[Senate Hearing 112-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-440
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2354
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-597 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JACK REED, Rhode Island KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
TOM HARKIN, Iowa SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex DANIEL COATS, Indiana
officio)
Professional Staff
Doug Clapp
Roger Cockrell
Franz Wuerfmannsdobler
Carolyn E. Apostolou (Minority)
Tyler Owens (Minority)
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman-Eder
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 1
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 18
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Deparment of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration.... 91
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Department of Energy............................................. 125
Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearing..................... 199
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 201
Department of Energy............................................. 224
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 308
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Reed,
Lautenberg, Harkin, Tester, Alexander, Cochran, Collins,
Murkowski, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. The hearing will come to order.
I would like to apologize for being late. I thought I would
tune in to the President's address, that there would be some
specifics and after a while I thought uh-oh, I better go to the
hearing. So here I am, and I want to thank everybody here for
being patient.
I want to welcome our witnesses. I happen to be a big fan
of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and particularly all the
dredging, the levee protection, the river protection,
everything that you do in California to enable us to exist is
critical.
Mike Connor, who is the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) has done excellent work. I am a big fan in
what is a tough area in California. No adage has ever been
truer than ``whiskey is for drinking and water is for
fighting'', and California puts that into action every year. So
I thank you for being a problem-solver rather than a problem-
maker.
We all recognize, I think, the difficult fiscal environment
we are in. However, we also realize that our economy is
fragile, still recovering, and could turn the wrong way, so we
want to do our very best to see that those agencies that
stimulate economic and job growth and protect the safety of our
communities are themselves protected.
COE and BOR are the agencies we depend on to build the
water infrastructure that moves our Nation's cargo, protects
our cities from flooding, provides irrigation water and
hydropower, and facilitates much needed environmental
restoration. Not only does the work of these agencies provide
jobs now, the infrastructure that is constructed continues to
benefit the economy for decades. It is amazing.
Unfortunately, the budget request reflects the consistent
underfunding that we have seen in prior years, and I must say I
am very disappointed in our part of the continuing resolution
which takes another whack at COE.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget for COE is $4.6
billion. That is 15 percent below the 2010 enacted amount. Two
major project accounts for the Department of the Interior under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee are proposed at $1.05
billion, which is 7 percent below the fiscal year 2010 enacted
amount. That is a lot. So this is a tough budget for both
agencies.
For COE, the top six construction projects account for $737
million of the $1.48 billion requested for construction work.
That is 51.8 percent of the total. The other 79 construction
projects--79--compete for the remaining 48 percent of funds.
In the general investigation account, 75 percent of the
funding is directed to national programs and two individual
studies. The other 63 studies proposed will have to compete for
25 percent of the funds.
In BOR's budget, I am pleased to see the administration
propose a new account for the San Joaquin River restoration.
The $9 million in discretionary funding, along with the
mandatory funding under the joint settlement agreement between
the Federal Government, the State, and the water contractors
will assure that water impacts are reduced or avoided while
maintaining the San Joaquin River ecosystem.
Rural water projects are funded in both the water and
related resources account and the proposed new Indian water
rights account for fiscal year 2012. There are seven ongoing
rural water projects proposed at $35.5 million from the water
and related resources account for 2012. All of these benefit
various tribes. The new Indian water rights account proposes
$51.5 million for four similar new projects. One has to wonder
whether these funds can be effectively used for these new rural
water systems in fiscal year 2012. That will be something for
us to look into.
So I want to welcome Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Lieutenant General Robert
L. Van Antwerp, the Chief of Engineers for the United States
Corps of Engineers. And from the Department of the Interior, we
will hear from Anne Castle, the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, and the wonderful Mike Connor, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Now before formally introducing you, I would like to
indicate my great pleasure in introducing my ranking member for
this. We worked together on the Interior Committee and it was
very easy to do. We were able to work out any issue, and you
are really a gentleman, Lamar, and in this arena that is doubly
appreciated. You get double points. So I thank you for being
you, and I am delighted to recognize you for your remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a treat
to work with you. Thank you for the compliment. What I
especially like about Senator Feinstein is she was a mayor. She
can make decisions and she speaks with precision. So it is easy
to work with her. And we have many of the same values and
judgments about the future of our country.
Senator Feinstein said that whiskey is for drinking and
water is for fighting in the West, and all across our country,
I think all of us are here today because we know that inland
waterways and locks are for creating private sector jobs. And
that is really the number one goal we have got in this country
no matter where we are from.
I want to thank the chair for holding this hearing and
thank all the distinguished leaders of the Departments for
coming. COE has been around since the Revolutionary War. It
touches the lives of every American, keeps our inland waterways
open and running, manages our drinking water, provides
emission-free electricity, looks after recreational waters, and
as Tennesseans found out last year during our flood, helps us
manage river levels during serious flooding. It does many
things well, but we want to be in a position to help COE do
things even better and jobs are a good place to start.
The Nation's inland waterways do not get on the front pages
as much, but they keep trucks off our highways. They result in
lower fuel costs at a time when fuel is going up. They reduce
the cost of repairing roads. Barges can carry a ton of freight
576 miles on a gallon of fuel compared to the 150 miles per
gallon a truck can carry a ton of freight. And one barge of dry
cargo can displace as many as 70 trucks, putting that freight
on our waterway and taking it off our crowded interstate.
We think of the Chickamauga Lock in the Chattanooga area of
Tennessee. If it were to close, which it has a real risk of
doing if it is not replaced, it would put 100,000 big trucks on
I-75. If COE is committed to mothball projects, it would expand
the amount of freight on our waterways. In fact, the only
inland waterways project COE has prioritized is years past its
planned completion date, hundreds of millions of dollars over
budget, with still no end in sight. We have to find a solution
that expands our current locks and gets new ones built.
One of the things that I want to talk about today when my
question time comes is that industry, commercial users, came to
COE in good faith in 2008, attempted to find a solution to put
more money in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, only to have COE
appear to walk away from the documented help draft and condemn
the report's findings. I would like to have some answers about
why that happened. What could have been a great example about
how industry and Government could work together turned out to
be a cautionary tale about a fickle Government dealing with an
industry.
So the questions, Madam Chair, that I will be asking are
how do we fix the trust fund and make sure that projects like
Chickamauga Lock get built. Are we doing all we can to utilize
our ports and harbors? We need to examine how we are managing
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The President said his goal
in the State of the Union Address was to double exports. It is
going to be hard to do unless we provide adequate funding for
dredging our ports and harbors. And then what are the specific
factors driving decisionmaking on COE projects? We need to ask
for detailed examinations and explanations of how decisions are
made and the process by which certain projects are deemed
priorities.
This is an important hearing. I am glad to be a part of it.
And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. And I thank you, Senator.
From the Department of the Interior, we will hear from Anne
Castle, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
General Antwerp, it is my understanding that this is going
to be your last appearance before the subcommittee as you will
be retiring next month. So you can give us the true,
unvarnished truth, as you see it.
We will expect nothing less. I want to thank you for your
many years of service to our Nation. I look forward to working
with your successor, General Bostick, once he is confirmed.
I want to remind the witnesses that your full statements
will be in the record, and I hope you will just provide a brief
summary of what you are saying. And then we will go the early
bird rule, and I will alternate sides in recognizing Senators.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, could I ask unanimous
consent that a statement appear at this point in the record?
Senator Feinstein. You certainly may, and all statements
will be put in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Madam Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to review the
administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to join you in
welcoming the panel for attending today's hearing.
My State is fortunate to border such prominent bodies of water as
the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, which are both vital to
our domestic economy for shipping and travel. Our relationship with the
Corps of Engineers has enabled Mississippi and its neighboring States
to benefit from access to these waters while also benefiting from COE-
built levees, dams, and locks which safeguard against floods. COE has
also been very helpful over the years in helping Mississippi address
many of its aging wastewater infrastructure issues throughout our
State. Flood control, port dredging, and environmental infrastructure
projects are very important to our State, and we appreciate your
responding to these needs.
The fiscal year 2012 proposal for the Mississippi River and its
tributaries has caused concern among commodity exporters who worry
about COE's ability to maintain the Mississippi River channel at
authorized depths. The Mississippi River System enables more than $100
billion in exports to traverse its waters annually. Thousands of jobs
rely on a fully functioning river system, and I hope COE will continue
to respond to these national and local interests.
I look forward to your testimony, and to working with you during
the coming year.
Senator Feinstein. Secretary Darcy, would you begin please?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY
Ms. Darcy. Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the civil works program
of COE.
The budget requires new appropriations of $4.631 billion.
In keeping with the administration's program to put the Nation
on a sustainable fiscal path, this is $836 million, or about 15
percent, below the 2010 enacted amount of $5.445 billion. It is
about a 6 percent reduction from the 2011 budget for the civil
works program.
The budget concentrates funding primarily in the three
civil works program areas: commercial navigation, flood and
coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration.
The 2012 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting in order to provide the
best overall return from available funds in achieving economic,
environmental, and public safety objectives.
The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee
safety initiative to help ensure that Federal levees are safe
and to assist non-Federal entities as they address safety
issues with their own levees.
The operation and maintenance program also includes a new
environmental and energy sustainability program to reduce
energy consumption at COE projects and buildings.
The 2012 budget places priority on collaboration with other
Federal agencies in the development of funding allocations for
aquatic ecosystem restoration. For 2012, this collaboration is
reflected in five major ecosystems:
--the California Bay-Delta;
--Chesapeake Bay;
--the Everglades;
--the Great Lakes; and
--the gulf coast.
The budget provides for use of $758 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal commercial
navigation channels and harbors.
The administration plans to develop legislation to expand
the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund so
that its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of
other efforts in support of commercial navigation through our
Nation's ports. No decisions have been made yet on what
additional costs would be proposed to be paid from this Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the
budget at $166 million, of which $77 million is financed from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that
is affordable in 2012 with the current level of revenue coming
into the trust fund. The administration will work with the
Congress and stakeholders to authorize a new mechanism to
increase the revenue paid by commercial navigation users of the
inland waterways.
The administration also plans to work with the Congress and
stakeholders to explore ways to support broader
recapitalization of COE's aging infrastructure, modification of
its operations, or deauthorization as appropriate, consistent
with our modern day water resources principles and priorities.
Last year, President Obama established the America's Great
Outdoors initiative to promote innovative community-level
efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans
to the outdoors. The Civil Works recreation program is closely
aligned with the goals of the America's Great Outdoors
initiative and includes a variety of activities to reconnect
Americans, especially our young people, with the Nation's
outdoor resources.
We continue to strengthen COE's planning expertise,
including through greater support for our planning centers of
expertise and continued support for the development of revised
water project planning principles and guidelines.
A number of lower-priority programs and activities receive
reduced or no funding in our 2012 budget. For example, funding
for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments
that support little or no commercial use is reduced by about
one-half. Also, no funding is provided for small projects in
several of the continuing authorities programs. The budget
proposes to reprogram $25 million of prior year funds from
these lower-priority programs to finance ongoing phases of
projects in higher-priority continuing authorities programs.
In summary, the President's budget for 2012 for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget. It supports
water resources investments that will yield long-term returns
for the Nation.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look
forward to working with you in support of the President's
budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And if you would indulge me for about 30 seconds, I would
like to personally thank General Van Antwerp for his years of
service. I came into this job a year and a half ago and I could
not have asked for a better partner and a better leader for
COE, and he will be sorely missed. So thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jo-Ellen Darcy
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to present the President's budget for the Civil
Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for fiscal year
2012.
coe deg.OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 2012 budget for the Civil Works program reflects
the administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's infrastructure that help restore the environment and
revitalize the economy, while also reflecting the need to put the
country on a fiscally sustainable path. With those tenets in mind, the
primary objectives of the budget are as follows:
--Focus funding on water resources infrastructure projects that
produce high economic and environmental returns to the Nation
and those that address public safety needs.
--Restore high-priority ecosystems such as the California Bay-Delta,
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the gulf
coast.
--Support a comprehensive levee safety initiative to help ensure that
Federal levees are safe and to enhance efforts to assist non-
Federal parties to address safety issues with their levee
systems.
--Provide priority funding to the maintenance of high-performing
projects.
--Propose changes in the way Federal activities in support of
commercial navigation through the Nation's ports are funded,
and support increases in inland waterways receipts.
--Improve the way in which COE addresses the Nation's most pressing
water resources challenges.
--Increase the organizational efficiency and improve the management,
oversight, and performance of ongoing programs.
The budget concentrates funding for development and restoration of
the Nation's water and related resources within the three main Civil
Works program areas:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and coastal storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Additionally, the budget supports hydropower, recreation,
environmental stewardship, and water supply services at existing water
resources projects owned or operated by COE. Finally, the budget
provides for protection of the Nation's regulated waters and wetlands;
cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early efforts
to develop atomic weapons; and emergency preparedness. The budget does
not fund work that should be the responsibility of non-Federal
interests or other Federal agencies, such as water and wastewater
treatment projects.
coe deg.FISCAL YEAR 2012 DISCRETIONARY FUNDING LEVEL
The budget provides gross new discretionary funding of $4.631
billion, which will keep the Civil Works program moving forward to help
revitalize the economy, and provide for restoration and stewardship of
the environment. The budget also proposes cancellation of the $57
million in unobligated funding previously provided in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account for construction of the Yazoo Backwater
Pumps, Mississippi project. This cancellation would achieve $57 million
in real savings for the American taxpayer. Of the amount proposed to be
cancelled, $22 million is an offset to fiscal year 2012 gross
appropriations, for a net request of $4.609 million. (The Congress
appropriated the remaining $35 million to ``restore'' funds that COE
had ``borrowed'' under the Stafford Act while responding to a natural
disaster at another project. Because the Congress restored these funds
in an emergency supplemental appropriation, their cancellation does not
``score'' as an offset to our discretionary funding request.)
In keeping with the administration's program to put the Nation on a
sustainable fiscal path, the funding for Civil Works in the 2012 budget
is $836 million, or about 15 percent, below the enacted amount of
$5.445 billion in fiscal year 2010. It is about 6 percent below the
fiscal year 2011 budget level. The fiscal year 2012 funding level
reflects a considered, practical, effective, and sound use of available
resources, focusing on those investments that are in the best interest
of the Nation.
Within the $4.631 billion recommended gross appropriations, $1.48
billion is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.314 billion
is for activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
account. The budget also includes $104 million for Investigations; $210
million for Mississippi River and Tributaries; $27 million for Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies; $196 million for the Regulatory
Program; $109 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program; $185 million for the Expenses account; and $6 million for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Attachment
1 shows this funding by account and by program area.
ATTACHMENT 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET--BUSINESS LINE/ACCOUNT CROSS-WALK
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Categories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR&T
Business Lines ------------------------------------ OASA
I C O&M TOTAL FUSRAP FCCE REG E (CW) TOTAL
I C O&M MRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage 48 721 523 1 63 91 155 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,447
Reduction.........................
Coastal........................ 7 23 8 ....... ....... 3 3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 41
Inland......................... 41 698 515 1 63 88 152 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,406
Hydropower......................... ....... 6 176 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 182
Navigation......................... 18 283 1,237 ....... 13 24 37 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,575
Coastal........................ 7 117 706 ....... ....... 2 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 832
Inland......................... 11 166 531 ....... 13 22 35 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 743
Environment:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.. 38 470 23 ....... 2 ....... 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 533
Stewardship.................... ....... ....... 96 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 100
FUSRAP......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 109 ....... ....... ....... ....... 109
Regulatory......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 196 ....... ....... 196
Recreation......................... ....... ....... 247 ....... ....... 12 12 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 259
Emergency Management (incl. NEPP).. ....... ....... 7 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 27 ....... ....... ....... 34
Water Supply....................... ....... ....... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5
Expenses........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 185 ....... 185
OASA(CW)........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 104 1,480 2,314 1 78 131 210 109 27 196 185 6 4,631
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I=Investigations; C=Construction; O&M=Operation and Maintenance; MR&T=Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; FUSRAP=Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program; FCCE=Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies; REG=Regulatory Program; NEPP=National Emergency Preparedness Program; E=Expenses;
OASA (CW)=Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
The fiscal year 2012 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting to provide the best overall
return from available funds from a national perspective in achieving
economic, environmental, and public safety objectives. Competing
investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple metrics, and
objective performance criteria guided the allocation of funds.
The fiscal year 2012 budget supports investments in flood and storm
damage reduction, commercial navigation, environmental restoration, and
other programs. The distribution of funding among these programs is
similar to the distribution in the fiscal year 2011 budget, except that
environmental restoration received a slightly lower proportion of
overall funding. Of the total in the fiscal year 2012 budget, 31
percent is allocated to flood and storm damage reduction; 34 percent is
allocated to commercial navigation; 18 percent is allocated to
environmental restoration and protection; and 17 percent is allocated
among other program areas.
coe deg.NEW INVESTMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2012
The Civil Works budget includes funding for two construction new
starts and several other new initiatives, as described below.
In the Construction account, the budget includes $8 million for a
new start for the Hamilton City project in California, which provides
environmental restoration and flood damage reduction benefits. The
budget also includes $3 million to initiate a storm damage reduction
project along the New Jersey coast between Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook
Bay in the Port Monmouth area.
There are four new study starts in the Investigations account: Fish
Passage at Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams on the Yuba River in
California for $100,000; environmental restoration and flood damage
reduction at Cano Martin Pena in Puerto Rico for $100,000; the
Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan for $250,000; and the Louisiana
Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan for $100,000.
The O&M program includes $12.3 million for a new environmental and
energy sustainability program. This will involve developing tools to
enable COE to meet Federal sustainability goals and implementing
energy-saving measures at COE projects and buildings. The 38 Civil
Works COE districts will compete for these funds by proposing specific
measures to conserve energy. Lessons learned from this competition will
inform future investments to increase environmental and energy
sustainability of the Civil Works program.
The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee safety
initiative. This initiative includes $46 million in the O&M account to
continue and expand activities to help ensure that Federal levees are
safe and to assist non-Federal entities to address safety issues with
their levees. The levee safety initiative also includes $4 million in
the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account. These funds will be
used for COE participation in the expansion of interagency teams, known
as Silver Jackets, to include every State, and to provide unified
Federal assistance in implementing flood risk management solutions.
coe deg.AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
The fiscal year 2012 budget places priority on collaboration with
other Federal agencies in the development of funding allocations for
aquatic ecosystem restoration. Attachment 2 provides a list of the
ecosystems and funding amounts budgeted on this basis.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 PRIORITY ECOSYSTEMS FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem
account Projects and studies Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Bay Delta:
I \1\ Yuba River Fish Passage (new recon) 0.10
I San Pablo Bay Watershed Study 0.50
C \2\ Hamilton City (new start) 8.00
I/C/O&M Additional studies and projects in 49.00
Navigation and Flood Damage Reduction
Pro- grams
-----------------
Total, California Bay Delta 58.00
=================
Chesapeake Bay:
I Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Study (new 0.25
recon)
C Poplar Island 12.00
C Chesapeake Bay Oysters 5.00
-----------------
Total, Chesapeake Bay 17.00
=================
Everglades:
C Continuing projects and activities 163.00
O&M \3\ Continuing projects and activities 5.00
-----------------
Total, Everglades 168.00
=================
Great Lakes:
I Interbasin control--(Great Lakes-Ms R 3.00
Nuisance Species)
C Chicago sanitary and ship canal 13.50
O&M Chicago sanitary and ship canal 10.50
-----------------
Total, Great Lakes 27.00
=================
Gulf coast:
GI Louisiana coast comprehensive study 0.10
(new recon)
GI LCA studies 16.00
CG LCA projects 10.60
-----------------
Total, Gulf coast 27.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I=Investigation
\2\ C=Construction
\3\ O&M=Operation and Maintenance.
In connection with this effort, the budget provides $168 million
for COE for the ongoing South Florida Everglades Restoration Program,
consisting of $163 million for Construction and $5 million for O&M. The
budget supports the continued construction of five ongoing aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects in south Florida:
--Picayune Strand;
--Site One Impoundment;
--Indian River Lagoon South;
--Kissimmee River; and
--the C-111 (South Dade) project.
The budget also supports work on other major ecosystem-wide
initiatives, such as $58 million for studies and projects in the
California Bay-Delta, including an important new reconnaissance study
for fish passage at Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams on the Yuba
River; an ongoing feasibility study for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Islands and Levees; an ongoing comprehensive feasibility study
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins; and a new construction
project at Hamilton City for ecosystem restoration and flood damage
reduction.
The budget includes $128 million for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program, an ongoing effort to reduce the adverse impacts of
a series of COE dams on migrating salmon. Funds will be used to
construct juvenile fish bypass facilities, improve adult fish ladders
and conduct other activities that support salmon habitat. The budget
also provides $73 million for ongoing work under the Missouri River
fish and wildlife recovery program to construct shallow water habitat
and undertake other activities to recover and protect federally listed
species, such as the pallid sturgeon.
coe deg.INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION
The administration plans to work with the Congress and stakeholders
to explore ways to support recapitalization of aging COE
infrastructure, modification of its operations, or de-authorization,
consistent with modern-day water resources principles and today's and
tomorrow's water resources priorities. Under these principles, direct
beneficiaries would be asked to pay a significant share of the costs to
rehabilitate, expand or replace projects, as they would for a new
project, commensurate with the benefits they receive. Options such as
direct financing will be considered as part of this effort, where
appropriate.
The aging of infrastructure affects all of our activities. For
example, with regard to the production of hydropower, the fiscal year
2012 budget provides $176 million to operate and maintain COE
hydropower facilities. In order to decide how best to use the available
funding, COE has been working under its Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to develop a long-term capital investment strategy.
One significant feature of the HMI is the Asset Investment Planning
Tool, which was designed to:
--analyze the condition of critical components and the consequences
of failure;
--determine the value of additional hydropower and its cost;
--quantify risk exposure for capital investments; and
--create 20-year funding scenarios to allow for timely and cost-
effective rehabilitation or replacement of hydropower
facilities and their components.
To assist the Federal Government in rehabilitating aging equipment,
COE also is pursuing increased use of non-Federal funds.
coe deg.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
The budget provides for use of $758 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and harbors.
Despite an overall Civil Works reduction of 15 percent below the
enacted fiscal year 2010 level, the amount recommended in the fiscal
year 2012 budget for harbor maintenance and related work is essentially
unchanged from the 2 prior years. The administration also plans to
develop legislation to expand the authorized uses of the Trust Fund, so
that its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of other
efforts in support of commercial navigation through the Nation's ports.
