaging Gene Expression in Cancer Cells.Images of tumors in whole animals
that detect the expression of three cancer genes were accomplished for the first
time by investigators at Thomas Jefferson University and the University of
Massachusetts Medical Center. This advanced imaging technology will lead to
the detection of cancer in humans using cancer cell genetic profiling.
Modeling Radiation Damage to the Lung.Treatment of thyroid disease and
lymphomas using radioisotopes can cause disabling lung disease. Investigators
at Johns Hopkins University have developed a Monte Carlo model that can be
used to determine the probability of lung toxicity and be incorporated into a
therapeutic regimen. This model will optimize the dose of radioactivity delivered
to cancer cells and avoid untoward effects on the lung.
New Radiopharmaceuticals with Important Clinical Applications.The DOE
radiopharmaceutical science program has developed a number of innovative
radiotracers at the University of California at Irvine for the early diagnosis of
neuro-psychiatric illnesses, including Alzheimers disease, schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety disorders.
Rapid Preparation of Radiopharmaceuticals for Clinical Use.The DOE-sponsored program at the University of Tennessee has developed a new method for
preparing radiopharmaceuticals by placing a boron-based salt at the position
that will be occupied by the radiohalogen. The method has been used to prepare
a variety of cancer-imaging agents.
With continued DOE funding, essential molecular/nuclear medicine research will
continue at universities, research institutions, national laboratories, and small businesses. Moreover, research with radiochemistry, genomic sciences, and structural biology will be able to usher in a new era of mapping the human brain and using
specific radiotracers and instruments, to more precisely diagnose neuro-psychiatric
illnesses and cancer.
In addition, to gain the full benefits of nuclear medicine, it is important to ensure
that nuclear medicine researchers have a steady supply of radionuclides. One way
to accomplish this goal would be to create a National Radionuclide Enhancement
Production program at the DOE that would meet the Nations medical and homeland security needs.
NAS STUDY RECOMMENDS ENHANCED FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO NUCLEAR MEDICINE
RESEARCH

On September 20, 2007, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Institutes of
Health (NIH), entitled Advancing Nuclear Medicine Through Innovation. The charge

86
of the NAS study was to provide findings and recommendations on the state of the
science in nuclear medicine.
As one of the important findings, the report highlighted the detrimental loss of
Federal commitment to nuclear medicine research, as evidenced by the large cuts
in funding for the basic sciences related to nuclear medicine in the DOE Office of
Science Office of Biological and Environmental Research (OBER) Medical Applications and Measurement Science (MAMS) program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
As a result, says the report, there is now no short- or long-term programmatic
commitment by any agency to funding chemistry, physics, engineering research and
associated high-technology infrastructure (accelerators, instrumentation, and imaging physics), which are at the heart of nuclear medicine technology research and development.
There are countless new innovations on the horizon in this area that promise to
improve patient care through new therapeutic isotopes to cure disease, earlier diagnosis of Alzheimers disease and cancer, detection of the effectiveness of cancer
therapies, development of the next generation of imaging technologies, and more.
However, without ongoing funding for basic nuclear medicine research at DOE Office of Science, these breakthroughs may never materialize.
To enhance Federal commitment, the NAS report recommended that reinstating
support for the DOEOBER nuclear medicine research program should be considered. Additionally, the report recommends a national nuclear medicine research
program should be coordinated by the DOE and the National Institutes of Health
with the former emphasizing the general development of technology and the latter
disease-specific applications.
The report also states, Although the scientific opportunities have never been
greater or more exciting, the infrastructure on which future innovations in nuclear
medicine depend hangs in the balance. If the promise of the field is to be fulfilled,
a federally supported infrastructure for basic and translational research in nuclear
medicine should be considered.
We are at a critical juncture in nuclear medicine. In order to capitalize on
groundbreaking research that will improve and save lives, Federal support for basic
nuclear medicine research at DOE Office of Science must continue. Therefore, SNM
calls on Congress to support the DOE Office of Sciences Radiochemistry and Instrumentations programs with $17.5 million in funding for nuclear medicine research
for fiscal year 2009.
CONCLUSION

By continuing funding for the DOEs Radiochemistry and Instrumentation nuclear

medicine research program at the DOE, policy makers will keep our Nation at the
forefront of nuclear medicine research and innovation. We thank you for the opportunity to present our views on funding for these initiatives at the DOE and would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.