No decisions have been made yet on what additional costs would be
proposed to be paid from receipts into the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. Development of proposed legislation will proceed in the coming
months.
coe deg.INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the budget at
$166 million, of which $77 million is financed from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that is affordable in
fiscal year 2012 with the current level of revenue coming into the
Trust Fund. The administration will work with the Congress and
stakeholders to revise the laws that govern the Trust Fund, to include
increasing the revenue paid by commercial navigation users of the
inland waterways to meet their share of the costs of activities
financed from this trust fund.
coe deg.AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE AND CIVIL WORKS
RECREATION
On April 16, 2010 President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
establishing the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative to promote
and support innovative community-level efforts to conserve outdoor
spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. This initiative was
celebrated at several events around the country, including a public
``listening'' event the Secretary of the Interior and I held in August
2010 at a Civil Works project near St. Louis, Missouri.
COE has been actively involved with the AGO initiative, working in
concert with its partners to leverage financial and human resources so
the public can continue to enjoy water-based recreation opportunities
at COE lakes. The Civil Works recreation program and activities are
closely aligned with the goals of the initiative and include a variety
of measures to reconnect Americans, especially young people, with the
Nation's outdoor resources.
COE manages 12 million acres of lands and waters supporting water-
based recreation and environmental stewardship. The Civil Works program
is particularly well-suited to support the AGO initiative, given that
90 percent of COE projects are within 50 miles of metropolitan areas.
Camping, hiking, swimming, boating, and other water-oriented recreation
opportunities attract 370 million visits a year to 422 COE projects. In
addition, COE has active programs to conserve and protect lands and
waters for wildlife, fisheries, endangered species and open space.
coe deg.PLANNING IMPROVEMENTS
Working through the Chief of Engineers, the Army continues to
strengthen and improve the planning expertise of COE, including greater
support for planning Centers of Expertise, better integration of
project purposes, greater reliability of cost estimates and schedules
in planning and programming, and continued support for the development
of revised water project planning Principles and Guidelines. Also, the
Army has initiated a pilot program to identify means of enabling
studies to reach decisions more efficiently.
coe deg.VETERANS CURATION PROJECT
The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2 million to continue the
Veterans Curation Project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and
innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving
historical preservation responsibilities for archaeological collections
administered by COE. The project supports work by veterans at curation
laboratories located in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; and
Washington, DC.
coe deg.LOWER-PRIORITY PROGRAMS
Funding of $76 million is provided in the fiscal year 2012 budget
for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments that
support low commercial use. This is a reduction of $64 million from the
fiscal year 2011 budget. The Estuary Restoration Program is funded at
$2 million, compared to $5 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
No funding is provided for small projects in 4 of the 9 Continuing
Authorities Programs (CAPs):
--section 14 (emergency streambank and shoreline protection);
--section 103 (shore protection);
--section 107 (navigation); and
--section 208 (snagging and clearing).
The budget proposes to reprogram $23 million of CAP funds carried
over from prior years from these four CAPs to finance ongoing phases of
projects in 4 of the remaining 5 CAPs:
--section 111 (mitigation of shoreline damages caused by navigation
projects);
--section 204 (beneficial use of dredged material);
--section 206 (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and
--section 1135 (modification of completed projects for the benefit of
the environment).
Section 205 (flood damage reduction) also is supported, and has
sufficient carryover within it to finance the fiscal year 2012 program
without a reprogramming.
No funding is provided for the Aquatic Plant Control program, nor
is specific line item funding provided for coordination activities
associated with the National Estuary Program and the North American
Waterfowl Management Program. Coordination activities will take place,
as appropriate, in connection with separately funded programs and
projects.
Funding under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP) is reduced by $21 million, from $130 million in the fiscal
year 2011 budget to $109 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
coe deg.AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
COE continues the work funded in American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA). The act provided $4.6 billion for the Civil Works program.
That amount includes $2 billion for Construction; $2.075 billion for
O&M; $375 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries; $25 million
for Investigations; $25 million for the Regulatory Program; and $100
million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The
ARRA funds were allocated to more than 800 projects in 49 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and 400 of those projects have
been completed.
Nearly all of the $4.6 billion of these funds have been obligated,
leaving only a small amount, as authorized, for contract supervision
and administration, as well as known contract claims and modifications.
As of last month, more than $3.1 billion of the total had been
expended, primarily payments to contractors for work already completed.
Of the more than 2,100 recipients of the COE ARRA funds, 99.8 percent
submitted a report last quarter as required under the act and
provisions of ARRA contracts.
The projects funded by ARRA provide important support to the
Nation's small businesses in their economic recovery. Of the total ARRA
funds, small business awards account for about 51 percent of the ARRA
funds obligated and about 72 percent of the total contract actions.
COE achievements to date with ARRA funds include improvement of 28
important commercial navigation harbors and channels; repair or
improvement of dozens of hydropower projects; accelerated completion of
site cleanup at 9 FUSRAP sites; completion of 822 periodic inspections
of federally constructed levee systems, including both systems
maintained by COE and those maintained by local sponsors; and
completion of important work to restore 57 aquatic ecosystems.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget that supports water
resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look forward to
working with this subcommittee in support of the President's budget.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for those words.
General Van Antwerp, would you like to make some comments?
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP,
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Madam Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, the budget this year funds 92
construction projects, 55 in the flood-storm-damage reduction.
Three are budgeted for completion. We have 16 commercial
navigation projects in this budget and 19 aquatic ecosystem
projects. Two of these are scheduled as new starts.
The budget supports our continued stewardship of water-
related infrastructure. The operation and maintenance program
for the fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an
additional $131 million under the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program.
COE teammates continue to respond wherever and whenever
needed to help during major floods and other national
emergencies. As you can imagine, we are gearing up right now.
The budget provides $27 million for the preparation for floods,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters, to include $4 million
to support the levee safety initiatives in States known as
``silver jackets.''
I would like to just provide a quick update on preparations
as we look forward--not really look forward to, but as we
anticipate potential spring flood events. We are working with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National
Weather Service to monitor the high probability of spring
flooding in the north central United States, a lot of which is
already happening out there, specifically the Red River and the
upper Mississippi River and the Minnesota River. Based on our
projections, our Commanders have requested the advance planning
and advance measures funding needed to flood fight. We are out
there on the ground right now. And I guess in three words I
would say we are ready.
On the international front, although not covered
specifically by this subcommittee, I am proud to tell you a
little bit about our work in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you will
indulge me that. We have 1,168 COE members, largely civilians,
right now deployed overseas. Every day they put on their battle
armor and they work on the projects that we have asked them to
do. They have completed more than 6,000 infrastructure and
water-related projects. We have a lot of our Civil Works
members that work in COE over there deployed on this military
mission.
Last month, Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan with my
counterparts from the other services and witnessed this amazing
work and had a chance to praise them for their efforts and
thank them.
On the 21st and 22d of March, we traveled down to New
Orleans. We wanted to visit all the major projects in our
Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System and make sure that
the system was ready to defend against the 100-year event by
June 1 and I am proud to say and happy to say that we are
ready. It has just been amazing what work has been done down
there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, I would like to just say that we are committed to
staying on the leading edge of service to our Nation in these
water-related issues, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp
Chairman Feinstein and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I
am honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable Jo-
Ellen Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Civil
Works Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
My statement covers the following 12 topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2012 program budget;
--Direct program;
--Investigations program;
--Construction program;
--Operation and maintenance program;
--Reimbursable program;
--Proposed legislation;
--Planning program modernization;
--Efficiency and effectiveness of COE operations;
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's economy and
defense;
--Research and development; and
--National defense.
coe deg.SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 PROGRAM BUDGET
COE is fully committed to supporting the President's priorities to
reduce the deficit, revitalize the economy and restore and protect the
environment. The fiscal year 2012 Civil Works budget is a performance-
based budget that reflects a focus on the projects and activities that
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the
Nation's investment or address significant risks to human safety. The
budget also proposes cancellation of the unobligated balance of funding
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account that was previously
provided for construction of the Yazoo Backwater Pumps, Mississippi
project. The reimbursable Interagency and International Services
Program is projected to involve an additional $1.6 billion.
coe deg.DIRECT PROGRAM
The budget includes $4.6 billion, including funding for the
operation and maintenance of more than 600 flood and storm damage
reduction projects, 143 commercial coastal navigation projects, and 51
commercial navigation projects on the inland waterways. It also funds
continuing construction of 90 construction projects and 2 new
construction starts. The budget includes funds for 58 studies already
underway and 4 new study starts. It will enable COE to process
approximately 70,000 permit requests and to operate 75 hydropower
plants with 350 generating units that produce about 24,000 megawatts
per year. The budget will enable about 370 million outdoor recreational
visits to COE projects and will provide water supply storage for about
14 percent of the Nation's municipal water needs. The budget will
sustain COE's preparedness to respond to natural disasters that we may
experience. Finally, the budget also proposes to reduce Federal costs
through a reduction in funding in lower-priority programs.
coe deg.INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM
The budget for the Investigations program will enable COE to
evaluate and design future projects that are most likely to be
highperforming within COE three main mission areas:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget includes $104 million for these and related activities
in the Investigations account and $1 million in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account. It funds 58 continuing studies (1
reconnaissance and 57 feasibility) and 4 new studies:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan; and
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study.
Funding is also included for the Water Resources Priorities Study,
a high-priority evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to inland and
coastal flooding, as well as the effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability of existing water resource programs and strategies.
coe deg.CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The goal of the construction program is to deliver as high a value
as possible to the Nation from the overall available funding through
the construction of new water resources projects and the replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of existing water resources projects in
the three main Civil Works missions (flood and storm damage reduction,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and commercial navigation) and related
projects (principally hydropower). The fiscal year 2012 budget includes
$1.48 billion in the Construction account and $78 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account to further this objective.
Consistent with this goal, the budget also gives priority to projects
that address a significant risk to human safety.
The budget funds 92 construction projects, including:
--55 Flood and storm damage reduction projects (3 budgeted for
completion);
--16 Commercial navigation projects (including 5 continuing
mitigation items and 4 dredged material placement areas);
--19 Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects (including 3 projects to
meet biological opinions); and
--mitigation associated with 2 Hydropower projects.
Two of these construction projects are new starts. In the
construction program, the aquatic ecosystem restoration mission also
includes significant environmental mitigation work in the Columbia
River Basin and the Missouri River Basin needed to support the
continued operation of COE multi-purpose projects, which improves
habitat and migration pathways for endangered and threatened species.
Performance measures, which COE uses to establish priorities among
projects, include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic
outputs and the most cost-effective restorations of significant aquatic
ecosystems. The selection process also gives priority to dam safety
assurance, seepage control, static instability correction work, and to
projects that address a significant risk to human safety. These
performance measures maximize benefits to the Nation from the Civil
Works construction program by focusing on the projects that will
provide the best net returns for each dollar invested.
coe deg.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, COE of
Engineers are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working
to ensure that its key features continue to provide an appropriate
level of service to the Nation. Sustaining such service poses a
technical challenge in some cases, and proper maintenance is becoming
more expensive at many of our projects as infrastructure ages.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an additional $131 million
under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program with a focus on the
maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. Specifically, the O&M
program supports completed works owned or operated by the Corps of
Engineers, including administrative buildings and laboratories. Work to
be accomplished includes:
--operation of the locks and dams of the inland waterways;
--dredging of inland and coastal Federal commercial navigation
channels;
--operating multiple purpose dams and reservoirs for flood damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, hydropower,
recreation, and other related purposes;
--maintenance and repair of these facilities;
--monitoring of completed storm damage reduction projects along our
coasts; and
--general management of facilities and the lands associated with
these purposes.
coe deg.REIMBURSABLE PROGRAM
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program, we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, and
other countries with timely, cost-effective implementation of their
programs. Rather than develop their own internal workforce to oversee
design and construction of projects, these agencies can turn to COE ,
which has these capabilities. Such intergovernmental cooperation is
effective for agencies and the taxpayer by using the skills and talents
that we bring to our Civil Works and Military Program missions. The
work is principally technical oversight and management of engineering,
environmental, and construction contracts performed by private sector
firms, and is totally financed by the agencies we serve. We only accept
agency requests that we can execute without impacting our Civil Works
or Military Programs missions, are consistent with our core technical
expertise, and are in the national interest.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2012 is projected to be $1.6
billion, reflecting completion of most ARRA work and a general
reduction in budget capability for most of our other agency customers.
The exact amount will depend on requests from the agencies.
coe deg.PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The budget includes several legislative proposals that will improve
operations or enable execution of important national programs. The
budget proposes to extend the authority to implement measures to
prevent the migration of invasive aquatic species into the Great Lakes,
to transfer funds between accounts to enable completion of the New
Orleans perimeter protection by June 2017, to purchase the property
that houses the Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory in
Hanover, New Hampshire, and to make a minor modification to existing
law that will enable us to serve in an official capacity in meetings of
the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. As
included in the testimony of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy, the budget also discusses two other important
legislative initiatives, concerning the way in which Federal navigation
activities are funded.
coe deg.PLANNING PROGRAM MODERNIZATION
COE will continue to implement actions to improve its Civil Works
Planning Program performance through a planning modernization effort.
This effort focuses on how best to organize, manage, operate, and
oversee the planning program to more effectively address 21st century
water resources challenges, including:
--improved project delivery that yields smarter outcomes;
--improved technical capability of our planners;
--enhanced collaboration with Federal, State, local, and
nongovernmental partners;
--evaluating and enhancing Corps Planning Centers of Expertise
production capability and staffing; and
--strengthening the objectivity and accountability of our planning
efforts.
Our improved planning performance will include:
--updated planning guidance and policy;
--streamlined, adaptable planning processes to improve effectiveness,
efficiency, accuracy, and responsiveness; and
--enhanced technical capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, COE launched a 2-year National Planning Pilot
Program to test the concepts of this approach within our current policy
and to develop and refine methodologies and processes for planning
studies across all business lines in a manner that is sustainable and
replicable and that will inform future Civil Works guidance. We expect
to conduct approximately 7 to 9 pilot studies over the course of the
National Planning Pilot Program.
coe deg.EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OPERATIONS
COE always strives to continually improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its investigations, construction, and operation and
maintenance programs. In fiscal year 2012, COE will further expand the
implementation of a modern asset management program; increase its focus
on the most important maintenance work; implement an energy
sustainability program; pursue major efficiencies in the acquisition
and operations of its information technology assets; and complete the
ongoing reorganization of its acquisition workforce.
coe deg.EMERGENCY RESPONSE
From across the Nation, the people who work for COE continue to
respond whenever needed to the call to help during major floods and
other national emergencies. The critical work they are doing reduces
the risk of damage to people and communities. The budget provides $27
million for preparedness for floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters, including $4 million in support of the levee safety
initiative for COE participation in the expansion of interagency teams
known as Silver Jackets, to include every State, and provide unified
Federal assistance in implementing flood and storm damage reduction
solutions.
coe deg.RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and by providing
more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil
Works program research and development contributes to the national
economy.
coe deg.NATIONAL DEFENSE
Internationally, COE continues to support the mission to help Iraq
and Afghanistan build foundations for democracy, freedom, and
prosperity.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens,
and we are proud of the work COE does to support America's foreign
policy, particularly with our ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Men and women from across the COE--all volunteers and many of whom have
served on multiple deployments--continue to provide critical support to
our military missions there and humanitarian support to the citizens of
those nations. Currently, 1,168 COE employees (civilian and military)
are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have completed a total
of more than 6,000 infrastructure and water resources projects.
Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan last month. As with every
opportunity that I've had to travel to that theater, I continue to be
amazed--but not surprised--by the progress being made. It was truly a
privilege to visit with the outstanding COE men and women who are
making this happen, and to see their dedication and commitment.
In Afghanistan, the COE is spearheading a comprehensive
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding
in critical public infrastructure projects.
CONCLUSION
COE is committed to staying at the leading edge of service to the
Nation. We are committed to change that ensures an open, transparent,
and performance-based Civil Works Program.
Thank you, Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my statement.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General.
Secretary Castle, would you like to begin?
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY REED MURRAY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
Ms. Castle. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Alexander,
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here
to discuss the President's 2012 budget request with you today.
You have noted Commissioner Connor's presence. With me also is
Reed Murray who is the Director of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) should you have any specific questions
about that program.
Interior's mission is essential to our American way of
life. We protect our natural resources and our cultural
heritage. We honor our Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We supply water to lands
and people throughout the West. We provide energy to power our
future. Our Interior Department people and programs touch
virtually every single American.
The Interior 2012 budget funds our primary mission areas,
and we have done that by eliminating and reducing lower-
priority programs, by streamlining and gaining efficiencies,
and by deferring some projects.
The 2012 combined budget request for BOR and the CUPCA
program is $1.1 billion. As you said, Madam Chair, that is a
$78.3 million reduction, 7 percent, from the 2010 enacted
level.
One of the highest priorities that we have in the
Department of the Interior is to address water challenges by
providing Federal leadership on the path to a sustainable water
future. We are doing that through our WaterSMART initiative,
and we are trying to address the 21st century pressures on our
Nation's water supplies. The 2012 budget request by Interior
for the WaterSMART initiative is $70 million. That is
distributed between BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Of that request, $59 million is for BOR programs. That
includes three ongoing BOR programs, the title 16 Water
Recycling and Reuse Grant Program, the Basin Studies Program,
and the WaterSMART cost share grant funding.
Two additional programs are being added to the WaterSMART
initiative this year. One already existed within BOR. That is
the Water Conservation Field Services program. The other is the
Cooperative Watershed Management program which is a new program
authorized under the Secure Water Act, and we have seed money
in the BOR budget for that in 2012.
USGS has requested funding to undertake a multiyear
nationwide water availability and use assessment that was also
authorized by the Secure Water Act, and that is what its
funding is in the WaterSMART program.
I want to briefly highlight just a few of BOR's other
significant efforts. BOR just released its hydropower resource
assessment that takes a look at the potential to add hydropower
capacity to existing BOR facilities. The next phase of that
assessment will look at adding hydropower capacity to canals
and conduits. So we are trying to assess the potential for
additional renewable energy at existing facilities.
We are currently in a dialogue with Mexico on the
management of the Colorado River, and we have ongoing efforts
to improve our water operations on the Colorado River--from
looking at renewable energy projects in the headwaters all the
way down to desalination efforts near the Mexican border.
We are actively pursuing solutions to the ongoing water
challenges in the California Bay-Delta. Our efforts there are
focused on co-leading with the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) an interagency effort to implement the December 2009
Interim Federal Action Plan.
Our 2012 budget includes funding for the initial
implementation of four Indian water rights settlements that
were authorized in the Claims Resolution Act at the end of last
year. And in addition to those four settlements, BOR's budget
includes funding for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, an
ongoing project.
With respect to CUPCA, the 2012 budget request is for $33
million. That includes $28.5 million to design, construct and
provide land acquisition for the Utah lake system, which is the
last remaining component of the Central Utah Project. That
amount includes full funding for the construction of the Provo
River Canal Enclosure Project, which will provide 8,000 acre-
feet of saved water to benefit endangered species and 30,000
acre-feet, when completed, to municipalities in Salt Lake and
Utah Counties in Utah.
This budget was constructed, as has been said, in the
context of very difficult economic times. We took a hard look
at our existing programs. We made some very, very tough calls,
and we made some reductions in order to shoulder our share of
responsibility to reduce the deficit. We think we have done
that in a way that adequately protects water and power
deliveries, protects the ecosystems that are affected by those
delivery systems so that we can ensure reliability of supplies
in the future, and makes appropriate investments in our
infrastructure.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to your questions. I appreciate and thank
you for your support, and this subcommittee's support of the
missions within the Department of the Interior. I look forward
to discussing this budget with you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle
Madam Chair, Senator Alexander, and members of this subcommittee, I
am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget for the Department of the Interior. I would also like
to thank the members of this subcommittee for your ongoing support for
our initiatives over the last 2 years.
The 2012 budget builds on that strong foundation with $12.2 billion
requested for the Department of the Interior. The budget demonstrates
that we can responsibly cut the deficit, while investing to win the
future and sustain the national recovery. Our budget promotes the
actions and programs that America told us are important in 50 listening
sessions across the country. In response, we developed a new 21st
century conservation vision--America's Great Outdoors. The budget
continues to advance efforts that you have facilitated in renewable
energy and sustainable water conservation, cooperative landscape
conservation, youth in the outdoors, and reforms in our conventional
energy programs.
I will also discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
for implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act, and I
thank the subcommittee for your continued support of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act Program as well.
INTRODUCTION
Interior's mission--to protect America's natural resources and
cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives--is profound. Interior's people and
programs impact all Americans.
The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's lands
including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and the public
lands. Interior manages public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,
providing access for renewable and conventional energy development and
overseeing the protection and restoration of surface-mined lands.
Through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Interior is the largest
supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western States and provides
hydropower resources used to power much of the country. The Department
supports cutting edge research in the earth sciences--geology,
hydrology, and biology--to inform resource management decisions at
Interior and improve scientific understanding worldwide. The Department
of the Interior also fulfills the Nation's unique trust
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, and provides
financial and technical assistance for the insular areas.
The Department of the Interior makes significant contributions to
the Nation's economy. It supports more than 1.3 million jobs and more
than $370 billion in economic activity each year. Parks, refuges, and
monuments generate more than $24 billion in economic activity from
recreation and tourism. Conventional and renewable energy produced on
Interior lands and waters results in about $295 billion in economic
benefits and the water managed by Interior supports more than $25
billion in agriculture. The American outdoor industry estimates 6.5
million jobs are created every year from outdoor activities.
bor deg.2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
At the start of the administration, Interior set on a course to
create a comprehensive strategy to advance a new energy frontier;
tackle the impacts of a changing landscape; improve the sustainable use
of water; engage youth in the outdoors; and improve the safety of
Indian communities. These priority goals integrate the strengths of the
Department's diverse bureaus and offices to address key challenges of
importance to the American public. Interior has been making progress in
these areas, including:
Approving 12 renewable energy projects on public lands that when
built, will produce almost 4,000 megawatts of energy, enough energy to
power close to 1 million American homes, and create thousands of
construction and operational jobs.
Designating more than 5,000 miles of transmission corridors on
public lands to facilitate siting and permitting of transmission lines
and processing more than 30 applications for major transmission
corridor rights-of-way.
Establishing 3 of 8 planned regional Climate Science Centers and 9
of 21 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
Issuing grants to water districts and other water delivery
authorities resulting in the conservation of 150,000 acre-feet of
water.
Increasing the number of youth employed in conservation through
Interior or its partners by 45 percent more than 2009 levels.
Reducing overall crime in four Indian communities as a result of a
concerted effort to increase law enforcement officers, conduct training
in community policing techniques, and engage the communities in law
enforcement efforts.
The Department advanced key priorities and strategic goals that
will improve the conservation and management of natural and cultural
resources into the future.
Interior, along with the Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council on Environmental
Quality, participated in the White House Conference on America's Great
Outdoors and held 50 public listening sessions across the Country that
have helped shape a conservation vision and strategy for the 21st
century. We have released a report, America's Great Outdoors: A Promise
to Future Generations that lays out a partnership agenda for 21st
century conservation and recreation.
In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new national
wildlife refuges in Kansas and Colorado and proposed a new conservation
area in Florida at the headwaters to the Everglades. These refuges mark
a new era of conservation for the Department, one that is community-
driven, science-based, and takes into account entire ecosystems and
working landscapes.
The Department worked with others to develop an action plan to help
address water supply and environmental challenges in the California
Bay-Delta area, invested more than $500 million in major water projects
over the past 2 years, and moved forward on long-standing water
availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
In December, the Secretary issued a recommendation to the Congress
to undertake an additional 5.5 miles of bridging on the Tamiami Trail
in the Everglades above and beyond the 1-mile bridge now under
construction. When combined with other planned work in the Everglades
Agricultural Area and water conservation areas, this project should
restore 100 percent of historic water quantity and flow to Everglades
National Park.
With the help of the Congress, we brought about resolution of the
Cobell v. Salazar settlement and resolved four Indian water rights
issues through enactment of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. We also
completed negotiation of a new Compact of Free Association with the
island of Palau which awaits congressional approval.
In December of last year, the President hosted the second White
House Tribal Nations Conference bringing together tribal leaders from
across the United States; we are improving the Nation-to-nation
relationship with 565 tribes.
bor deg.FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Interior's 2012 budget must be viewed in the context of the
difficult fiscal times facing the Nation and the President's freeze on
discretionary funding. The 2012 budget reflects many difficult budget
choices, cutting worthy programs and advancing efforts to shrink
Federal spending. The budget contains reductions totaling $1.1 billion
or 8.9 percent of the 2010 enacted level. Staffing reductions are
anticipated in some program areas, which will be achieved through
attrition, outplacement, and buy-outs to minimize the need to conduct
reductions in force to the greatest extent possible. These reductions
are a necessary component of maintaining overall fiscal restraint while
allowing us to invest additional resources in core agency priorities.
This budget is responsible. Interior's $12.2 billion budget funds
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower-priority
programs, deferring projects, reducing redundancy, streamlining
management, and capturing administrative and efficiency savings. It
maintains funding levels for core functions that are vital to uphold
stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The 2012
request includes $11.2 billion for programs funded by the Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriation. The 2012 request for
BOR and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, funded in the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, is $1.1 billion in current
appropriations, $78.3 million or 7 percent below the 2010 enacted
level.
bor deg.INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
America's Great Outdoors.--Last year, the administration initiated
a national dialogue at the White House Conference on America's Great
Outdoors. In 50 listening sessions held across the Country, the public
communicated their conservation and recreation priorities, and the
result is a report to the President, ``America's Great Outdoors: A
Promise to Future Generations''. The report outlines how the Federal
Government can support a renewed and refreshed conservation vision by
working in collaboration with communities, farmers and ranchers,
businesses, conservationists, youth, and others who are working to
protect the places that matter to them and by engaging people across
the country in conservation and recreation.
The 2012 America's Great Outdoors initiative focuses on investments
that will lead to healthy lands, waters and resources while stimulating
the economy--goals that are complementary. Through strategic
partnerships, Interior will support and protect historic uses of lands,
restore lands and resources, protect and interpret historic and
cultural resources, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities. All of
these activities have significant economic benefits in rural and urban
communities.
Youth.--Furthering the youth and conservation goals of the
America's Great Outdoors initiative, the 2012 budget proposes to
continue engaging youth by employing and educating young people from
all backgrounds.
Interior is uniquely qualified to engage and educate young people
in the outdoors and has programs that establish connections for youth
ages 18 to 25 with natural and cultural resource conservation. These
programs help address unemployment in young adults and address health
issues by encouraging exercise and outdoor activities. For example,
Interior is taking part in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to
combat the problem of childhood obesity. Interior has long-standing
partnerships with organizations such as the 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the
Girl Scouts, the Youth Conservation Corps, and the Student Conservation
Association. These programs leverage Federal investments to put young
people to work and build a conservation ethic.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--Interior's 2012 budget
realigns programs and funding to better equip land and resource
managers with the tools they need to effectively conserve resources in
a rapidly changing environment. Significant changes in water
availability, longer and more intense fire seasons, invasive species
and disease outbreaks are creating challenges for resource managers and
impacting the sustainability of resources on public lands. These
changes result in bark beetle infestations, deteriorated range
conditions, and water shortages that negatively impact grazing,
forestry, farming, as well as the status of wildlife and the condition
of their habitats. Many of these problems are caused by or exacerbated
by climate change.
Interior's 2012 budget includes $175.0 million for cooperative
landscape conservation, an increase of $43.8 million. The budget funds
the completion of the Climate Science Centers and Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, the organizing framework for the
Department's efforts to work collaboratively with others to understand
and manage these changes. These efforts will allow the Department to
meet its priority goal to identify resources vulnerable to climate
change and implement coordinated adaptation response actions for 50
percent of the Nation by the end of 2012.
Water Challenges.--Interior is working to address the 21st century
pressures on the Nation's water supplies. Population growth, aging
water infrastructure, changing climate, rising energy demands, impaired
water quality and environmental needs are among the challenges. Water
shortage and water use conflicts have become more commonplace in many
areas of the United States, even in normal water years. As competition
for water resources grows, the need for information and tools to aid
water resource managers also grows. Water issues and challenges are
increasing across the Nation, but particularly in the West and
Southeast due to more prolonged droughts than we have experienced
historically. Traditional water management approaches no longer meet
today's needs.
BOR proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART at $58.9 million, $11
million below 2011 levels. The three ongoing WaterSMART programs
include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $18.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $29
million.
The rebasing adds the existing Water Conservation Field Services
program, funded at $5.1 million, and participation by BOR in the
Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
WaterSMART is a joint effort with USGS. USGS will use $10.9 million, an
increase of $9 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water availability
and use assessment program.
Other significant programs and highlights specific to BORinclude:
In 2010, the Secretary issued a Secretarial Order establishing the
WaterSMART program which embodies a new water sustainability strategy.
WaterSMART coordinates Interior's water sustainability efforts, creates
a clearinghouse for water conservation best practices and implements a
department-wide water footprint reduction program to reduce consumption
of potable water by 26 percent by 2020.
We are in dialogue with Mexico on the management of the Colorado
River. We have ongoing efforts to improve our management of resources
on the Colorado River, from renewable hydropower development near the
headwaters to a pilot program of desalination near the Mexican border.
We are actively pursuing workable solutions to regional issues such
as in the California Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta is a source of drinking
water for 25 million Californians and sustains about $400 billion in
annual economic activity, including a $28 billion agricultural industry
and up until recently supported a thriving commercial and recreational
fishing industry. Our efforts in the Bay-Delta are focused on co-
leading an inter-agency effort with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to implement the December 2009 Interim Federal Action
Plan for the California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. In coordination
with five other Federal agencies, we are leveraging our activities to
address California water issues, promote water efficiency and
conservation, expand voluntary water transfers in the Central Valley,
fund drought relief projects, and make investments in water
infrastructure. Over the past 2 years, we have invested more than $500
million in water projects in California. We have also, in close
coordination with NOAA and the State of California, worked on the
California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, a long-term plan aimed at
restoring both reliable water supplies and a healthy Bay-Delta
ecosystem.
On March 22 we announced an update to the Water Supply Allocation
for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users for 2011. This updated
allocation reflects improved precipitation and snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains in the last month. We are pleased to report that the
current allocation for most CVP contractors is 100 percent of their
contract supply. Agricultural water service contractors South-of-Delta
allocations have been increased from 50 percent to 65 percent and
municipal and industrial contracts from 75 percent to 90 percent. These
allocations represent good news given recent years, but many challenges
remain. We will continue to work with our Federal, State, and local
partners to improve water supply reliability while addressing
significant ecological issues. BOR is continuing to update the forecast
to provide the most current information to its stakeholders.
bor deg.HYDROPOWER
Hydropower is a very clean and efficient way to produce energy and
is a renewable resource. Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is
produced at an efficiency of more than twice that of any other energy
source. Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared
to other forms of generation. BOR has nearly 500 dams and 10,000 miles
of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which are operated and
maintained by BOR. On an annual basis, these plants produce an average
of 40 million megawatt (MW) hours of electricity, enough to meet the
entire electricity needs of more than 9 million people on average.
BOR and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have an
existing MOU, signed in 1992, that addresses the establishment of
processes for early resolution of issues related to the timely
development of non-Federal hydroelectric power at BOR facilities. BOR
and FERC recently met to discuss how to improve the timeliness of the
processes developed in that MOU and resolution of authority issues.
BOR is assessing the potential for developing low-head
hydroelectric generating capacity on federally owned canals and
conduits.
Overall, the Department shares the subcommittee's view that
interagency coordination can leverage Federal and private sector
investment in additional hydropower development. This consideration was
foremost in the Department's signing a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department of Energy and COE on March 24, 2010 to increase
communication between Federal agencies and strengthen the long-term
relationship among them to prioritize the generation and development of
sustainable hydropower. This administration is committed to increasing
the generation of environmentally sustainable, affordable hydropower
for our national electricity supplies in as efficient a manner as
possible.
Indian Land and Water Settlements.--Interior's 2012 budget includes
$84.3 million in BOR and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to implement
land and water settlements.
BOR's budget includes $51.5 million for the initial implementation
of four settlements authorized in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
The legislation included water settlements for the Taos Pueblo of New
Mexico and Pueblos of New Mexico named in the Aamodt case, the Crow
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. BOR's
contribution to the Navajo-San Juan settlement is also included in the
account.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 establishes trust funds for
tribes to manage water systems and settlement funds to develop
infrastructure. The primary responsibility for constructing these water
systems was given to BOR, while BIA is responsible for the majority of
the trust funds, which includes $207.2 million in mandatory funding in
2011.
These settlements will deliver clean water to the Taos Pueblo and
the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque in New
Mexico, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe
of Arizona. In addition to funding for the initial implementation of
these four settlements, BOR's budget includes $24.8 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In the 2012 budget, BORis
establishing an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency. Both BOR and BIA are working
cooperatively to implement the settlements.
bor deg.CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT
I am pleased to provide the following information about the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for implementation of
Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA).
CUPCA, titles II-VI of Public Law 102-575, provides for completion
of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District. The act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the
Treasury for deposit of these funds and other contributions;
establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for
the Ute Indian Rights Settlement.
The 2012 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account
provides $33 million for use by the District, the Mitigation
Commission, and the Department to implement titles II-IV of the act,
which is $9 million less than the 2010 enacted level. The decrease in
funding for the 2012 budget is due in part to accelerated funding
provided in 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and
in part to the administration's effort to reduce the deficit.
The request for the District includes $28.5 million to fund the
designs, specifications, land acquisition, and construction of the Utah
Lake System ($18.5 million). This includes full funding ($10 million)
for construction of the Provo River Canal Enclosure Project, which when
completed will provide 8,000 acre-feet of conserved water for
endangered fish and convey 30,000 acre-feet of CUP water.
The request includes $2 million for the Mitigation Commission to
implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and
conservation projects authorized in title III ($1.8 million) and to
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 BOR planning
documents ($200,000), all of which are necessary to allow CUP
operations.
Finally, the request includes $2.5 million for the program office
for endangered species recovery and operation and maintenance costs
associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities ($954,000)
and for program administration ($1.6 million).
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of the
Interior. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the long-standing
support of this subcommittee. This budget has fiscal discipline and
restraint, but it also includes forward looking investments. We have a
tremendous opportunity to improve the future for all generations with
wise investments in healthy lands, clean waters and expanded energy
options.
I look forward to working with you to implement this budget. This
concludes my overview of the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Department of the Interior. I am happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very, very much.
General, I would like to begin with the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund if I might. It is my understanding that this fund
has a significant surplus and that the budget request states
that the administration will be making a proposal concerning
the fund. As I understand it, this proposal will allow other
agencies that are conducting port-related activities to charge
those activities to the trust fund. Is that correct? Could you
explain this proposal?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, I will take a stab at that
and then turn to my policy partner here to address the other
part.
First of all, you are absolutely correct that there is a
large amount in the fund, probably estimated at around $6
billion.
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me.
General Van Antwerp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I left out Commissioner Connor, and it
was truly an oversight. Why do you not finish with that, if it
is agreeable? Then, Commissioner Connor, I really apologize.
General Van Antwerp. We were smiling at each other. I
thought you let him off the hook. We want to hear from him. I
will just conclude this one part about the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund.
Generally in a given year, we get about $1.4 billion in
receipts, and we have budgeted this year along the lines of
$750 million from the trust fund.
And I will let Ms. Darcy take the policy part of this, if
that is okay.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, fine.
Ms. Darcy. Would you like me to finish now, Senator?
Senator Feinstein. Well, where I am going is whether or not
this rapidly depletes the trust fund.
Ms. Darcy. Well, the trust fund, as the General said, gets
about $1.4 billion annually; those funds currently are in the
Treasury even though all of the funds that come in must be
appropriated. And for COE, we get about $783 million
appropriated from that annual revenue stream in our annual
appropriations. So the balance is in the Treasury and the rest
of its use is determined by the administration and by the
Congress.
Senator Feinstein. It is my understanding that the budget
proposal does not provide for full authorized widths and depths
to be maintained at any harbor handled by COE. Maybe you would
like to come back to this, but my concern is that you will eat
up the trust fund with other activities. The dredging gets done
partially and we have some real impediment to trade and
commerce in our country. So we will come back to that.
Commissioner Connor.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I took no offense. If I
have learned nothing else in this job, it is sometimes the less
said the better.
So I thank you for your kind words and I thank you and the
members of the subcommittee for your support of BOR, and I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's 2012
request.
Overall, BOR's budget reflects a comprehensive set of
actions and initiatives that support BOR's mission. The budget
continues to emphasize working smarter to address the water
needs of a growing population. Certainty and sustainability are
primary goals with respect to the use of water resources that
require BOR to take action on many fronts, and our budget
proposal was developed with that principle in mind.
I should note that our efforts to work smarter include an
array of partnerships with COE, from the Joint Dam Safety and
Flood Protection Project at Folsom Dam to our sustainable
hydropower initiative. In these tight budget times, combining
our resources with those of COE will help bring value to the
American taxpayer.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for BOR focuses on six
priorities which I want to touch briefly on in my remaining
time, and I will avoid those areas already discussed.
Number 1, infrastructure. Overall, our budget continues to
support the need to maintain infrastructure in a safe operating
condition while addressing the myriad of challenges facing
water users in the West. Approximately 51 percent of our water
and related resources budget, or $407 million, is dedicated to
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activity. These
activities include the dam safety program, site security
program, and RAX, which is shorthand for replacements,
additions, and extraordinary maintenance.
As already noted, a second priority is the WaterSMART
program. A specific aspect that I want to highlight is that we
have established a priority goal for approving and funding
actions to increase the available water supply for
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in
the Western United States by 490,000 acre-feet by the end of
2012. WaterSMART concentrates on expanding and stretching
limited water supplies in the West to reduce conflict,
facilitate solutions to complex water issues, and meet the
needs of expanding municipalities, the environment, and
agriculture. Conservation and efficient management are central
to the creative solutions needed in the arid West.
Ecosystem restoration is the third priority area. In order
to meet BOR's mission goals of sustainably producing power and
delivering water, we must continue to focus on the protection
and restoration of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems affected
by our operations. Ecosystem restoration involves a large
number of activities, including our Endangered Species Recovery
programs.
Twenty to 25 percent of BOR's 2012 budget is allocated to
activities in support of ecosystem restoration. This amount
includes the request for operating, managing, and improving
California's Central Valley Project, or CVP. CVP-related
funding will support completion of the Red Bluff pumping plant
and fish screen project on the Sacramento River, the Trinity
River, and the San Joaquin River restoration programs, and
other actions to protect and enhance California's Bay-Delta
region.
Our budget request also supports ongoing implementation of
the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Program, the Platte
River Endangered Species Recovery Program, the Upper Colorado
and San Juan River Endangered Fish Programs.
In addition, funding requested for the Columbia and Snake
River Salmon Recovery Program will implement required
biological opinion actions associated with the Federal Columbia
River power system.
Finally, funding is also sought for the Klamath, Middle Rio
Grande, and Yakima projects to support extensive initiatives to
address the competing demands in those basins.
Cooperative landscape conservation and renewable energy
production, a fourth area of focus, are departmental
initiatives in which BORis actively engaged. As a threshold
matter, we are developing and implementing approaches to
understand and effectively adapt to the risks and impacts of
climate change on western water. As you know, Madam Chair,
better than anybody, the future protections of decreasing flows
in the Colorado River and reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains have already caused Californians to actively begin
implementing local and regional solutions to the threats to
their water supplies and the environment. Other areas of the
country are starting to follow suit.
Through our Basin Studies program and implementation of the
Secure Water Act, BOR is aggressively trying to assist in
acquiring the data and improving the science related to future
projections of water supplies so that effective adaptation
strategies can be developed and implemented. In 2012, the Basin
Studies program will continue west-wide risk assessments
focusing on the threats to water supplies from climate change
and other sources and will coordinate responsive actions with
the Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
BOR's science and technology program will also continue
research that targets improved capability for managing water
resources in the face of climate change, invasive species
issues, as well as integrating renewable energy and energy-
efficiency activities into our water operations.
A fifth initiative is very important to the administration
and that is our longstanding commitment to the Secretary's goal
to strengthen tribal nations. Assistant Secretary Castle has
already mentioned our support for the Indian water rights
programs. BOR is going to begin a number of implementation
activities this year in support of the recently enacted four
settlements, as well as continuing activities with respect to
other Indian water rights settlements.
I should note that we have requested $36 million for rural
water projects which also support a number of tribal nations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chair, in conclusion, we appreciate again your
support for BOR and the support of the subcommittee, and I will
answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor
Thank you Madam Chair, Senator Alexander, and members of this
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding BOR's budget and its support for the
program. BOR works hard to prioritize and define our program in a
manner that serves the best interest of the public.
Our fiscal year 2012 request continues support for activities that,
both now and in the future, will deliver water and generate hydropower,
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally
responsible and cost-effective manner. Overall, our goal is to promote
certainty, sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on
water resources in the West. Success in this approach will help ensure
that BOR is doing its part to support the basic needs of communities,
as well as providing for economic growth in the agricultural,
industrial, and recreational sectors of the economy. In keeping with
the President's pledge to freeze spending and focus on deficit
reduction, this budget reflects reductions and savings where possible.
Although the 2012 budget request allows BOR to fulfill its core
mission, essential functions have been trimmed and economized wherever
possible.
The budget continues to emphasize working smarter to address the
water needs of a growing population and assisting States, tribes, and
local entities in solving contemporary water resource challenges. It
also emphasizes the operation and maintenance of BOR facilities in a
safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner; assuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the public and BOR facilities.
Funding for each program area down to the individual projects within
BOR's request is based upon adherence to administration, departmental,
and BOR priorities. BOR is responsible for the oversight, operation,
and maintenance of major Federal infrastructure that is valued at $87.7
billion in current dollars. Key areas of focus for fiscal year 2012
include Water Conservation, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and
Renewable Energy, Ecosystem Restoration, Youth Employment, supporting
tribal nations and maintaining infrastructure. Recognizing the budget
challenges facing the Federal Government as a whole, BOR will continue
its efforts to partner with other Federal agencies such as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, to maximize the efficiency by
which we implement our programs.
BOR's 2012 budget request is $1 billion, which includes $53.1
million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This
request is offset by discretionary receipts in the CVPRF, estimated to
be $52.8 million. The request for permanent appropriations in 2012
totals $194.5 million. Overall, BOR's 2012 budget is a responsible one
and consistent with the administration's goal of fiscal sustainability.
BOR will still be making strategic investments that provide a strong
foundation to meet water resources challenges across the West.
bor deg.WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The 2012 budget request for Water and Related Resources, BOR's
principal operating account, is $805.2 million, a decrease of $108.4
million from the 2011 request.
The request includes a total of $398.5 million for water and
energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management and development
activities. Funding in these activities provides for planning,
construction, water conservation activities, management of BOR lands
including recreation, and actions to address the impacts of BOR
projects on fish and wildlife.
The request also provides a total of $406.7 million for water and
power facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities.
BOR emphasizes safe, efficient, economic and reliable operation of
facilities, ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to
protect the facilities and the public. Providing the funding needed to
achieve these objectives continues to be one of BOR's highest
priorities.
bor deg.HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 REQUEST FOR WATER
AND RELATED RESOURCES
I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the BOR budget including an update on the WaterSMART (Sustain and
Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) Program and Interior's
establishment of a Priority Goal target to enable capability to
increase available water supply for agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United States by
490,000 acre-feet by the end of 2012.
WaterSMART Program.--The request focuses resources on the
Department of the Interior's WaterSMART program. The program
concentrates on expanding and stretching limited water supplies in the
West to reduce conflict, facilitate solutions to complex water issues,
and to meet the growing needs of expanding municipalities, the
environment, and agriculture.
BOR proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART program at $58.9
million, $11 million below 2011 levels. The three ongoing WaterSMART
programs include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $18.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $29
million.
The rebased program adds the existing Water Conservation Field
Services program, funded at $5.1 million, and participation by BOR in
the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000. This
is a joint effort with the USGS.
Other significant programs and highlights include:
Ecosystem Restoration.--In order to meet BOR's mission goals of
securing America's energy resources and managing water in a
sustainable manner for the 21st century, a part of its programs
must focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and
riparian environments affected by its operations. Ecosystem
restoration involves a large number of activities, including
BOR's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which are
required in order to continue project operations and directly
address the environmental aspects of the BOR mission.
The 2012 request provides $154.6 million for operating, managing
and improving California's Central Valley Project (CVP). This amount
supports Ecosystem Restoration including $34.8 million for the Red
Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen within the CVP, Sacramento River
Division, which will be constructed to facilitate passage for
threatened fish species, as well as providing water deliveries. The
funding for the CVP also includes $10.5 million for the Trinity River
Restoration program and $3 million from the CVP Restoration Fund which
includes development of a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive
management program for fishery restoration and construction of channel
rehabilitation projects at various sites along the Trinity River.
The request includes $26 million for Lower Colorado River
Operations to fulfill the role of the Secretary as water master for the
Lower Colorado River and implementation of the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation (MSCP) program which provides long-term
Endangered Species Act compliance for the operations. Of this amount,
$18.3 million for the MSCP program will provide quality habitat to
conserve populations of 26 species.
The budget requests $20 million for other Endangered Species Act
Recovery Implementation programs, including $11 million in the Great
Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation program. It also includes $6.2 million for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery programs. This
funding will continue construction of a system that automates canal
operations to conserve water by matching river diversions with actual
consumptive use demands and redirecting the conserved water to improve
instream flows. Additionally, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
program funding of $17.8 million will be used for implementation of
required Biological Opinion actions including extensive hydro actions,
plus tributary habitat and hatchery initiatives.
The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $18.6 million for the Klamath
project, which supports studies and initiatives to improve water
supplies to meet the competing demands of agricultural, tribal,
wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin.
No funding is requested for the Klamath Dam Removal and
Sedimentation Studies. These studies are being completed with funds
previously appropriated and will be used to inform a Secretarial
Determination in 2012 as to whether removing PacifiCorp's four dams on
the Lower Klamath River is in the public interest and advances
restoration of the Klamath River fisheries. The studies and Secretarial
Determination are being carried out pursuant to an agreement with
PacifiCorp and the States of California and Oregon.
The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $23.6 million for the Middle
Rio Grande project. Funds support the acquisition of supplemental non-
Federal water for Endangered Species Act efforts and low flow
conveyance channel pumping into the Rio Grande during the irrigation
season. Further, funding is used for recurring life-cycle river
maintenance necessary to ensure uninterrupted, efficient water delivery
to Elephant Butte Reservoir, reduced risk of flooding, as well as
delivery obligations to Mexico.
The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project request is $8.9
million, which will continue funding grants to the Benton and Roza
Irrigation Districts and Sunnyside Division Board of Control, to
implement conservation measures and monitor the effects of those
measures on the river diversions.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Renewable Energy.--BOR is
actively engaged in developing and implementing approaches to
understand, and effectively adapt to, the risks and impacts of climate
change on western water management. The Basin Studies Program is part
of Interior's integrated strategy to respond to climate change impacts
on the resources managed by the Department, and is a key component of
the WaterSMART Program. In 2012, the Basin Studies Program will
continue West-wide risk assessments focusing on the threats to water
supplies from climate change and other factors and will be coordinated
through the Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).
BOR will take the lead responsibility for establishing and coordinating
work at the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs. Included within BOR's
Science and Technology program is water resources research targeting
improved capability for managing water resources under multiple drivers
affecting water availability, including climate change. This research
agenda will be collaborated and leveraged with capabilities of the
Interior Climate Science Centers.
BOR is also working in partnership with DOE and COE in identifying
opportunities to address the President's clean-energy goals through the
development of new sustainable hydropower capacity as well as
integrating renewable energy in our operations. The partnership with
DOE and its Power Marketing Administrations will also assess climate
change impacts on hydropower generation.
Supporting Tribal Nations.--BOR has a long-standing commitment to
realizing the Secretary's goal to strengthen tribal nations. Fiscal
year 2012 continues support through a number of BOR projects ranging
from endangered species restoration to rural water and implementation
of water rights settlement actions.
The request includes $12.8 million for the Animas-La Plata project
to continue constructing components of the Navajo Nation Municipal
Pipeline and filling Lake Nighthorse as the project nears completion.
The fiscal year 2012 BOR budget requests $35.5 million for on-going
authorized rural water projects. The projects that benefit tribal
nations include Mni Wiconi, the rural water component of the Garrison
Diversion Unit, Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie, Jicarilla Apache
Reservation, and Rocky Boys/North Central Montana. One other rural
water project that does not directly affect tribes is the Lewis and
Clark Project. Funding for the Perkins County Project is complete. The
first priority for funding rural water projects is the required O&M
component, which is $15.3 million for fiscal year 2012. For the
construction component, BOR allocated funding based on objective
criteria that gave priority to projects nearest to completion and
projects that serve on-reservation needs.
The request includes $7 million for the Native American Affairs
program to provide technical support for Indian water rights
settlements and to assist tribal governments to develop, manage and
protect their water and related resources. The Columbia/Snake River
Salmon Recovery, Klamath, Central Valley Project Trinity River
Restoration, Yakima and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Projects
mentioned above under Ecosystem Restoration benefit tribal nations.
Also, the newly established Indian Water Rights Settlement Account
discussed below supports tribal nations.
Youth Employment.--To meet the Secretary's challenge to achieve the
Priority Goal for youth employment, BOR is working hard to engage,
educate, and employ our Nation's youth in order to help develop the
future stewards of our lands. Secretary Salazar challenged the Interior
Bureaus to increase employment of youth between the ages of 15 and 25
in natural and cultural resource positions. Last year, BOR began
working with youth conservation corps to hire youth and expose them to
the great work that it does. We continue to use all hiring authorities
available to bring young people in through internships, crew work, and
full time positions.
Aging Infrastructure.--Through BOR's continued emphasis on
preventive maintenance and regular condition assessments (field
inspections and reviews), the service life of many BOR assets and
facilities have been extended, thereby delaying the need for
significant replacements and rehabilitation efforts, including the
related funding needs. Although BOR and its project beneficiaries have
benefited greatly from this preventive maintenance, we recognize that
as assets and facilities age, they require an increased amount of
maintenance. Sometimes this requires more frequent preventive
maintenance, and, in other situations, significant extraordinary
maintenance, rehabilitations, or replacements may be required.
It is important to note that much of the Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) funding responsibilities of BOR's assets lies with our project
beneficiaries and those operating entities that operate and maintain
federally owned transferred works. For some operating entities and
project beneficiaries, rehabilitation and replacement needs may exceed
available resources. In particular, many smaller irrigation or water
conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year
incurred absent long-term financing assistance. To address this issue,
the administration is currently exploring strategies for helping these
entities to rehabilitate these facilities. We are also exploring
potential utilization of the authority provided under Public Law 111-11
that would allow extended repayment of extraordinary (nonroutine)
maintenance costs on project facilities. Water users are currently
required by Federal reclamation law to pay these costs, which are often
substantial, in advance.
BOR's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget is $40.8 million in
appropriations for various projects for Replacements, Additions, and
Extraordinary Maintenance (RAX) activities where BOR is directly
responsible for daily O&M. This request is central to mission
objectives of operating and maintaining projects to ensure delivery of
water and power benefits. BOR's RAX request is part of its overall
Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments,
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment,
and strategic collaboration to continue to improve the management of
its assets and deal with its aging infrastructure challenges. This
amount represents only the fiscal year 2012 request for discretionary
appropriations. Additional RAX items are directly funded by revenues,
customers, or other Federal agencies.
The Bonneville Power Administration will continue to provide up-
front financing of power operation and maintenance and for major
replacements and additions for the power plants at the Boise, Columbia
Basin, Hungry Horse, Minidoka, Rogue River, and Yakima projects. In the
Great Plains (GP) Region, BOR, Western Area Power Administration, and
COE have entered into an agreement which enables the customers to
voluntarily direct fund power RAX items. A long-term funding agreement
with the customers for the Parker-Davis Project on the Colorado River
was executed in fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 2012 costs of operation,
maintenance and replacement for this project will be 100 percent up-
front funded by the customers. To date, the Central Valley Project
power O&M program is funded 100 percent by the customers, in addition
to funding selected RAX items. BOR will continue to explore ways to
reduce the Federal cost of its projects and programs.
A total of $83.7 million is requested for BOR's Safety of Dams
program, which includes $63.6 million directed to dam safety corrective
actions; of that, $27.5 million is for work at Folsom Dam. Funding also
includes $18.5 million for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.6
million to oversee the Interior Department's Safety of Dams program.
BOR's request for Site Security is $25.9 million to ensure the
safety and security of the public, BOR's employees, and key facilities.
This funding includes $6.9 million for physical security upgrades at
high-risk critical assets and $19.1 million to continue all aspects of
bureauwide security efforts including law enforcement, risk and threat
analysis, personnel security, information security, risk assessments
and security-related studies, and guards and patrols.
BOR continues efforts to reach agreements with non-Federal and
Federal partners to share in the cost of water resource management and
development. Cost-sharing of 50 percent for construction and
rehabilitation of recreation facilities at various BOR reservoirs will
continue. Additionally, BOR's current planning program seeks 50 percent
cost-sharing on most studies. This reflects BOR's emphasis on
partnerships for water management initiatives.
bor deg.INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
On December 8, 2010 the President signed the Claims Resolution Act
of 2010 that included four water settlements. These settlements resolve
longstanding and disruptive water disputes, provide for the
quantification and protection of tribal rights, and will deliver clean
water to the Pueblos of Taos, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and
Tesuque in New Mexico, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. In order to accomplish this, the act
provides various mechanisms and funding structures designed for both
construction and for the tribes to use to manage water systems
following construction. The primary responsibility for developing water
infrastructure under these settlements was given to BOR. Mandatory
funding was provided to both BIA and BOR in 2011 for a portion of the
funds established under the act. We anticipate that BOR will begin
expending some of this mandatory funding to work with all parties to
begin implementing these settlements.
The four Indian water rights settlements will provide water
supplies and offer economic security for the tribes and pueblos
described above. The agreements will build and improve reservation
water systems, rehabilitate irrigation projects, construct a regional
multi-pueblo water system, and codify water-sharing arrangements
between Indian and neighboring communities. Construction will take
place over time and annual funding requirements will vary from year to
year. Notwithstanding the availability of some level of mandatory
funding, discretionary appropriations will still be necessary. BOR is
requesting $26.7 million in 2012 for the initial implementation of
these four settlements.
BOR is establishing the Indian Water Rights Settlements account to
assure continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency in handling these funds. In
establishing this account, BOR will also request $24.8 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project (title X of Public Law 111-11) in
order to have major current funding for BOR's Indian Water Rights
Settlements treated in the Claims Resolution Act in a single account.
The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project will provide reliable and
sustainable municipal, industrial, and domestic water supplies from the
San Juan River to the Navajo Nation including:
--the Window Rock, Arizona area;
--the city of Gallup, New Mexico; the Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry; and
--the southwest portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation.
The total request for BOR for Indian Water Rights Settlements in
2012 is $51.5 million in discretionary funding and $60 million in
permanent funds.
bor deg.POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
The 2012 budget request for the Policy and Administration
appropriation account, the account that finances BOR's central
management functions, is $60 million or 6 percent of the total request,
a reduction of $1.2 million from the 2011 request. This reduction
reflects the impact of the pay freeze and the Administrative Cost
Savings discussed below.
bor deg.ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS AND MANAGEMENT
EFFICIENCIES
The 2012 budget request includes reductions that reflect the
Accountable Government Initiative to curb nonessential administrative
spending in support of the President's commitment on fiscal discipline
and spending restraint. In accordance with this initiative, BOR's
budget includes $5.8 million in savings in 2012 against actual 2010
expenditures in the following activities: travel and transportation of
persons, transportation of things, printing and reproduction, and
supplies and materials. Actions to address the Accountable Government
Initiative and reduce these expenses build upon management efficiency
efforts proposed in 2011 totaling $3.9 million in travel and
relocation, Information Technology, and strategic sourcing and bureau-
specific efficiencies totaling $1.3 million.
bor deg.CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
The 2012 budget includes a request of $53.1 million for the CVPRF.
This budget request is offset by collections estimated at $52.8 million
from mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. The request considers the effects of
the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11,
March 30, 2009) which (beginning in 2010) redirects certain fees,
estimated at $5.6 million in fiscal year 2012, collected from the
Friant Division water users to the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
bor deg.SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND
The fiscal year 2012 budget also reflects the settlement of Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers. BOR proposes $9 million in
discretionary funds into this account, which was established by the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. Under the Settlement, the
legislation also provides for approximately $2 million in annual
appropriations for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for this
purpose, as well as mandatory funds. The Fund seeks to provide a
variety of physical improvements within and near the San Joaquin River
within the service area of the Friant Division long term contractors to
achieve the restoration and water management goals. These funds are
important for BOR to meet various terms of the settlement that brought
water contractors, fishery advocates, and other stakeholders together
to bring to an end 18 years of contentious litigation.
bor deg.CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION FUND
The 2012 budget requests $39.7 million for CALFED, pursuant to the
CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act. The request focuses on the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan and interagency science efforts to address
short- and long-term water resource issues. Other activities include a
renewed Federal/State partnership, Smarter Water Supply and Use, and
addressing the degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem actions which include
Federal participation in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and
interagency science efforts to address short- and long-term water
resource issues based on the Interim Federal Action Plan. The CALFED
Bay-Delta Program was established in May 1995 to develop a
comprehensive long-term plan to address the complex and interrelated
problems in the Delta region, tributary watersheds, and delivery areas.
The Program's focus is on conserving and restoring the health of the
ecosystem and improving water management, including Federal
participation in the Bay Delta conservation Plan.
bor deg.FISCAL YEAR 2012 PLANNED ACTIVITIES
BOR's fiscal year 2012 goals are directly related to fulfilling
contractual requests to deliver water and power. Our goals also address
a range of other water supply needs in the West, playing a significant
role in restoring and protecting freshwater ecosystems consistent with
applicable State and Federal law, enhancing management of our water
infrastructure while mitigating for any harmful environmental effects,
and understanding and responding to the changing nature of the West's
limited water resources. It should be emphasized that in order to meet
BOR's mission goals of securing America's energy resources and managing
water in a sustainable manner for the 21st century, a part of BOR's
programs must focus on the protection and restoration of freshwater
ecosystems.
By the end of fiscal year 2012, BOR will enable capability to
increase available water supply for agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United States by
490,000 acre feet through its conservation-related programs, such as
water reuse and recycling (title XVI), and WaterSMART grants. BOR will
maintain dams and associated facilities in good condition to ensure the
reliable delivery of water. It will maximize the percent of time that
its hydroelectric generating units are available to the inter-connected
western electrical system during daily peak demand periods.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2012 budget request demonstrates BOR's
commitment to meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues BOR's emphasis on
managing those valuable public resources. BOR is committed to working
with its customers, States, tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways
to balance and provide for the mix of water resource needs in 2012 and
beyond.
CONCLUSION
Madam Chair, please allow me to express my sincere appreciation for
the continued support that this subcommittee has provided BOR. This
completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you may have at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
COE deg.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
I want to go back to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
because it seems to me that there is a catch 22, and that is
that the trust fund is going to be used for other things and
that there are no authorized widths or depths for dredging.
Therefore, ports will be haphazardly dredged. I am sorry
Senator Graham is not here because he was interested in the
Port of Charleston. I do not know how you will select those
ports that get dredging versus those that do not because there
are no earmarks, and I think that is going to make it very
difficult in the COE budget to know what you do and what you do
not do. And so I am particularly disturbed by what I see coming
to really handcuff the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Could you respond to that?
General Van Antwerp. First of all, Senator, I would like to
say that the way that we prioritize our dredging is we look for
a number of factors. We put them through a sieve of
prioritization. What is the shoaling that happens in there?
What is the commercial nature of that port or harbor?
As kind of an overview, we have 59 ports and harbors that
carry about 90 percent of the waterborne cargo of this country.
It is about $1.4 trillion through our ports and harbors. So
there are some that are what we call very high-commercial-use
harbors.
We take the navigation or the dredging dollars and spread
them as well as possible over those with the highest traffic
that we can. It is not haphazard in the sense that it does not
have a prioritization scheme to it. It absolutely does. We do
high use, medium use, and low use.
Senator Feinstein. Right. You have 59 ports. You have a lot
of work to do. Why would you want to have other activities take
money from this trust fund, and what would those other
activities be?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the proposal that is being developed
within the administration is looking at a number of things. It
has not been developed yet. Some examples of things that might
be looked at to receive some of this funding would be increased
security needs at ports. We are trying to look at the Nation's
ports as a whole system and what commercial navigation needs
there are and what can be provided through the Trust Fund.
Also, the Trust Fund balance--as you noted, about $1.4
billion comes in annually, and then that is appropriated. So if
you were concerned about the depletion of the balance that can
be managed by the appropriations process.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just say I hope so. You
know, we have the largest port in the Nation. Forty-five
percent of the container traffic comes in and out of the Port
of LA--Long Beach. If you are not dredging that port to its
fullest, if you scrimp on that, the whole thing shuts down. And
so I do not understand using this money for security dollars.
It seems to me keeping these ports viable is really an
important mission, and it in itself absorbs all the money.
Ms. Darcy. When developing the proposal, all of those
things will be considered. As I said, the proposal is still
under development within the administration, and we will be
considering these and many other factors.
Also, whatever proposal we develop will have to be
developed with all of you because it would require legislative
changes. So the Finance Committee would have to be involved, as
well as the authorizing and appropriations committees.
Senator Feinstein. How much surplus is in the trust fund?
Ms. Darcy. I think the current estimate is about $5.8
billion.
Senator Feinstein. Five point eight billion dollars. And
how much will be used on port dredging this year?
Ms. Darcy. The President's request is for $758 million.
Senator Feinstein. That is all.
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I am glad Senator Graham just came back
because what we just learned was that there are $7 billion in
the port trust fund for dredging, but only $700 million-plus is
being put forward by the administration for dredging.
I guess what I am telling you as chairman--I do not know if
others would agree with it--but that is not the right thing to
do. You have to keep these ports viable. So if you have a
response to that, I would appreciate it. If you do not, that is
okay too.
Ms. Darcy. The proposal that is being developed is looking
at the commercial ports from all of the needs, including
navigation and including keeping them dredged at a viable
depth.
Senator Graham. Madam Chairman, could I just----
Senator Feinstein. Yes, please. Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Graham. As I understand it, there is a difference
between maintaining a port, dredging, and actually a new start
where you would deepen the harbor. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. So I think I understand a little bit about
their dilemma. Once you get a harbor at a certain depth, there
is a trust fund to keep it dredged at that depth. What we are
talking about in Charleston and Savannah and other places is
actually going lower than the approved level, which would
probably be a different exercise financially, is that correct
General.
General Van Antwerp. That is correct.
Senator Graham. I have learned more about this than I ever
wanted to learn.
General Van Antwerp. You know a lot about this, Senator.
Senator Graham. Yes, the hard way. I just want 40,000
bucks, $40,000. I am really cheap.
General Van Antwerp. To go deeper in a port, it is largely
based on the benefit-cost ratio, its commercial use, and its
national economic benefit. This year, in new starts we are at
2.5 benefit-to-cost ratio for inclusion in the budget.
Senator Feinstein. Trust me. He will want more than
$40,000. The $40,000 is just a study.
All right, I think I have consumed enough time.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have actually learned a good bit about the Charleston
Port as well over the last few days. And I know you have. We
all feel very well educated about it. But it does not have a
finer advocate than Senator Graham anywhere in the United
States.
COE deg.CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
Secretary Darcy, have you ever visited the Chickamauga
Lock?
Ms. Darcy. I have not, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Are you aware of its current condition?
Ms. Darcy. I have been briefed about its current condition.
I know that the Chief and the Commanding General from the Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division have been there, however.
Senator Alexander. What are your projections about how long
it can be reliably operated and maintained?
Ms. Darcy. I am not sure that we have those. Do we,
General?
General Van Antwerp. Well, first of all, we think there is
a low probability of failure right now, but we are watching it
closely. We have gauges. We are watching that to give pre-
notification if there is going to be a failure. There is no
question we are watching the maintenance curve on this and it
grows and grows every year, and at some point it goes to the
point that you have got to make the improvements and you must
fix it.
Senator Alexander. Well, is it not true that it is in
danger of a catastrophic failure?
General Van Antwerp. We feel the probability right now is
low to moderate.
Senator Alexander. How much maintenance funding will be
needed to keep it open over the next 5 or 10 years?
General Van Antwerp. I would say about $2 million to $3
million every year. But I could see somewhere in the near term
that it's going to be about $15 million per year because there
are some things that are going to have to be done. That is if
we just stay on the maintenance track, but $2 million to $3
million probably for the next 5 years each year.
Senator Alexander. Have you considered asking the Tennessee
Valley Authority to contribute funds to the replacement of the
lock?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, I am not sure if we have had
the discussion on whether they would want to provide funds for
that.
Senator Alexander. Finally, when is work scheduled to
resume on the project?
General Van Antwerp. Well, right now we are in the process
of building the cofferdam. In the fiscal year 2012 budget there
is zero funding for it. At some point the project would cease
and we would button it up and then wait for future funding to
continue.
COE deg.INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
Senator Alexander. Secretary Darcy, we talked a moment ago
about the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is in a little
different shape, is it not? It does not have much money in it.
Ms. Darcy. No, it does not.
Senator Alexander. What does it have?
Ms. Darcy. I think the current balance that we have in our
budget request for 2012 coming from the Trust Fund is $77
million.
Senator Alexander. Is it true that that is about enough for
one project this year?
Ms. Darcy. It is about enough for maybe three.
Senator Alexander. Maybe three.
There was a plan that the commercial users of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund worked on and I believe worked on with the
administration in which they basically worked out a proposal to
increase the fuel tax on themselves on their own fuel in order
to put more money into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund so that
locks like the Chickamauga Dam and other needed projects could
be done. But it is my understanding that you wrote a letter to
Congressman Oberstar disagreeing with the plan last year.
Does the administration have its own plan to enhance the
revenues in the Inland Waterway Trust fund? And when will we
see the plan if there is such one planned?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are working with the Inland Waterway
Users Board and the industry to develop a plan to increase the
funding in the trust fund, as well as looking at ways to
equitably charge the users in the future.
Senator Alexander. Well, what was wrong with the plan that
was rejected last year?
Ms. Darcy. There were many recommendations and some of them
shifted the cost share burden to the general Federal taxpayer
and took it away from the user. So that was one of the major
objections.
Senator Alexander. Excuse me. I was talking and I did not
hear your entire answer.
Ms. Darcy. There were cost share changes developed that
would shift a lot of the burden back to the general Federal
taxpayer as opposed to the direct user.
Senator Alexander. And when will your proposal be ready for
us to see?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know, Senator, hopefully soon.
Senator Alexander. Well, does ``soon'' mean a matter of a
few months or a few years or what?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is in between. It is less than a few
years and more than a few months.
Senator Alexander. Well, there is a certain urgency to this
when you have the users of the waterways, who are agreeable to
contributing extra dollars to create projects that all of us
believe are important for new jobs. I think the sooner, the
better. So I would like to urge you to make it a priority and
let us see it as soon as possible.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
I will read the list. It is Johnson, Landrieu, Cochran,
Tester, Graham, Collins, Reed, Lautenberg and Murkowski, so
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Connor, I am extraordinarily concerned about
inadequate funding request for ongoing congressionally
authorized rural water projects. Two of these projects, Mni
Wiconi and the Lewis and Clark regional water system, are vital
infrastructure projects in South Dakota. In your budget
request, the seven authorized drinking water projects would
receive a total of just $35 million, with $15 million of that
for operations and maintenance. That leaves about $20 million
for construction for the projects. My understanding is that
past BOR analysis shows that it would take $58 million per year
in construction dollars just to keep up with inflation. The
math here just does not work.
Especially for Lewis and Clark, the States of South Dakota,
Iowa, and Minnesota, as well as the 20 member-cities and rural
water systems, have prepaid $153.5 million which represents
99.7 percent of their cost share. They have prepaid their share
in some cases a decade or more before they will receive water.
The Federal Government has nearly one-half of its cost sharing
remaining. The proposed fiscal year 2012 budget only includes
$493,000 for Lewis and Clark which would not allow for any new
construction.
Can you assure these cities and rural water systems that
the Federal Government is, indeed, committed to finishing this
important water project in a reasonable time? What is the plan
for funding authorized water projects beyond this budget,
because this request takes us and the taxpayers backwards on
our investment, could you respond to that?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Sir, Senator Johnson.
Without a doubt, the rural water program is the program in
our budget that has taken the biggest decrease in funding this
year.
As to your specific question about whether the Federal
Government is committed to these projects, we are, but it is
going to be very tough in these tight fiscal times. I say we
are because we invested more than $950 million in Recovery Act
funds. We invested $200 million initially in these rural water
projects, and then recognizing that they were a good
investment, given ARRA parameters, we allocated another $32
million toward, I think, five of those projects near the end of
last year. So we were trying to use those resources as best as
possible to continue to move those projects out and serve
additional communities. But in the priority order that we look
at our budget and the resources we have available this year--
they are good programs and good projects, but are just running
short on the funds available.
We are going to go back and take a look pursuant to the
2006 Rural Water Act. We owe the Congress a report on the
status of these projects and how we can look forward toward
trying to complete them. We are going to get that done this
summer. We will look at some additional criteria that we may
want to add, and we will see what we can do as far as looking
at the resources to try and make more progress in addition to
the progress that we already made with ARRA funds.
Senator Johnson. Do you have any suggestions for what the
20 communities and rural water systems that exist and are using
99.7 percent of the cost share will do in the future?
Mr. Connor. Well, we will work with those communities and
see how in these tight budget times we can make strategic
investments and phase in incrementally those aspects of the
project and serve additional people. I recognize that the Lewis
and Clark project is having significant problems. Our primary
focus, beyond once we address the operation and maintenance
obligations that we have, is to try and complete projects, and
we did complete the Perkins County project in South Dakota and
we are trying to ensure we can complete the Mni Wiconi project
in 2013.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Commissioner, I too am eager to see
this important project completed, the Mni Wiconi project, and I
appreciate that BOR has placed a high priority on the project.
Unfortunately, construction funds are still falling short of
what is needed to keep the project on pace and overhead and
contract costs have hindered construction. It is my
understanding that reduced funding will have an impact on the
ability to complete this and other projects within their
statutory timeframes. Will you review the project authorization
and recent funding levels and work with the Congress to ensure
that this project is completed as envisioned?
Mr. Connor. We will certainly work with you. With respect,
the vast majority of our construction funds proposed for 2012
are for Mni Wiconi, but we still think that puts us in the area
of being able to complete our obligations by 2013. But we will
review that and we will definitely work with you, Sir.
Senator Johnson. My time has expired. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Let me begin, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to
tell you how much I look forward to working with you on this
subcommittee. It is a very important subcommittee for our
Nation and particularly for the State that I represent. In
Louisiana, we have the opposite challenges of some of the West
Coast States. We have too much water, not too little water, and
we are struggling to manage that.
Let me also add, General Van Antwerp, thank you for your
leadership and for your guidance as we have designed and built
some of the most sophisticated levee and flood control systems
ever constructed in this Nation in the aftermath of the
catastrophe, the biblical flood that we had when the Federal
levee system collapsed 5\1/2\ years ago in and around the city
of New Orleans, and we are on the back end of some of that.
And for the subcommittee, I want to thank all of you who
were on the subcommittee before and will continue to serve
because the $2 billion surge barrier, which is the largest
surge barrier ever constructed in this Nation's history, is now
up and operational. And I think we are going to be down there
celebrating this milestone sometime in June. And I am pleased
that we took several trips to the Netherlands to see the model
of some of this technology. And I am pleased to share with the
subcommittee, that having walked over the surge barrier and
seen the construction of it in a detailed brief, that you can
be very proud of the engineering that has gone in.
Having said all those good things, let me say that there
are still extraordinary challenges that are reflected in this
budget. And I know that you are dealing with very limited
resources. But I want to add my concern. And I have a question
about this interior waterway trust fund.
Senator Levin and Senator Hutchison and myself and a few
others have introduced a bill to attempt, Senator Feinstein and
others, Senator Alexander, to capture the money coming into
this trust fund so that it actually can be used for the
processes in which it was intended, which is dredging and
maintenance of these ports. I think the chairman is absolutely
correct that for trade and for jobs, it is just critical.
So, number one, are you aware of the legislation, Madam
Secretary? Number 2, is the administration going to support the
basically capturing of these revenues to maintain these very
important ports and channels?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am aware of the legislation to keep
what is coming into the Trust Fund for the navigation purposes
that it was intended. In our budget, the administration has
proposed using some of those funds, as you know, for the
continued maintenance of the navigation channels. However, we
are looking at using that funding for some other----
Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to lay a warning that
there is a growing number of Senators on both sides of the
aisle that want the taxes paid by this industry to be used for
the purposes in which they thought they were being taxed, which
is the dredging and keeping open of these ports.
COE deg.ALLOCATIONS WITHOUT EARMARKS
I want to ask a question and also make a point that while
90 percent of the cargo--and the question following up the
chairman--how will you allocate now that there are no earmarks
or directives from this subcommittee allowed? And you said we
will go by a formula. The big cargo ports will get, you know,
based on how much cargo comes in and out. I just want to remind
everybody on the subcommittee for the record there are ports
that are important to the Nation that are not cargo ports. We
would call them ``energy ports.'' And if they do not stay open,
nobody gets electricity, oil, gas, natural gas that comes into
the ports along the gulf coast. The chairman might want to know
we are not even included in the formula to begin with because
unless you are a cargo port, you do not even get considered.
I tried to change that legislatively. You can imagine with
natural gas coming into the country that port cannot get
dredging because it is light. It is not heavy and it is not
cargo. It is gas. It is liquid gas that comes in.
So this is a very interesting subject, and I just want to
go on record. Senator Cochran knows some of this because, of
course, he represents the State of Mississippi which has very
similar concerns to the State of Louisiana. But that is one
question.
And on the second, when we have, General Van Antwerp--my
last question--a 100-year flood protection which we are trying
to achieve--the Netherlands protects their people 1 out of
every 10,000 years. We are protecting our people 1 out of every
100. So we on the international scale have a ways to go. And I
know you cannot compare apples to apples there.
But when we raise the levees to 100 years, my final
question is, do you have money budgeted to maintain them at
that, or what happens when there is settlement in those levees,
because this is going to happen not just in south Louisiana
along the gulf coast, but around the country. Is any of that
budgeted in this budget to maintain those levees at the 100-
year protection?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, for all the project features,
once the ribbon is cut, it goes to local responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of those levees and project features.
We are considering subsidence and sea level rise over time.
In fact, we know probably in the next 50 years, many of those
levees will have to be raised, some due to sea level rise, some
due to subsidence. So that is in the plan. Of course, that is
not budgeted 25 years out. For that, we will have to cross that
bridge when we come to it because of the way we do the
budgeting. But it is planned for.
And when we could, we purchased the real estate for, for
instance, a wider base so that you could add to the height of
that levee without having to get more real estate. If we could
do that under the current funding, we did that. We are as ready
as we can be, but we know we are going to have future
maintenance of those facilities.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you
in welcoming the panel to our hearing to review the President's
budget request for the subjects that we are discussing.
I cannot help but wonder about how we reconcile the
economic requirements of being a robust exporter of goods and
services and commodities in the international marketplace with
reducing the capacity to handle cargo on the Mississippi River
in its ports and in other transportation modes which would get
our goods and services to those who are buying what we are
selling and what we are growing in terms of agriculture
production in the lower Mississippi River Valley and way
beyond.
We have up-to-date information about the fact that $100
billion in exports is traversing the Mississippi River
annually. Industries in more than 30 States--we are not talking
about just Mississippi and Louisiana. We have great interest in
this subject. But industries in more than 30 States rely on COE
to help maintain the river at authorized levels and depths.
Insufficient dredging and an inadequacy of funding for these
activities would inevitably result in restrictions on ship
traffic and cargo travel. To put it in perspective, some
shippers estimate that a 1-foot reduction in depth means a ship
must reduce its cargo by 1,500 tons.
COE deg.MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT
The objective of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
project was to uphold, maintain, and improve the Mississippi
River system and its levees that contain it. And in face of
those national interests, the President's budget request for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project is $210 million.
That is $130 million below the fiscal year 2010 discretionary
budget authority.
How are you going to cope with that reality? May I ask the
panel if anybody has any suggestion about what you are going to
do?
General Van Antwerp. Well, first of all, Senator, your
observations are correct. We have 12,000 miles of inland
waterways that are maintained by COE and it touches really 41
States in our Union and is so incredibly important. We
understand that.
I think what you will see when we have to prioritize is we
try and keep the depth. What normally happens is that you
reduce the width first. It means that you cannot have ships
passing and you have to stage them.
The other part is to keep the locks open. We have 241 locks
on our waterways. They are 58.3 years old on average. So the
maintenance requirements are increasing. We prioritize those by
the greatest risk. We do treat our waterways as a system. We
have to keep the whole system open. If we have one lock go
down, it can impact the whole waterway.
Senator Cochran. May I also ask another question about the
Mississippi Yazoo back water project. This is an issue that has
been around since 1941. The Congress has authorized and funded
these activities that are connected to this project in the
lower Mississippi River delta. And we had a recent decision in
Federal court that canceled a project, in effect, or a decision
was made not to proceed with the project because of a decision
made by a Federal court judge in Mississippi.
This still remains a very troublesome issue to resolve, and
I bring it up simply because I hope COE and others who are
interested in this will work with the supporters of the project
to try to reconcile differences and to come up with an
alternative that would be satisfactory with COE . I do not have
any magic solution to suggest. We would be glad to work and
cooperate with the administration and with others in the
Congress who are interested in this, but I raise the question
so we have it as the beginning of another effort.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Senator Tester, you are next.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I want to express my appreciation for you all
folks being here today. Water is our most valuable resource and
the management of it is critically important.
As the questions and the comments have been expressed here
today, I have got to tell you; you guys are in a tough
position. I mean, since this Congress started, we have been
talking about deficit and debt, and we are giving you hell
because you are not spending enough money. And I think that
there has to be an awakening here, if we are going to invest in
infrastructure, that investment means spending money. And I
will tell you that water, whether it is where it flows into the
ocean or whether it is at the headwaters in a State like mine,
is very, very important, and if we do not have the
infrastructure to manage it, we will not manage it and the
country will be poorer for it.
Secretary Darcy, we have visited in the past about the
great city of Great Falls in Cascade County and a couple levees
that they have there that were built in 1975. COE has certified
those levees up until 2009, and the Corps decided not to
certify any more levees.
When you were last before the Senate, you told my
colleague--the senior Senator from Montana--Max Baucus, that
you would immediately look into the policy whether it should be
changed, and that is whether FEMA either could certify or COE
could certify to FEMA standards, one or the other. What have
you found out?
COE deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION
Ms. Darcy. You are correct, Senator. I did tell Senator
Baucus we would look into the policy and we have begun doing
that. In the past, as you said, we certified levees and used
Federal funds for that, and since 2008 we have not budgeted for
that certification. We are looking at whether that is a
possibility for us in the future.
Senator Tester. And I will tell you that FEMA gives out the
Provisionally Accredited Levee agreement. Okay, and they told
Great Falls here about a month--you either got to sign it or
forget it. COE has inspected in the past. Is there any
potential you could harmonize your criteria? Have you done any
work on that at all?
Ms. Darcy. We have done some work on it, but to be quite
honest, it is not harmonized at this point.
Senator Tester. I mean you fully understand the issue. You
fully understand that there is not an engineering firm around
that has an errors and omissions policy big enough that they
will certify it. I mean, that is really what they have found
out. And you know what? I think there are a lot of Great Falls,
Montana up and down the different drainages in this country.
And I will tell you that for that reason, Senator Baucus and I
are dropping in legislation that gives COE not only the
authority but the responsibility to certify those.
Once again, it may or may not cost money. You may be able
to do it within your budget. You may need additional funds, but
the fact is it has got to be done or folks are going to be put
in flood plains. Businesses are not going to be able to be
allowed to grow, some of the same things we heard earlier, only
it just applies to this levee thing.
The intake dam, for either one of you, General Van Antwerp
or Secretary Darcy, the work has begun rebuilding intake, and
it is a rock ramp. I do not know if you are familiar with it or
not. If you are familiar with it, I will not mess around
anymore. But since you were here last year, the cost estimate
jumped more than $100 million. The thing is never going to be
built if it is $100 million, I will just tell you. Something is
going to have to happen.
Can you give me your thoughts on why we had such a jump in
cost on a project like intake?
COE deg.YELLOWSTONE INTAKE DIVERSION DAM
General Van Antwerp. Well, I guess in a few words, it is
very complicated. I will give you a couple of those
complications, Senator.
First of all, the rock ramp at the depth and velocity that
the pallid sturgeon needed was not working as we thought it
would. We have had to make modifications. The modeling
indicated a need for a much flatter side slope than the
preliminary design. So that is, in a nutshell, the biggest
piece of this.
Senator Tester. The word I heard is they are bringing in
rock from somewhere else.
General Van Antwerp. Well, the contractor has to bring in
the rock to do it. Where he purchases it from is up to the
contractor.
Senator Tester. And so it is an open-ended contract. I
mean, if he wants to bring in rock from Maine, we pay for it?
General Van Antwerp. Well, he has to meet the design
criteria with the rock he brings in. He has to do it under the
bid that he proposed. I do not believe this is a cost-plus
contract.
Senator Tester. Okay, but what I am saying is we started
out this project was going to cost--and I cannot remember--$15
million and now it is up more than $100 million.
Senator Feinstein. Would you permit me?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Why can you not have Montana rock?
General Van Antwerp. You could if it meets the
specifications. I think our contractors certainly would go out
and get it at the best place they could get it for the right
price. They are on the clock also.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that, Madam Chairman, because
that is exactly the question. And I do not know if this is
factual or not. I am told by the locals that they are bringing
rock from outside the area when there is rock there that will
do the job.
My time has run out, and I am going to check it off to
people who have been here.
But the fact is that there has got to be oversight and
there also has to be some common sense put to the analysis.
Look, I am all about paddlefish. I love them, but are we saving
one paddlefish? Are we saving 50 percent of the paddlefish that
go up the river? What are we getting for that $80 million or
$90 million or more in additional spending? That is really kind
of important.
Before I go, thank you, General, for your service, I very
much appreciate it. We are going to miss you. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very
pleased that I am next because I feel I need to clarify that
rock from Maine is not responsible for cost growth from $15
million to $100 million. We do have outstanding rock in Maine.
Senator Tester. I hear it is some of the best in the world.
Senator Collins. It is Great granite, which we would be
happy to share with your State. But I am positive that is not
the cause of the problem.
I do have two Maine-specific issues that I want to discuss
with our witnesses today.
COE deg.KENNEBEC RIVER
Secretary Darcy, as I am sure you recall, I wrote to you
last month about a problem with the Kennebec River. And this is
a very serious problem. I am hearing a lot of serious problems
today.
Earlier this year, COE conducted a sweep survey of the
Kennebec River that concluded that the controlling depth is now
an alarming 19.7 feet, significantly less than the authorized
27 feet.
Now, let me explain to my colleagues why this matters. Bath
Iron Works, which builds naval destroyers, uses the Kennebec
River as the avenue for getting the ships to sea. And in
October, the USS Spruance naval destroyer is scheduled to
depart Bath Iron Works for its home port in Virginia. The Navy
is very concerned that the insufficient depth of the Kennebec
River could cause that destroyer to run aground, and the Navy
has said that the condition of the river constitutes an
emergency and that it must be addressed in order to meet the
scheduled delivery of this military asset. So this is truly a
real challenge that is worrying to Bath Iron Works and to its
customer, the Navy.
I understand that the cost estimate to complete the
dredging is $1.6 million.
Complicating the issue, the timing of the dredging is very
important to the lobster and clamming industries in Maine whose
peak season is during the summer months, in the month of
August.
In fiscal year 2006, it is my understanding that $630,000
was allocated for dredging activities on the Kennebec, but that
that money, to my knowledge, has not yet been used for that
purpose. Obviously, the ability of ships to enter and depart
Bath Iron Works is of vital importance to our national
security.
So I have two questions for you. One, do you expect a
resolution of this issue in time for the scheduled departure of
the Navy destroyer that is slated to depart in October? And
second, is COE working with the local lobster men and clammers
to minimize the impact on their livelihoods?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, yesterday I spoke with the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy on this very issue, and we realize it is
of vital importance not only to the Navy, but to our national
security in order to have that ship delivered on time to
Norfolk. I believe its schedule is September 1 of this year. We
committed, along with the Assistant Secretary, to work together
to find the money to get the dredging completed.
That said, in order to meet the September 1 deadline, we
have a couple of challenges which you mentioned which include
the clamming and the lobstering which the peak season is
August, and it is in August when we would have to dredge. Our
normal dredging schedule up there is usually between November
and March. So we are sort of in a bind here.
We would have to get permits and work with the fishermen
and lobstermen in order to get a schedule that works for them.
Senator Collins. I hope that you will work very closely
with all of the parties, BIW, the Navy, the lobstermen, the
clammers. It is too bad this was not done this past winter when
there would not be the impact on the fishing industry and the
lobstermen and clammers. We also need to accommodate Bath Iron
Works.
I know my time has expired. Let me just very quickly say
that COE met in Maine yesterday concerning the jetty at Camp
Ellis in Saco, Maine. This is more than 100 years old. It was
built by COE before there was an understanding of the erosion
impact of having this jetty. That is another issue that has
been going on for a long time. Each year I visit and see more
and more danger to the homes along the shoreline, and I hope we
can continue to work on that as well. We provided funding and
there has been some progress, but we have got a long ways to
go.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Graham, you missed your time,
but I know you are lively and a little spirit every now and
then would not hurt.
Senator Collins. And I am boring.
Senator Graham. No, you are not boring. You are just from
Maine.
Senator Graham. You are polite and kind.
Senator Collins. I will leave it at that then.
Senator Graham. Yes.
I was over nominating a judge for the Fourth Circuit, and I
may be the only guy in the history of the Senate to nominate a
judge and put a hold on him all at the same time. So it has
been a strange weekend.
Secretary Darcy, the Panama Canal is going to be deepened
in 2014. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. That is the plan, yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. The plan is to deepen the Panama Canal so
that super cargo ships can pass through the canal. Is that
correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. These are ships a lot bigger than we have
today.
Ms. Darcy. Many of them will be, yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. It is going to change shipping as we know
it.
Ms. Darcy. I anticipate that.
COE deg.FUNDING HARBOR DEEPENING
Senator Graham. So there are certain ports that are in
existence today that are going to have to adjust their depth to
accept these ships. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. One of them is Charleston.
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. I think everybody realizes that. But it is
just not Charleston. And if shipping is going to change and we
are going to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports in
5 years, which is a great goal, we better have the
infrastructure to make that a reality.
So, Madam Chairman, you, your staff, Senator Alexander have
been absolutely terrific and helpful. We have got a dilemma. In
the 2011 budget, there was no money set aside by the
administration to conduct a study, and as I understand the way
you deepen a port, there are three phases: the study phase, the
design phase, and the construction phase. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. And the Congress has to authorize these
studies for you to move forward. You just cannot do this on
your own. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. So what we have tried to do is find a way
to allow the study in 2011 to go forward. And it is a 3-year
process where the study goes on for 3 years, and after the
study is done, the design phase kicks in. That is about $25
million to $30 million, and the construction to deepen the
harbor to 50 feet, what we anticipate would be the depth to
receive these ships, is several years, about $350 million. And
there is a cost-sharing agreement between ports and the Federal
Government. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. So my dilemma is that I have no vehicle to
allow the study in 2011 to go forward. It is a scoping study.
It is about $40,000 on the Federal side. The port in South
Carolina is willing to pay the Federal Government's share, but
we literally cannot. So everybody on this subcommittee has been
helping me, and I am talking to the administration about a way
forward.
But beyond Charleston, do we have a vision as a Nation as
to what ports should be deepened to accept these ships? And is
there a financing plan in place?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator, we have not done a nationwide study
to evaluate which ports should be deeper.
Senator Graham. I would like to recommend to this
subcommittee this would be a good use of our time to look as a
Nation what does it mean for these ships to come through the
Panama Canal, what does it mean to traffic on the Mississippi
River, and try to make a good business decision.
I am willing, Madam Chairman, to allow COE to decide
whether or not to spend money on Charleston's deepening if it
makes sense from a national perspective. But since that system
is not in place, I have to protect Charleston. And as you
mentioned, there is a lot of money not being utilized. So we
need to look at that account.
But, Secretary Darcy, could you propose to this
subcommittee a plan, General, that would allow you to make an
assessment of what ports need to be deepened based on the
Panama Canal situation? Have you all done anything along those
lines? Would you be willing to submit a plan to us if I ask
you?
Ms. Darcy. We would have to be directed and funded to do
so, Senator.
Senator Graham. That funding problem.
I would just ask the subcommittee to look into this
situation because as a Nation we do not have the infrastructure
to basically accept ships that are going to be the standard for
the future, and if President Obama's goal of doubling export is
to be achieved, as Senator Alexander said, shipping is the key
way to get goods throughout the world.
In South Carolina, BMW makes cars. We call it ``Bubba Makes
Wheels.'' But there is a BMW plant in Greenville/Spartanburg,
South Carolina where we have shipped more than $4 billion worth
of cars made in South Carolina throughout the world. And the
port in Charleston is responsible for 1 in 5 jobs in South
Carolina. I bet you that is true in places in California. I
know it is true in Mississippi and Alabama.
So let us look at what we should be doing as a Nation,
General, and make a business decision. I am willing to let
merit take over if we are all in the same boat together. So I
will end this discussion with the idea of please, for God's
sakes, help me find a way to do the scoping study in 2011, and
we will look at a system-wide approach beyond that.
General, do you have anything to say?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, Sir, if I could just respond
quickly.
We have six ports that are moving to the 50-foot depth.
That is what you will need to come fully loaded through the new
Panama Canal. We also have seven studies of deep water ports,
which Charleston is if we get the feasibility dollars to do it,
that have potential. With Charleston being 45 feet now, what
would it take to go to 50? What is the benefit-cost ratio? We
do have a lot of knowledge of how the ports are intertwined
because you may not have to come in full from the Panama Canal
if you have already offloaded some to go to the next port, the
next port. So it is a system, and we can take that on if funded
to do so.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Let me say this because I spoke to Senator Alexander. We
will put report language in our bill to indicate very strongly
our view which is that we do not believe money should be taken
from this trust fund for other use. All anyone has to do is go
to the Port of Hong Kong, go to any other major port to see how
out-of-date our ports are. If we are going to compete
internationally, we have to have a modern infrastructure, and
the ports have to be consistently dredged.
So I think we will have some very strong language in our
bill, and I want to say to the administration I will do
everything I can to prevent that trust fund from being eroded
with other activities.
Next is Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to welcome all the witnesses. I particularly want to
welcome General Van Antwerp, Bob, thank you for your
extraordinary service--you and your family--to the Army and to
the Nation. Although the General looks much younger than I, we
were contemporaries at West Point. So it is good to see you.
Clearly his talent was recognized early on at West Point. I am
in another line of business and that speaks for itself.
Now, let me continue. I want to thank you, both Secretary
Darcy and General Van Antwerp, for the extraordinary response
of COE of Engineers to the floods last year in Rhode Island.
Your New England district personnel were incredibly active,
hands-on, great initiative. They were particularly helpful in
prioritizing dredging at the Patuxent Cove which would now
allow for freer access of water from our systems into
Narragansett Bay. And they have conducted reconnaissance
studies. They have taken really this issue on. So can you
accept my compliments and pass them on to those extraordinary
public servants? Thank you.
COE deg.CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
Let me focus on a series of issues, Secretary Darcy, the
continuing authorities programs. I found them to be very
useful, particularly the 205 Continuing Authorities Program
(CAP), one of the programs that deal with flood control. And I
have noticed that in the President's budget, there is the
proposed elimination of four existing CAP's, and then the
reliance on transferring funds to fulfill the obligations of
some other CAP's.
Can you comment on the CAP activities, the proposed
changes, and how would it affect flood control?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, you are correct. We did make a proposal
in this budget to use some of the existing funds in the
carryover programs from one CAP program to another. I think it
is $23 million. We are going to use that carryover money for
other programs. And in looking at tough budget decisions and
directions from the Office of Management and Budget, we had to
make some choices, and we looked at the CAP programs.
The 205 program is one that is going to continue to be
funded with carryover funds in this budget. CAP programs are
smaller projects that do not need individual authorization or
Chief's Reports, and there are certain thresholds as to how
much Federal funding can be spent on those. They have been very
effective especially in small States like Rhode Island. We will
continue to fund those in this President's budget, but some of
the others, like the small harbors money, are going to be cut.
We are going to continue to fund those programs and they are
prioritized within the region.
Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that with respect to the
205 program.
One of the other programs is the 103 CAP which does a lot
with respect to coastal erosion, and we just had a recent
report that 68 percent of the beaches in New England and the
mid-Atlantic, basically the whole northeast coast, are eroding
on an average of 1.6 feet a year. And in towns in Rhode
Island--and this reminds me of a great story. Senator Theodore
Francis Green was asked the size of Rhode Island. He said it
depends, on what, and he responded, high tide or low tide.
So 1.6 feet a year is an important metric to us, and that
103 program I believe is one that is scheduled for elimination.
So it begs the question how do we deal with this multi-State
erosion problem along our beaches.
Ms. Darcy. I think it needs to be looked at as a system, as
you said, with each of the beaches. We have money in the budget
for beach renourishment projects. It is something that we are
carefully considering when we make the budget proposals.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
And once again, thank you for your great assistance in our
flooding. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
I listened with interest to your response to questions. I
must say you are staying up-to-date and I wish that you had
more money to stay up-to-date more with. But the fact of the
matter is that we in New Jersey have lots of respect, but also
need, if I might say, from COE.
COE deg.PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
By the way, General Van Antwerp, I spent part of my
military career in Antwerp, Belgium during the war, and I
always had a good feeling about that city and we have about you
as well.
Last month, I toured the Passaic River basin in New Jersey
following a severe storm and saw the devastation firsthand.
There is a dispute here between the communities. Local
communities in that area believe that flood gates at the
Pompton Lakes Dam have led to increased flooding in downstream
communities. And an independent consultant has been brought in
and is investigating the matter. I was there during the heavy
stage of the flood, and the communities downstream were deeply
in trouble because of the flooding.
What has COE done to address this issue? Will it take in
local concerns as the study moves forward?
General Van Antwerp. Absolutely, Senator, we will take
those local concerns into account. We want total visibility on
this. We welcome the other review of this also.
Senator Lautenberg. I hope so because something does not
work, as is visible, when it is heavy weather.
Secretary Darcy, I am encouraged by the close cooperation
between COE and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection to try to work toward a comprehensive plan for the
Passaic River basin. However, the re-evaluation study is
expected to cost COE $7.5 million over the next 3 to 5 years.
Is COE committed to requesting funding for this project in the
future years?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we have not included money for it in
the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we are going to need your support
in getting this study done. The Passaic River has been a place
with constant flooding and problems that result from that.
I was pleased to see that your budget request included
funding for the Port Monmouth beach project in New Jersey. In
the past, coastal projects have typically been added as
earmarks during the appropriations process rather than being in
the budget request. Well, with earmarks on their way--they are
at a moratorium now--how does COE plan to address the need for
coastal storm damage reduction projects as it writes a work
plan for the rest of this year and looks ahead to future
requests? How do we get it done?
Ms. Darcy. As far as the work plan that we will be required
to write for the rest of this year, we will look to fund
projects that are currently in the budget and then, with any
remaining funds, look to prioritize other ongoing work.
Senator Lautenberg. I have a couple of other questions that
I want to submit for the record.
But I want to ask you this. When I look at the budget that
is requested for 2011, I see that there has been less money
requested for fiscal year 2012 than we actually had with fiscal
year 2011. I do not want to put you on the spot, but I do not
think that is because there is less need. I do not know whether
you are at liberty to say whether or not more is needed than we
have presently allocated for the projects that you have
requested or are underway.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are operating within the fiscal
climate that we are in, and this budget is what the President
believes will allow us to sustain our missions.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to those who are appearing before us today,
for your testimony, for your work. We appreciate it.
COE deg.FUNDING DECISIONS
Clearly a great deal of interest in this, Madam Chairman,
ranking member. I think it is not just because you are such
wonderful leaders here on this subcommittee, but I think it
speaks to the issue of what we are dealing with and the
significance of not only ports and harbors, but our reality
that in this new world of no earmarks, how we are able to help
advance those projects, whether it is as Senator Graham has
indicated, whether it is as Senator Lautenberg has indicated,
or whether it is as it relates to the small harbors issues, as
I will bring up. These are very critical issues for us, and I
think we recognize the investments to our communities that are
made when COE does the job that we ask them to do.
Secretary Darcy, the question that I have for you--a series
of questions here. We know that in recent years at least, we
have seen the Congress increase the amount of funding for the
construction of ports and harbors above the President's
request. That was true in fiscal year 2010. In total, the
Congress funded 350 studies and projects. The President had
budgeted for 153. Now in fiscal year 2012, COE is budgeted for
149 projects, and as I mentioned, we are operating under this
earmark moratoria.
The question that begs here is under this budget what
happens to the 350-some-odd projects that were earmarked by the
Congress in fiscal year 2010, and then going beyond there, what
are the consequences for the local sponsors who have provided
the matching funds from the municipal bonds or from the State
funds? Where are we at this point in time with these projects
that the Congress had said these are important, we need you to
advance? Where are we now?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, in making our budget priorities, we
look at the benefits to the Nation of all of these projects,
and that is how they compete and that is how we will budget for
them.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate benefits to the
Nation. We think that in Alaska we have a lot of benefits to
the Nation. I know that Senator Collins feels that her ports
and harbors have a lot of benefit to the Nation as well. But
you are going to have 26 States, including Alaska, that are
budgeted for O&M money, operation and maintenance money, in
fiscal year 2012, but who will receive no funding for general
construction because of these low cost-benefit ratios. And as
you go around the dais here and look to the States that we
represent--Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii, South Dakota,
Iowa, Montana, Kentucky, Maine, and South Carolina--would not
receive any construction funding.
So what do we say, that these 26 States are not significant
or important to the national interest? We have had
conversations about how the smaller harbors may be a lower
priority from a national perspective, but in terms of what they
contribute to a regional economy, they are extraordinarily
important. So we have got a system where we have a cost-benefit
ratio system that will never allow many of these States to ever
get into the funding stream when it comes to general
construction.
So if we do not have earmarks, what can the Congress do to
ensure that these States that are not budgeted for construction
can somehow or other continue to get funding? Because I will
not accept the conclusion that 26 States, including Alaska,
will just not see general construction money. That is not
right.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we do not do our budgeting on a State-
by-State basis.
Senator Murkowski. I understand that.
Ms. Darcy. We do it on a project-by-project basis. That is
where the prioritization and the value come in.
As far as what can be done in the nonearmark era, there are
any number of ways to look at a budget, whether it is a
systems-based budget or a line item-based budget. That is
something that the Congress may need to look at.
Senator Murkowski. I think the Congress needs to look at
it. I think we need to work with COE because I think this has
led us to a result that whether you are from Alaska and trying
to get a small harbor going or Senator Graham from South
Carolina that is trying to get Charleston advancing--we have
got ourselves in a bit of a mess here. And I am looking for
your suggestions as to how we resolve it because just going to
old rhetoric, which we operate off of this cost-benefit ratio
and that is the standard and that is the way it is, is not
acceptable.
General, do you have comment you would like to make?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, Senator. First of all, we would
love to work with you on the priorities. I think if there are
no earmarks, then we go back to the priority scheme. So we
could work together on how the priorities are set, and maybe it
is different than we do right now. Right now it is very heavily
weighted to the National Economic Development benefits, and so
that is your benefit to cost ratio that you have been speaking
of. I think there are ways to look at the priorities of the
whole system where portions of it could be reallocated based on
a certain set of priorities that were set.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. I think that is
something that we need to do and look forward to working with
you as well as those of us here in the Congress.
I do have a series of questions regarding CD-5 and the
failure by COE to be able to proceed with the bridge over the
Colville River. I recognize that I am over my limit, though,
but I would like to pose a series of questions to you for a
response.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very
much, Ranking Member Alexander.
COE deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION
Secretary Darcy, across the country, a number of cities are
facing decertification of their levees as a result of higher
estimated water flows, one of those cities being the capital
city of Iowa, Des Moines. In the Des Moines case, the loss from
a 100-year flood is very likely to be well more than $1
billion. And that does not count the considerable loss of new
construction and economic development that will occur with
decertification. In other words, if they decertify the levees,
there are big areas that are now being opened up with new
expressways and areas for economic development. That will
probably come to a screeching, grinding halt if these levees
are decertified.
Now, the city of Des Moines and other cities I am aware of
across the country cannot afford to wait over a decade for
studies and remediation. In Des Moines' case, the possible
solutions are complex, including possible modification of COE
dams, the raising of bridges, the widening of streams, the
raising of levees. Each year of delay is a significant loss in
economic development and jobs, higher flood insurance costs and
again also possible flood damage. We really need COE to move
forward with these complicated studies in Des Moines which I am
told and understand is within your existing authorities.
COE has unique and needed capabilities. That should include
allowing the local sponsor, for example, to contribute funding
up front with the understanding that if a project develops,
those advances would be appropriately counted as a match.
Again, so we do not lose crucial time, we are trying to get up-
front money which the city of Des Moines is willing to do in
order to collapse that timeframe, but again those monies then
would count as part of their match so they do not lose this
whole timeframe.
So I hope that you will support having these studies move
forward as efficiently and quickly as possible and, as we wait
for regular funding, that you do all you can to approve the use
of city-advanced funds, which I was just talking about, with
the agreement that those local funds would count as a match
against approved activities that would come on later on.
Can you respond to that statement, because I have been
meeting with the people in Des Moines. They are at a critical
juncture right now. If we do not get something done within the
next about 18 months, we are facing some real economic problems
in the city of Des Moines. So, again, my question is, in your
jurisdiction could we get the city of Des Moines to advance
those funds, get those studies collapsed, do it in a hurry,
while we wait for regular funding?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, if we have a written agreement with the
local sponsor and COE, it is my understanding that we can
accept up-front money and provide further credit.
Senator Harkin. You could if there is an agreed plan.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, at the beginning.
Senator Harkin. With the city of Des Moines.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, with the local sponsor.
Senator Harkin. If the city of Des Moines comes up with
that, how long do you think it would take to get that approved?
I mean is this something we could look at in a very short
timeframe?
Ms. Darcy. I believe so, Senator.
COE deg.CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA
Senator Harkin. Okay, that is good. That is very good.
Well, okay, we have one other city in Iowa that is on a
river and it gets flooded. It is called Cedar Rapids. You know
that very well. And first of all, I commend COE for its rapid
movement of the Chief's report on Cedar Rapids. It has been
very good, General. But as you know, the findings propose a
project based on traditional criteria. I know you are probably
aware of this. It is one side of the river. General, you know
that very well. The other side of the river, more than 3,000
homes, and would you not know it, these are families with lower
incomes than those that are on the side to be protected. So it
is always those with lower incomes--they do not get any help.
I think the philosophy of the December 2009 proposed
national objectives, principles, and standards for related
resources should be followed in a case like this. The Cedar
Rapids waiver request will soon come to you to provide
protection on both sides of the river. I urge you to grant it.
That is the correct position on an equity and environmental
justice basis. Cedar Rapids is a major engine for the economy
of all of eastern Iowa, and it will be severely damaged with
the lack of investments without a project on both sides of the
river.
I also hope that you will support allowing Cedar Rapids to
count all of a sponsor's traditional costs that it incurred
since the date of the flood.
So that waiver request will be coming to you soon.
COE deg.UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION
Last, Madam Secretary and General, I want to talk a little
bit about the upper Mississippi navigation. We spent and I
spent 20 years working to get this final plan approved for the
upgrading of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi. We
finally got it done. And now I am worried about the ability to
move ahead, both to maintain and move forward on the
improvements in that navigation system.
Of course, I was disappointed with the level of support in
the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal from the White House, and
I think it is clear that the budget agreement that we are
probably going to agree on is going to put some real strains on
the ability of COE to move forward. Madam Chair, I will be
submitting some questions for the record in this regard.
My point is this. I think that there is a need to increase
funding available the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. I was
pleased with the National User Board's proposal which
recognized that need but also called for both more efficient
processes regarding navigation construction and the reworking
of the definitions of what is considered navigation. I can tell
you that behind every dam--well, I cannot say ``every''. I have
not visited them all. Behind most of them are great
recreational areas, a lot of fishing. Even in some of the
places down the Mississippi, you would be amazed how many
people go out there just to bird watch and watch the bald
eagles.
Have you watched that Web site, the Decorah Eagles, by any
chance? No. There is a Web site. It is called Decorah, D-e-c-o-
r-a-h. You have been there a lot of times, but it is called
Decorah Eagles. What they did, Madam Chair, someone--not
someone--an entity, an environmental group, set up a web camera
in a tree focusing on an eagle's nest.
Senator Feinstein. I saw it. It was wonderful.
Senator Harkin. Is that not wonderful?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, and the baby.
Senator Harkin. And the little baby is being hatched and
all that and everything.
Senator Feinstein. It is great.
Senator Harkin. Hundreds of thousands of people around the
world watching it.
Well, along the Mississippi River, people are doing that.
They are going out watching birds. There is a lot of recreation
taking place.
It seems to me that it should not all be counted as
navigation. It should be counted both as recreation and as
navigation.
And we ought to allow for an increase in the taxes that
even the barge people say they want to do but they want to make
sure that it is used for navigation and to make sure that the
recreational uses behind those dams and stuff are funded as
recreational uses and not as navigational uses.
So I just wanted to say that. Like I said, rather than
getting into it here, I will submit for the record a number of
questions.
But I just want to thank you very much, Madam Secretary,
and General, thank you so much for all you have done. Cedar
Rapids--you have been great in response and helping us out
there. Believe me I know the constrictions on that other side
of the river. I understand that. I am just trying to see what
is equitable and what could possibly be done to help a
situation that cries out for some kind of justice here. So
however we can work that out, I would sure appreciate it. Thank
you both very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin.
To our witnesses, you have had 10 percent of the Senate
here today, 10 people. That is very unusual for a subcommittee
meeting, and I hope you interpret it as compliment and I hope
you interpret it as the interest with which we hold your areas
of expertise.
COE deg.DAM SAFETY
I have a couple more questions. One is on dam safety,
before I turn to BOR who has been sitting there so quietly, I
want to say a couple of things.
There is a 90 percent chance in California that within the
next 30 years, we have a major earthquake. It is not a chance.
It is a probability. We are in the Ring of Fire. We have seen
the Ring of Fire with huge earthquakes in South America, Banda
Aceh, Christ Church, New Zealand, and all the way up. So there
is a lot of reason to be concerned.
We have in California three dams--I do not know, but the
words I have been given are ``most at-risk'' category, whatever
that means. One, Lake Isabella, has been under study for 6
years.
Now, the first question is what qualifies a dam for the
``most at-risk'' category, General.
General Van Antwerp. Senator, we look at a number of
factors. Probably the most damaging factor would be whether
there is material coming through the foundation of that dam. We
call that piping in the engineer world. And most of the DSAC-1
dams, which is the category you were mentioning, where it is
urgent and compelling that we fix them now, have that problem.
They are bringing material through the foundation. So we know
there is erosion taking place. That is the most critical
factor.
We have a number of those under rehabilitation right now as
we speak.
Senator Feinstein. Well, how long do you have to study
them, 6 years for Lake Isabella?
General Van Antwerp. Lake Isabella--we have looked very
closely at that. As we look at it, we think we are going to be
fine with that if we stay on the schedule we are on.
Senator Feinstein. Which is what?
General Van Antwerp. The schedule right now is that we are
going to fund that at $7 million in fiscal year 2012, which is
the capability. We have a wedge of funding that is not totally
visible to you all for dam safety. We are funding that project
to continue on the schedule and we will make the repairs
necessary when they come. We have $7 million in fiscal year
2012 for that.
Senator Feinstein. How about the other two most at-risk
dams?
General Van Antwerp. The Success Dam is budgeted with $18
million in fiscal year 2012, so that one is also on schedule.
What we are going to do there is acquire properties and we are
on track with the $18 million. I think on both of those dams,
we definitely have our eye on them and we are aware of their
condition.
Senator Feinstein. And the third one?
General Van Antwerp. The third one. Which one is that?
Senator Feinstein. I am trying to remember which one it is
and I cannot remember.
General Van Antwerp. Martis Creek. We have our eyes on that
too. This is Mr. Steve Stockton who is our Director of Civil
Works. He knows these in and out.
Senator Feinstein. And so, on that one?
General Van Antwerp. I am not exactly sure. I do not have
the notes on where we are.
Senator Feinstein. Would you let me know, please, because,
obviously, I am vitally concerned.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Feinstein. Now, let me turn to BOR.
You have proposed a new account for Indian water rights
settlements. The question is how much mandatory funding
accompanies the $51.5 million discretionary funding you have
proposed for fiscal year 2012?
Mr. Connor. The $51.5 million was basically designed to
meet the capabilities that we have for 2012 with respect to the
four new settlements. And what we are trying to do there,
although there is a significant amount of mandatory funds being
made available for those four new settlements, they also
include a substantial amount of associated appropriations
needs. I think to the tune of about $700 million was provided
in mandatory funding, but with respect to BOR, we will still,
for these four new settlements, about $250 million in
discretionary appropriations is needed. So what we have tried
do is to try and get the appropriations process going to cover
that need.
With respect to the new account, we have also incorporated
the Navajo-Gallup pipeline project in New Mexico, the Navajo
settlement in the San Juan River basin. There are about $25
million in that account, I think we are going to ramp up to a
capability in 2012 on the Navajo project to something around
$70 million to $80 million. So there is a substantial ramp-up
that is going on in that project itself, and so it will be a
combination of those appropriated dollars, the $25 million, in
the new account, plus we have been provided mandatory funds of
$60 million in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
Senator Feinstein. Do these settlement agreements require
funding annually?
Mr. Connor. They do not necessarily require specific
funding annually. Some of them do. For instance, the Crow
settlement contemplates an immediate distribution of $4 million
I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Are they all water systems?
Mr. Connor. They are a combination of trust funds, which
will come out of BIA accounts and infrastructure which are
primarily designated for BOR. So we have municipal and
industrial (M&I) systems, drinking water systems, but we also
have some rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems that
are part of the projects.
Senator Feinstein. So you believe they can be funded
without taking the money from anywhere else.
Mr. Connor. Right now, through the new account, plus the
combination of mandatory funds that we have, for the next few
years we think we can manage that situation. But once again,
overall, we are still looking at $250 million plus another $500
million for Navajo. We are looking at, through appropriated
dollars over the next decade, about $750 million worth of
appropriated dollars that we have got to find somewhere.
Senator Feinstein. I want to thank you for your sensitivity
to the South-of-Delta water issues. I was very pleased to learn
that BOR has increased the allocation for farmers from 65
percent to 75 percent last week. I know these followed two
previous rounds of increases. However, as you know well, there
is still a lot of consternation in the central valley when most
other projects are receiving 100 percent, and we have got a
bumper crop of water and it is still the South-of-Delta that
does not have 100 percent.
In your judgment, how close to 100 percent can this region
get with all the water that is now available?
Mr. Connor. Well, there is still a chance to get up to that
100 percent level. I would like to provide some perspective,
though. Since 1990, we have only hit that 100 percent level
South-of-Delta three times. The average over that 20-year
period is 62 percent to South-of-Delta allocation for
agriculture.
Senator Feinstein. I actually got out the contracts and
read them, and it is interesting because they are contracts
with all kinds of hedges in them because generally when
somebody signs a contract, you expect to be bound by the terms
of the contract. In this case, the Government is not really
bound by 100 percent water allocation under the contract. I do
not know that people know that, and I think it is very hard.
And I think when farmers look around and they see other water
districts with 100 percent, it becomes even harder. And I
understand there are special exigencies for the South-of-Delta,
but try and sell that. It is unsalable, and I think you know
that.
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely. There are priorities. There
are water rights conditions and the new environmental
obligations that we have. All of those factors have affected
that South-of-Delta allocation. But you are right. The
expectations are there because of the contract quantities, and
notwithstanding the fact those 20 years of experience show us
that there is not enough water to consistently meet that 100
percent need, there is still an expectation out there,
particularly this year when the snowpack and precipitation is
160 percent of average statewide.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I know you are sensitive, and you
have been just great and it is very much appreciated. I know
how tough it is. Whatever we do, it is not enough, but at least
we are trying. So thank you.
Perhaps the biggest effort in California is the Bay-Delta
conservation plan and what might come from it in the 10- to 15-
year build period after. Can you provide an update on BOR's
efforts to develop a programmatic EIS for the Bay-Delta
conservation plan?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator. Over the last 4 or 5 months,
there has been a very concerted effort by BOR, in concert with
the other Federal regulatory agencies, Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA Fisheries, working with the California Fish
and Game and the Department of Water Resources. We are calling
it the ``five agency process''. And we have been led in that
effort by Deputy Secretary David Hayes. And I think we have
made a remarkable amount of progress in dealing with six major
issues that are key to working through so that the State of
California, which is going to be the permittee under the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan process, can go in and submit their
plan with a reasonable expectation that we can work through
those issues and get to a final permit. It is not pre-
decisional. The regulatory agencies have made that very clear.
But we are trying to get enough in the area so that there is a
reasonable expectation of success.
We have resolved, I think, four of the six issues. We are
working very hard over the next couple of months to resolve the
last two, and hopefully beginning mid-summer, the State will be
in a position to submit its plan which will kick off the
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
process. A lot of the analysis is already being done waiting
for the final plan to come in. I think there is still hope that
within a year's time period, that there will be a draft on the
street.
Senator Feinstein. Another problem. Since 2007, quagga
mussels have been inundating the Colorado River system. They
were found within Lake Mead, and since then, everybody has been
working to prevent them. I met with the metropolitan water
district the other day. They were telling me how they had spent
millions of dollars and these things are just in gobs along
their lines. Each quagga reproduces a million mussels a year.
You cannot kill them with cold water. They have to go in and
scrape feet of quagga mussels piled up. And if it infiltrates
the water system, we have really got a problem.
How much activity within BOR is going on to really try to
combat this mussel issue, because it is a huge one? The Met
just e-mailed the staff. They spent $28 million total scraping
these things off the pipes.
Mr. Connor. Yes. It is quite a problem and unfortunately,
it is one that is spreading. And that is where our initial
actions are right now. Our initial actions are to work very
closely with the State agencies in trying to educate the public
about the potential for transferring quagga mussels between
bodies. Right now, we used, I think, around $5 million of our
Recovery Act money just to do a broad survey west-wide of our
various facilities to try and get a grasp on the scope of the
problem, trying to educate people so that the problem does not
increase.
With respect to actually dealing with them in the
facilities that they are in, most of our activity has been
related to research and development activity. We are trying to
kill them through various means. We are trying to develop
coatings that will maybe keep them off the infrastructure.
Senator Feinstein. You mean by getting them high, Codeine?
Mr. Connor. No, coating--C-O-A-T.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I thought you said codeine.
Mr. Connor. It took me a second. I think that is good that
I did not immediately react, coating.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
Mr. Connor. That will hopefully inform us about how we can
keep them off of some of the infrastructure. But they are
already there, and as Metropolitan Water District (of Southern
California) well knows, they are investing a lot of their
operation and maintenance funds right now just to try and
control the problem.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thanks to Senator Alexander and
our work on Interior, Lake Tahoe, which we are trying to do
some work on and save, which is one of two last remaining clear
water lakes, huge lakes, is beginning to be infiltrated. So
there is a boat boycott, and every boat prior to going into
Lake Tahoe has to be specially inspected and washed.
So I do not know if you can come up with any of the things
that can be done. They have to get in somewhere, and we have
got to prevent them from getting in. I mean, with a lake that
is relatively isolated, if these are carried like from Lake
Mead on the bottom of a boat to Lake Tahoe, you can clean the
boat. But we really need some help and Federal suggestions of
what can be done because they are really going to destroy not
only the Colorado water supply system, but also our Great
Lakes.
Mr. Connor. Right. I agree. I think the inspection
stations, the education process, everything we are
participating in with our State partners in that effort, but it
is a growing problem that we need to pay more attention to.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. No thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. No, thank you, you said, all right.
Well, let me thank everybody. Let me particularly thank our
witnesses. I think this was a very useful hearing. As Senator
Alexander whispered to me, I am glad I am up here, not down
there.
At this time I would like to ask the subcommittee members
to please submit any questions that they have for the record.
COE deg.BOR deg.ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Jo-Ellen Darcy
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, I appreciate all you have done
in your time with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the good work of the
districts that serve my home State of Washington. We are obviously
facing very difficult budget times and unfortunately, the President's
budget request reflects that for COE. Yet even as we face these hard
times, COE has ongoing General Investigations that are routinely not
included in the President's budget request, like the Elliott Bay
Seawall GI or the Skagit River GI. Can you tell me how you plan to
continue these important projects?
Answer. All projects and studies are evaluated and considered for
funding. However, only the highest-priority studies from a national
perspective are proposed for funding. The Army has undertaken a broad
effort to review the scope of active studies to ensure resources are
appropriately aligned to complete those studies most likely to result
in a high-performing project. For example, as part of this effort, the
Skagit River study will be reviewed this year.
The Army is working to finalize implementation guidance for section
4096 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which includes the
determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage to the
Elliott Bay Seawall from seismic activity. A Feasibility Scoping
Meeting is scheduled for the project this fiscal year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
coe deg.COMPLETION OF THE LEVEE SYSTEM FOR THE GREATER NEW
ORLEANS AREA
Question. On June 1, the city of New Orleans and the State of
Louisiana will mark an historic and long-awaited milestone. The city
that has given so much to this Nation--that is strategically located at
the entrance to one of the world's largest river systems--will be
protected against the ravages of a 100-year storm and flood event. The
Corps of Engineers (COE) is to be commended for its work in completing
this herculean task, but there are many questions left unanswered.
Since the American people have invested nearly $15 billion in this
effort, we have a serious responsibility to make sure this money is not
wasted and that it will sustain a 100-year level of protection over the
long term. I have a couple of questions on this point:
Ms. Darcy, there is clear precedent in law and regulation for COE
to assume operation and maintenance of navigation structures in
federally navigable waterways. If COE does not have the legislative
authority to operate the newly constructed structures along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, will the administration support legislation to
give COE this authority?
Answer. The hurricane risk reduction system in the Greater New
Orleans area includes numerous floodgates, many of which cross roads,
interstate highways, and navigation channels. The hurricane risk
reduction floodgates crossing navigation channels are designed to have
minimal interference upon navigation, unless there is a tropical event
which requires their operation. Under current law, the Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (LA-CPRA) is
responsible for operating and maintaining all of the hurricane risk
reduction system, including the floodgates. Two of the largest
floodgates for the hurricane risk reduction system cross the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Although these two surge gates are
located across a Federal navigation channel, their purpose is to reduce
the risk from storm surge and not for navigation. Requiring the State
to be responsible for the costs of operation and maintenance is in
keeping with requirements of Public Law 99-662, Public Law 109-234 and
Public Law 110-252, all as amended.
Furthermore, in keeping with the above legislative requirements,
LA-CPRA has entered into Project Partnership Agreements and has agreed
to be 100 percent responsible for the Operation and Maintenance of the
hurricane risk reduction system project features. This applies to all
features, including the pumping station and these two floodgates which
cross the GIWW.
Question. I understand from local levee officials that in order to
maintain the 100-year level of protection, future ``lifts'' to increase
the height of the levees will be needed in certain areas of the system.
This will be caused by the settling of the material used to construct
the levee and could be needed as early as next year. Will the
administration budget for these critical needs and if so, why not?
Answer. Public Law 109-234 and Public Law 110-252 authorized and
funded COE to raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance
the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the existing
West Bank and Vicinity project to provide the level of protection
necessary at the time of construction to achieve the certification
required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Additional authority and funding would be required for the
Federal Government to construct future levee lifts.
Question. What do you estimate these needs to be, and how will it
affect the certification of the overall levee system in New Orleans?
Answer. The Greater New Orleans--Hurricane Storm Damage and Risk
Reduction System will initially be accredited by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for a 10-year period. Current regulations
require that FEMA to be notified if any part of the system fails to
meet the certification requirements during the 10-year period.
Additional authority and funding would be required to pursue
construction of the future levee lifts and other additional measures on
the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the West Bank and
Vicinity project to sustain FEMA system accreditation and participation
in the NFIP in the future.
The estimated cost for future levee lifts and other measures to
sustain elevations necessary for system accreditation are not known at
this time.
Question. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is authorized under the
Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, title XIV),
as amended. Revenue is derived from a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax
imposed upon commercial users of specified U.S. ports and investment
interest. These funds are intended for the operation and maintenance of
our ports and harbors--critical dredging that keeps these centers of
navigation and commerce open for business. More than $1 billion is
collected each year, and the total estimated balance in the fund this
year is more than $7 billion. We have all of these funds, yet our ports
and harbors are in desperate need of dredging. Why does the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund carry billions in surplus when our critical
ports and harbors are in desperate need of dredging funds?
Answer. The balance in this trust fund, which has grown over a
period of many years, reflects multiple factors, principally the value
of goods subject to the harbor maintenance tax, the tax rate, the
enacted spending levels, and the limitation in current law on the
authorized uses of these receipts. In our view, the overall funding
level that the Federal Government provides for maintenance dredging and
related purposes should be determined independent of the level of the
Harbor Maintenance Tax receipts. More specifically, the allocation of
these funds should reflect consideration for the economic and safety
return, as well as a comparison with other potential uses of the
available funds.
Our investments in coastal port maintenance are directed primarily
at providing operational capabilities and efficiencies. To make the
best use of these funds, COE evaluates and establishes priorities using
objective criteria. These criteria include transportation cost-savings,
risk reduction, and improved reliability--all relative to the cost.
Consequently, maintenance work generally is focused more on the most
heavily used commercial channels, which together carry about 90 percent
of the total commercial cargo traveling through our coastal ports.
However, many ports will experience draft limitations on vessels due to
channel conditions, at least during parts of the year.
While COE could spend more on harbor maintenance and related work,
the amount proposed in the budget for this purpose, which is financed
from this trust fund, is an appropriate level, considering the other
responsibilities of COE for inland navigation, flood risk management,
aquatic environmental restoration, hydropower, and the other Civil
Works program areas. COE continues to develop analytical tools to help
determine whether additional spending from this trust fund is warranted
based on the economic and safety return, as well as a comparison with
other potential uses of the available funds. Dredging costs continue to
rise due to increases in fuel, steel, labor, and changes in methods of
dredged material placement. We recognize that this presents challenges
in maintaining commercial navigation projects.
coe deg.COASTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION--LOUISIANA COASTAL
AREA
Question. I am very encouraged that the President requested
construction funding for coastal restoration in Louisiana in his fiscal
year 2011 budget. After decades of study and planning, we will finally
be turning dirt to restore and protect our fragile coast. I understand
that this represents 1 of only 2 new starts recommended by the
President, but I want to emphasis how critical it is that we use these
funds wisely and efficiently. Ms. Darcy, I understand that this is a
programmatic funding request.
How does COE intend to capitalize on the fiscal year 2012 budget
request and ensure that multiple projects have received the appropriate
executive branch approval?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $10.6
million to begin construction under the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
ecosystem restoration program. The COE district office is working on
several reports, and my staff is working with them to expedite the
appropriate approval process.
Question. Also, which specific LCA projects will receive funding
this year and the coming fiscal years?
Answer. Fiscal year 2012 funds will be used to continue
construction of authorized restoration projects underway in fiscal year
2011 with reports that have favorably completed executive branch
review, to initiate one new construction phase, and to continue
monitoring and other restoration-related activities. Potential
construction in fiscal year 2013 could include project(s) from the LCA
6 portfolio, Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program (BUDMAT), and
the Demonstration Program. The specific project(s) selected for fiscal
year 2013 construction will be based upon funding available, approval
of individual reports by the executive branch and execution of the
necessary agreements with the State of Louisiana.
In fiscal year 2014 and beyond, we foresee continuation of
construction for projects within the LCA 6, BUDMAT, and Demonstration
Program with the addition of projects from the LCA 4 and LCA 5
portfolios.
coe deg.DREDGING NEEDS ON THE MISSISSIPPI
Question. I have heard from a number of very concerned ports,
businesses, and citizens about the navigability along the lower
Mississippi River due to high water. The Mississippi is the central
artery for navigation for nearly the entire Nation. As you know, 40
percent of the entire continent is drained by the Mississippi River
Delta. This drainage basin (approximately 1,234,700 square miles)
covers about 40 percent of the United States and ranks as the fifth
largest in the world. The inland waterways of the United States include
more than 25,000 miles (40,000 km) of navigable waters. Much of the
commercially important waterways of the United States consist of the
Mississippi River system--the Mississippi River and connecting
waterways.
Do you have the funds you need to ensure that the Mississippi River
remains open for business at the maximum authorized depths?
Answer. The Army is committed to maintaining coastal navigation
between the gulf and the ports of the New Orleans and Baton Rouge area.
Funds to do so are included in the budget. The dredging needs on this
part of the lower Mississippi River are difficult to predict, as they
depend on flow conditions, sediment loads, and a variety of other
factors, which vary each year as well as over the course of the year.
COE continually monitors conditions on the river to ensure the most
efficient use of available funds to minimize the need for any depth,
speed or night-time restrictions.
Question. How are you balancing this critical need with the needs
that other essential waterways are facing across the State of Louisiana
and the Nation?
Answer. COE has a large inventory of navigation projects to
maintain and seeks to provide levels of service that reliably and
safely support freight movements in a way that provides the most
overall value to the Nation from the available funds. Navigation
projects were categorized as high, moderate, and low commercial
navigation use based on tonnage. COE's approach involves a focus on the
high and moderate commercial use navigation projects, which together
move 99 percent of the Nation's waterborne commercial cargo. Generally,
before providing more funding to a project, we consider whether we
could achieve a greater return by applying those funds elsewhere. The
low-use projects funded in the fiscal year 2012 budget were selected
with the intent to optimize use of the available funding across a range
of uses, with emphasis on harbors of refuge, subsistence harbors,
projects with Coast Guard Search and Rescue stations, energy delivery
projects where marine transportation is the only means to make the
deliveries, and commercial navigation projects with less than 1 million
tons of commercial cargo.
coe deg.INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
Question. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund is used to pay one-half
of the costs associated with the construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of Federal inland waterways projects.
There are dozens and dozens of critical locks and dams that are in a
dramatic state of disrepair--including 1 in New Orleans that has been
waiting for replacement for more than 50 years. I am strongly opposed
to the administration's proposal of a new funding mechanism, which
would replace the existing fuel tax.
However, I am most interested in knowing how COE plans to address
the massive backlog of projects on the inland waterway system. Ms.
Darcy, how is your agency addressing this critical need?
Answer. Neither the administration nor the inland navigation
community is content with current funding levels. In the short-term,
the administration has been budgeting for the capital costs of inland
waterways projects based on the level of anticipated revenues from the
current excise tax on inland waterways diesel fuel.
Question. Do you believe changing the funding mechanism is the best
way to address the problem in this economy?
Answer. The administration is open to discussions on revisions to
the existing funding mechanism as well as new funding mechanisms.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. What funding levels are needed for fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2013 in order to maintain the Kentucky Lock project on its
critical construction path?
Answer. Two features of the Kentucky Lock and Dam project currently
are underway: the superstructure feature (highway/railroad), which we
expect to complete in December 2011, and the upstream lock monolith,
for which we allocated funding under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, the Corps of Engineers (COE) does
not plan to move forward with further work on Kentucky Lock and Dam
project at this time due to the low level of the receipts to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, as well as to the relative priority of these
projects among the potential inland waterways capital investments. For
example, the priorities of the Inland Waterways Users Board, which will
be given due consideration in the formulation of future budgets, placed
a higher priority for early construction on several other inland
waterways projects and deferred completion of Kentucky Lock and Dam, as
well as other projects. When the project is ready to resume, COE will
develop a proposed schedule, after assessing the critical path toward
completion at that time.
Question. The inland waterway system has a number of lock and dam
modernization projects whose construction completion dates have been
significantly delayed and whose project construction costs have risen
far beyond the levels originally authorized by the Congress for those
projects. What do you believe the consequences will be of failing to
adopt a workable, reasonable long-term capitalization plan to address
this situation? Specifically, please speak to the specific long-term
impacts to Olmsted Lock and Dam, Kentucky Lock, Wolf Creek Dam, and
Greenup Lock and Dam projects without a capitalization plan.
Answer. COE's program today is focused on the operation,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of major flood
control and commercial navigation infrastructure systems, and the
repair of aquatic ecosystems that COE projects have affected. The
overall budget for the program is primarily devoted to maintaining
these systems so that they can continue to provide economic,
environmental and social benefits to the Nation.
For example, an increasing proportion of our funding in recent
years has been devoted to the maintenance and rehabilitation of
existing infrastructure, primarily for flood risk management, but also
for inland navigation projects. Similarly, the budget for the
construction program gives priority to dam safety assurance, seepage
control, and static instability control work (about $450-$500 million
per year) to repair unsafe dam structures.
The administration will be considering options for a comprehensive
recapitalization policy for the Civil Works Program, but still is in
the early stages of this effort, which will include an examination of
current asset management tools and review of existing policies and
authorities. It is anticipated that new authorities will be needed to
ensure that the infrastructure continues to address the water resources
priorities of the Nation.
The projects you mention, and their costs, are not affected by the
absence of a capitalization plan. The Olmsted Locks and Dam and the
Wolf Creek Dam projects have received a priority for funding for many
years. Their schedules and costs have changed principally due to a
variety of other factors specific to those projects. For the Kentucky
Lock and Dam project, we expect to complete the superstructure feature
(highway/railroad) in December 2011. We also provided funding under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for work on the upstream
lock monolith. However, COE does not plan to move forward with further
work on Kentucky Lock and Dam project or on the Greenup Locks and Dam
project at this time due to the low level of the receipts to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, as well as to the relative priority of these
projects among the potential inland waterways capital investments.
Question. Please provide an updated (to fiscal year 2011)
``Benefits Foregone'' account of the economic cost to our Nation's
economy due to lock and dam modernization projects that were not built
using an efficient construction schedule (previous COE analysis
attached).
Answer. We no longer compile this information. It was inaccurate
and misleading, as well as based on an unrealistic premise. However, we
would be glad to provide it for any specific project, with appropriate
qualifications.
Question. What action is COE taking to be better stewards of
taxpayer dollars?
Answer. The budget focuses on the highest-performing projects and
programs within the three main water resources missions of COE:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
For example, the budget includes $51.78 million, more than a $40
million increase, for a comprehensive levee safety initiative to help
ensure that Federal levees are safe and to assist non-Federal parties
to address safety issues with their levees. The budget also proposes to
create savings and efficiencies through elimination of duplicative and
lower-priority programs.
Question. What is the estimated level of benefits not recoverable
for the Olmsted project?
Answer. The budget continues to place a high priority on the
completion of this project. The primary benefits resulting from
construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project (which also includes
demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53) are vastly improved navigation
transit at a key point on the Ohio River; coupled with significant
decreases in current operation and maintenance costs due to the age and
advanced deteriorated condition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53.
COE, in its feasibility report, estimated that the construction of
Olmsted Locks and Dam would reduce vessel transit costs and net Federal
operation, maintenance, and repair costs by around $69 million per
year. Operation and maintenance costs at Locks and Dams 52 and 53
continue to increase. A failure event at either of these projects could
close a key transit point on the river to navigation, with broad
effects on commerce. This ongoing risk will increase until COE
completes Olmsted Dam and the new locks are operational.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. My understanding is the Pacific Division of the Corps of
Engineers (COE) found deficiencies on appeal with the Alaska District's
rejection of Conoco's section 404 application to construct a bridge to
access the National Petroleum Reserve. As you know, the Native Village
of Nuiqsut and really all of the local stakeholders supported the
collaborative process that led up to this modified proposal. On remand,
is COE looking closely at the record for what the local subsistence
community prefers?
Answer. The district considered local support for Conoco's
preferred alternative as part of its public interest review in the
original decision. All relevant public interest factors were carefully
evaluated and balanced. The decision whether to authorize a proposal,
and under what conditions, is determined by the outcome of this general
balancing process, subject to other legal requirements. The district
determined that the district's record of decision did not clearly
document their decisionmaking process with respect to the public
interest determination. Therefore, while Pacific Ocean division did not
remand to Alaska district for the single issue of local support, the
remand did instruct the district to clearly document the balancing
process.
Further, local support for a project does not obviate the section
404(b)(1) guidelines requirement that only the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) may be permitted, so long as
that alternative does not have other adverse environmental
consequences. Based on the information provided to the district,
Conoco's proposal was not determined to be the LEDPA.
Question. Prior to the COE's rejection of Conoco's permit on
February 5, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had
designated the Colville River Delta ``an aquatic resource of national
importance.''--an aquatic resource of national importance (ARNI). Ms.
Darcy, what is your definition of ``national importance?''
Answer. The term ``ARNI'' is used in the process established under
an ``inter-agency dispute resolution memorandum of agreement'' (MOA)
developed under section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act. The current
404(q) MOA was signed by the EPA, Department of the Interior (DOI),
Department of Commerce (DOC), and my office in 1992. The MOA provides
procedures and timeframes for resolving inter-agency disputes regarding
permit applications, in an effort to make timely permit decisions. An
ARNI is a resource-based threshold used to determine which individual
permit cases can be elevated under the 404(q) procedures. Factors used
in past elevations to identify an ARNI include diverse high-quality
ecosystems, rarity and uniqueness, and economic importance for fish and
wildlife species. In other words, the underlying concept is simply that
impacts to particularly important aquatic resources should be carefully
evaluated.
Question. Has the EPA ever designated an ARNI in consultation with
COE or any other agency, or the public? Is there any transparency to
the designation?
Answer. The term ARNI is only used on the context of a Clean Water
Act (CWA) section 404(q) elevation under the 1992 MOA between EPA, DOI,
and DOC, to identify those individual permit cases that may be elevated
to my office for review. EPA does not ``designate'' an aquatic resource
as an ARNI. Rather, it concludes that the aquatic resources and
proposed impacts are significant enough to request review by my office
as provided in the MOA.
Question. If COE disagrees with the EPA's designation of an ARNI,
does COE have any means of reversing or modifying the designation?
Answer. The conclusion that the aquatic resources and proposed
impacts are significant enough to request review by my office is not an
official designation or decision that requires reversal or
modification. The term ARNI refers to a criterion used by the resource
agencies (EPA, DOC, DOI) to determine if an individual permit may be
elevated under the CWA section 404(q) elevation procedures.
A District Commander may not reject a resource agency's substantive
conclusion regarding its determination that the aquatic resource
impacted by the proposed project is an ARNI and that the impact will
result in an unacceptable impact on ARNIs. The 404(q) MOA is intended
to allow agencies to elevate certain applications to my office, after
following the specified procedures and timeframes described in the MOA.
Once my office receives the request for review of the individual
permit application from a headquarters office of the agency (e.g., the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water), the permit decision is held in
abeyance.
My office does have the ability and authority to agree or disagree
with the designation of an ARNI and with the determination that the
project will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to ARNIs
after thorough review of the permit and the decision document, and in
many instances after an on-site meeting.
I understand that there are several examples where my office has in
fact disagreed with the resource agency designation and/or the
determination of substantial and unacceptable adverse effects to ARNIs.
If this occurs, my office will inform the headquarters office of the
agency that sought headquarters review of the permit application of my
decision. The permit is not finalized during a period of 10 days
following my decision so that EPA if it desires may initiate a review
under its 404(c) authority.
Question. If COE moves forward with granting section 404 clearance
to proceed with a fill project even after EPA has designated an area an
ARNI, would COE consider it likely that EPA would use its section 404
authority to veto the project?
Answer. Not necessarily. Since 1972, when the Congress enacted
section 404, the EPA has only prohibited a proposed action, as provided
in section 404(c), about 14 times. The decision to initiate a 404(c)
action rests solely with the EPA, and is not tied to the concept of an
ARNI.
Question. With CD-5, COE had worked with Conoco, the State of
Alaska, and the local community stakeholders since 2004 toward an
agreement on accessing CD-5, only to ultimately deny the permit in
2010. How can we in the Congress justify spending on such a process if
we ultimately don't have a project?
Answer. CWA requires the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters be restored and maintained. In
accordance with this statutory requirement, the regulatory program
decisionmaking process involves an evaluation conducted pursuant to the
CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines and a public interest review. These
requirements are intended to ensure that proposed discharges into
waters of the United States are not contrary to the public interest and
do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment. The regulatory process is informed by the applicant as
well as information provided by State and Federal regulatory and
resources agencies, the local community and other interested
stakeholders.
In the case of CD-5, COE worked with Conoco Phillips Alaska Inc.
(CPAI), the State of Alaska, and the local community stakeholders since
2004 toward identifying a proposal that could potentially be approved
for a permit. During those years, CPAI requested the application review
process be suspended on occasion, as they made changes to their
proposed project; and so they could continue to work with the local
community stakeholders to come to a local agreement about access to the
CD-5 area without impacts to subsistence use and local jobs, and to
provide mitigation/compensation for social impacts to those
communities, to name a few. COE worked diligently with CPAI to find a
way to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters. In
addition, COE made numerous requests for information that would allow
them to evaluate portions of the CD-5 project. It is the applicant's
responsibility to supply all required and necessary information and to
clearly demonstrate that their proposal is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. CPAI did not provide the information
required to rebut the presumption that another alternative with less
environmental impacts on aquatic resources did not exist.
It is the responsibility of the regulatory program to take an
unbiased look at each and every project, weigh the detriments and
benefits and make a decision based on the law and regulations, public
interest factors, and the purpose and need for a project. The
decisionmaking process ends in one of several ways:
--permit issuance;
--permit issuance with conditions;
--the applicants' withdrawal of their application; or
--permit denial.
COE works with applicants and the agencies to protect aquatic
resources by ensuring that project proposals avoid and minimize
unnecessary impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. This process
enables the agency to make favorable decisions on 99 percent of the
applications received, and works as the Congress intended.
Question. Is it possible to build a bridge, perhaps one of higher
elevation or with better placed supports, through an area with an ARNI
designation?
Answer. ARNI designation does not prohibit an activity or a
discharge in these aquatic resources, including building a bridge
through an area identified as an ARNI. COE recognizes that if the
resource agencies identify an area as an ARNI, that this term implies
that the resource may be high quality, rare, unique, or have economic
importance for fish and wildlife species, and that proposed impacts to
these important aquatic resources should be carefully evaluated.
Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA requires that only the LEDPA may be
permitted, so long as that alternative does not have other adverse
environmental consequences. COE denied the permit because it determined
based on information provided by the applicant, input from the public
and Federal resource agencies that a roadless alternative with
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be the LEDPA.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
coe deg.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Question. It is my understanding that the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund has a significant surplus. The budget request states the
administration will be making a proposal concerning the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to the Congress. As I understand it, this
proposal will allow other agencies that are conducting port related
activities to charge those activities to the Trust Fund.
Could you explain this proposal a little further?
Answer. Several Federal programs support commercial coastal
navigation (primarily Corps of Engineers [COE], Coast Guard, Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], Customs, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Transportation), in a
variety of ways. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to expand the
authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Trust Fund)
receipts, so that they are available both for harbor maintenance and to
finance the Federal share of other Federal activities that support
commercial navigation through our ports. Spending would continue to be
subject to annual appropriations decisions, just financed from the
Trust Fund instead of the General Fund. The proposal would not limit
the amount of annual spending for any specific purpose or program, such
as harbor maintenance.
Question. How does this proposal improve our Nation's harbors? It
sounds like the same things will be accomplished but accounting for the
costs will be different. Am I missing something?
Answer. The proposal would support investments that contribute to
the strength of the American economy. It would facilitate the
development of a comprehensive investment strategy, improve the
allocation of resources to and among multiple agencies, and provide
transparency on the extent of the Federal support.
Question. Won't this rapidly deplete the Trust Fund balance?
Answer. The proposal is still under development. We expect the
Trust Fund to retain a workable balance. We would work with the
Congress to decide which other Federal coastal navigation efforts are
covered. The extent of the long-term effect on the size of the Trust
Fund balance would depend upon which other Federal activities are
included.
Question. When the trust fund is depleted by these new activities,
how will we maintain the harbors and waterways that are currently
funded through the Trust Fund?
Answer. We expect the trust fund to retain a workable balance.
However, if it were to be depleted at some future date, the Congress
would then decide how to fund the Federal coastal navigation efforts,
including those of COE.
Question. Assuming these other activities will continue to be
funded from the Trust Fund, will maintenance of these waterways be
further restricted due to lack of funding in the Trust Fund?
Answer. That is not our intent or expectation. In fact, there could
be more dredging under the proposal. In our view, the overall funding
level that the Federal Government provides to COE for maintenance
dredging and related purposes should be determined independent of the
level of the Harbor Maintenance Tax receipts. More specifically, the
allocation of these funds should reflect consideration for the economic
and safety return, as well as a comparison with other potential uses of
the available funds.
Question. The budget request states a number of times that you are
addressing the highest-priority needs. It is also my understanding that
the budget proposal does not provide for full authorized widths and
depths to be maintained at any harbor maintained by COE. Has there been
any calculation of the economic impacts by not fully dredging all of
Nation's ports?
Answer. There has been no calculation of the economic impacts of
not fully dredging all of the Nation's ports. Maintenance of existing
navigation channels to fully authorized dimensions would reduce the
cost of some ship movements, but would not necessarily increase the
total throughput capacity of the ports. The fiscal year 2012 budget for
COE includes $758 million from the Trust Fund to support the
maintenance of coastal harbors and their channels and related work. To
make the best use of these funds, COE evaluates and establishes
priorities using objective criteria. These criteria include
transportation cost-savings, risk reduction, and improved reliability--
all relative to the cost. Our objective is to provide operational
capabilities and efficiencies, with a focus on the most heavily used
commercial channels (carrying more than 10 million tons of cargo/year),
which together carry about 90 percent of the total commercial cargo
traveling through our coastal ports.
Question. It would seem that if the administration goal is to
double exports, that fully dredging our ports and waterways would be an
essential step in making this goal a reality. Am I missing something?
Answer. Maintenance of existing navigation channels to fully
authorized dimensions would reduce the cost of some ship movements, but
would not necessarily increase the total throughput capacity of the
ports. The fiscal year 2012 budget for COE gives priority to the
maintenance of the Nation's large deep-draft harbors. The budget also
includes $65 million for the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/
New Jersey; $42 million for construction/expansion of dredged material
placement facilities at the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah,
Georgia; and Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida in order to continue
maintenance of the deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000
for preconstruction engineering design of Savannah Harbor expansion,
Georgia; and $726,000 for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island
Harbor (Brownsville), Texas.
coe deg.DAM SAFETY
Question. Dam safety is of critical importance to our Nation and
particularly California. Currently there are three dams in California
in the most at-risk category.
Could you explain COE's criteria on how projects are ranked related
to risk?
Answer. COE uses a dam safety portfolio management process that
continually monitors and assesses the condition and risk associated
with all COE dams and assigns a Dam Safety Action Classification
(DSAC). The priority for funding is focused on addressing the highest-
risk dams with the most cost-effective risk reduction alternatives for
all DSAC I, II, and III projects. DSAC I dams have been determined to
have a confirmed urgent and compelling issue that requires taking
immediate and expedited actions to reduce and manage the risk.
Therefore, DSAC I dams with life safety consequences are given first
priority. For prioritization within DSAC II and III projects,
significant weight is given to the quantitative tolerable risk
guidelines, but other nonquantitative considerations, including As Low
as Reasonably Practical (ALARP), are also used for a more complete
basis. The greater the estimated annual probability of failure and the
further the estimated life risk is above the tolerable risk limit, then
the greater the urgency to act. Further detail on ranking criteria is
available in Draft ER1110-2-1156, Chapter 6.3. Draft version of ER
1110-2-1156 has been released as interim guidance to the field. The
regulation is available for download at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/
Documents/cecwe/er1100_21156_1nov10.pdf.
Question. Can you explain what risks these dams and the people
below them are facing and what actions are taken to reduce risks while
studies are undertaken and corrective plans formulated?
Answer. COE executes its project purposes guided by its commitment
and responsibility to public safety. It is after public safety
tolerable risk guidelines are met that other purposes and objectives
are considered. COE dams are geographically widely spread across the
Nation and exhibit varying degrees of deficiency and life-safety risk.
Interim Risk Reduction Measure Plans (IRRMP) are the key documents that
frame operational decisionmaking for high-risk dams (DSAC I, II, and
III). Structural and nonstructural alternatives for the interim risk
reduction measures are evaluated for effectiveness to reduce the
probability of failure and/or consequences associated with the failure
modes. Reservoir pool restrictions, modification of reservoir
regulation plan, and updating of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) are
always evaluated as options. The IRRMPs establish the specific
threshold events, decision points, and actions required. COE discusses
issues consistently and openly with affected stakeholders upstream and
downstream of our structures.
Question. These studies seem to take an inordinately long time,
particularly for high-risk dams. For instance, Lake Isabella in my home
State has been under study for the last 6 years. Isn't there a way to
accelerate these studies so the remediation work can get started?
Answer. The risk-informed approach that COE is implementing will
allow focus on our most critical deficiencies. This focus will provide
a more expedited repair to our worst issues. Given the multiple
purposes of most COE dams and the long-term benefits provided, the
projects will still require thorough analysis of any modification to
assure public safety by modification to the dam. Dam analysis and
designs are complex technical efforts. Risk assessments must be
performed to understand the extent of a problem and to evaluate options
to fix the dams. In many cases, COE dams have multiple deficiencies
which increase the complexity of repair.
Question. Your budget proposes $436.7 million for repairs to 10
projects and an additional $37.2 million to continues studies on other
dams that have various risk ratings. Repairs on some of these projects
are multi-year and, in many cases, extremely expensive--with the
repairs often costing more than the original dams. Does COE have
additional capability for dam safety work in fiscal year 2012?
Answer. All DSAC I projects that are ready for construction, and
some DSAC II projects, are funded at the maximum rate that COE can
efficiently and effectively use funds. Decisions on the funding for
other dam safety projects (other DSAC II projects and all DSAC III
projects) include consideration of budgetary and technical resources as
well as other factors.
Question. Your budget proposes $27.6 million for evaluation studies
and lists 100 different dams where these studies would be conducted.
That works out to about $275,000 per study. That seems very low. Can
you explain this better?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget will progress study efforts at
73 projects with levels of effort ranging from $50,000 to $800,000. The
prioritization and funding amount is re-evaluated quarterly to adjust
to incidents, study progress, successful performance during flood
events, and other relevant information.
Question. Is this a list of potential studies that will be
undertaken or will all 100 be underway in fiscal year 2012?
Is it also fair to assume that when these projects were formulated
prior to authorization and construction, that the 50-year maintenance
costs were factored into the benefit cost ratio that led to their
authorization and construction?
Answer. An estimate of the 50-year maintenance costs has been
factored into the benefit-cost ratios for projects proposed by COE
under the 1983 Principles and Guidelines and prior planning guidance.
Question. Further, the budget request proposed $9.5 million to
undertake post-evaluation work. However, there is no description of
what this post evaluation work is or which projects it would be
undertaken on. Can you provide some more information?
Answer. Dam Safety Modification reports for Addicks and Barker Dams
(DSAC Is) are scheduled to be approved in fiscal year 2012 and Pre-
Construction Engineering & Design (PED) for these dams will be
initiated in fiscal year 2012. COE is initiating PED and some limited
site preparation construction on Bolivar and East Branch Dams (DSAC
IIs) that have approved Dam Safety Modification reports, but that will
not be funded for construction until fiscal year 2013.
Question. With the number of dams that are considered high risk and
the decline of your budget request over the last 3 years, how are your
future budgets going to be able to accommodate these increasing costs?
Answer. The Army manages risks across a broad portfolio of
structures, with the objective of reducing the overall portfolio risk.
The decision on priorities in project queues is risk informed and
performed from a national perspective. Over much a longer period than
just the past 3 years, the budget has consistently funded all DSAC I
projects and some DSAC II projects at the maximum rate that COE can
efficiently and effectively use funds.
There are 10 continuing DSAC I and II dam safety projects funded in
the fiscal year 2012 budget for a total of $436.7 million. This funding
is allocated within the construction appropriation. As additional high-
risk dams are identified we will work to address them as well. We
expect to continue funding all DSAC I projects that are ready for
construction, and some DSAC II projects, at the maximum rate that COE
can efficiently and effectively use funds.
coe deg.SMALL PORTS
Question. Your budget request cuts funding to many small ports and
harbors across the country. Can you tell us a little about the criteria
used to determine those cuts?
Answer. Navigation projects were categorized as high, moderate, and
low commercial navigation use based on commercial tonnage. Funding is
focused on high and moderate navigation projects (coastal projects
carrying at least 1 million tons of cargo and inland waterways with at
least 1 billion ton-miles of traffic), which move 99 percent of the
Nation's waterborne commercial cargo. The low-use projects funded in
the fiscal year 2012 budget were selected with the intent to optimize
use of the available funds for such projects across a range of uses
including critical harbors of refuge, subsistence harbors, projects
with Coast Guard Search and Rescue stations, energy-delivery projects
such as home heating oil where marine transportation is the only means
to make the deliveries and navigation projects with significant, albeit
less than 1 million tons of commercial cargo.
Question. Was the criteria that you used for determining your
budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2012 contemplated when these
projects were originally formulated, authorized and constructed?
Answer. No. The prioritization criteria for the Operation and
Maintenance program consider the current use of a project and a variety
of other factors, in order to assess how the return on a further
investment to the Nation in maintenance compares with other potential
uses of those funds.
Question. Was it safe to assume that if the project was
economically justified, that the administration would budget for
maintenance of the project as appropriate?
Answer. No. However, if the construction of the project was found
by the executive branch to be economically justified at that time, the
administration generally will consider the project for funding.
Question. Can we, for argument's sake, assume that nearly all the
projects that were not budgeted in fiscal year 2012 were economically
justified, when construction was completed?
Answer. No. Many projects were authorized without an approved COE
report. Others are not being funded due to policy concerns that arose
prior to their construction.
Question. This would mean that all of these unbudgeted projects
were determined to accrue benefits to the national, as well as, the
regional and local economies, am I correct?
Answer. Many, but not all, of the projects would have a COE report
that estimates that the project would accrue net benefits. However, key
assumptions in these reports may be open to question. For example,
benefit estimates for a proposed navigation project generally rely on a
speculative projection of future traffic levels.
Question. Was there any analysis to determine if the ports were
moving the tonnage projected in the documents that led to authorization
and construction of the projects?
Answer. COE has not conducted such an analysis as this would be a
large undertaking for an inventory of more than 1,000 navigation
projects.
Question. It would seem to me that if a port was meeting its
tonnage projections, that it would most likely be meeting the economic
projections from the original analysis conducted prior to
authorization. Is it safe to assume that some of these small ports
would have had small tonnage amounts projected, but yet were still
considered economically justified?
Answer. Some of these ports would have been justified based on
tonnage projections. However, even where the tonnage is on track with
projections, dredging costs have increased dramatically since many
projects were authorized. Also, the economic analysis in these reports
generally does not account for the effects of funding limitations.
Question. Then how can you not budget for a port that is meeting
tonnage projections?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget seeks to allocate the available
Federal funds to the activities that will have the highest return on
investment to the Nation.
Question. Was there any analysis of the impacts to the national,
regional, and local economies of not funding these ports and harbors in
your budget?
Answer. No, this would be a large undertaking with an inventory of
more than 1,000 projects.
Question. It appears that your criteria being based solely on
tonnage would put many ports at a disadvantage to even be considered
for funding. How do you justify this criteria?
Answer. While most economists agree tonnage is not a direct measure
of the economic benefit, it is a good first-order approximation and
there is little agreement on an alternative.
Question. Wouldn't some type of economic analysis be in order to
determine the value of these ports to the national, State, and local
economies rather than basing your decision solely on tonnage?
Answer. We are working to allocate the funds as best as possible.
There is also a cost associated with more analysis. However, COE
continues to develop analytical tools to help determine whether
additional spending for harbor maintenance and related activities is
warranted based on the economic and safety return, as well as a
comparison with other potential uses of the available funds.
Question. Wouldn't the economic value of these ports be a better
indicator of where maintenance funding should be concentrated?
Answer. We are open to considering other factors. However, in
allocating maintenance funds, we are mostly trying to find the best use
of an incremental investment above or below the amounts that we are, or
are not, already providing.
coe deg.NEW STARTS
Question. For fiscal year 2011 you proposed two new construction
starts for a total of $29 million. These two starts, if they are
started, require outyear funding in excess of nearly $2 billion. For
fiscal year 2012, you have proposed two more new construction starts
that will require outyear funding in excess of $120 million. With the
declines in your budget requests that have been recommended in the last
3 years, how do you expect these projects to be funded in future years?
Answer. In the out-years, they would continue to compete for
funding, as they did successfully in the development of the fiscal year
2011 and fiscal year 2012 budgets. Also, the $2 billion total for the
two fiscal year 2011 new construction starts mostly reflects the cost
of authorized work under the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem
restoration program to address the effects of large and continuing
wetland losses on the ecosystem. Each year of delay could complicate
the long-term restoration effort.
Question. How were the two ``new starts'' in the President's budget
selected? What criteria were used?
Answer. Raritan to Sandy Hook (Port Monmouth), New Jersey,
qualifies as a ``Risk to Life'' new start. This project addresses a
significant risk to human safety and damage to property resulting from
increased flood exposure, shoreline erosion, and increased exposure of
the shore and inland areas to tidal inundation and wave attack damages.
This increased exposure, combined with runoff from coastal creeks,
results in increased danger of high flood depths and water velocities
with little warning time.
Hamilton City, California qualifies as an ecosystem restoration new
start predominantly because it connects four other restored
environmental areas, thereby providing a larger continual habitat
corridor. This project will also provide ancillary flood risk
management benefits to Hamilton City and nearby agricultural lands.
Question. The new study starts that you have proposed are all
ecosystem restoration studies. Are there no new flood control or
navigation studies that warrant the administration's support?
Answer. While there are many potential flood control and navigation
new study starts, the four new study starts proposed for the budget
were considered to be a higher priority.
Question. What did the administration hope to demonstrate through
selection of these particular projects?
Answer. The four new studies (in addition to those proposed in
fiscal year 2011) include:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan; and
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study.
Three of these studies were proposed as new starts because they
will examine ways to contribute to restoration and increased
sustainability of ecosystems that were part of last year's interagency
collaborative planning initiative. The study of Cano Martin Pena,
Puerto Rico will examine ways to provide critical estuarine habitat
restoration and move people out of a floodway.
Question. It is my understanding that more than half of the Chief
of Engineers reports expected to be submitted to the Congress this year
are ecosystem restoration studies. Doesn't this indicate an unbalanced
program if the majority of studies being produced are for ecosystem
restoration rather than the more traditional COE's missions of flood
control and navigation?
Answer. The distribution of Chief's reports among mission areas
will vary year to year. The number of reports in any one year is not an
appropriate indicator of the makeup of the construction program. Also,
the budget funds studies and preconstruction engineering and design
work for many proposed flood control and navigation projects.
coe deg.LEVEE VEGETATION
Question. COE is developing new national policies for the allowance
and/or removal of trees and other vegetation from levee projects.
Meanwhile, COE has participated in a collaborative effort with the
State of California to develop vegetation-removal guidelines for the
Central Valley. This collaborative effort holds promise for reaching a
reasonable and balanced program for assuring levee integrity and, at
the same time, taking into consideration unique circumstances and
resources found in many areas in the Central Valley, and COE's past
involvement with the region's levees. What is the proposed timing on a
revised draft vegetation variance process and when does COE plan to
have a final policy?
Answer. COE's goal is to work with resource agencies, such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Environmental Protection Agency, and levee owners to transition
noncompliant levees to COE standards, including vegetation standards.
Achieving this goal will allow us to jointly maintain public safety,
ensure eligibility under Public Law 84-99 for assistance in making
repairs after a flood, and comply with Federal environmental laws.
Noncompliant levee vegetation may affect the safety, structural
integrity and function of the levees, could obstruct visibility for
inspections, impede access for maintenance, and could block emergency
flood fighting operations. Clear vegetation policies, standards, and
practices are critical to an effective life-cycle flood risk management
program.
The vegetation variance policy referenced in the question was
originally issued in 1997 to implement section 202(g) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. The policy recognizes that there may
be some instances where vegetation may preserve, protect or enhance
natural resources and/or protect the rights of Native Americans. This
variance process is designed to accommodate those special cases when it
is possible to do so while still maintaining the safety, structural
integrity and function of the levees, and allowing access for
inspection and flood fighting. In August 2009, COE began revising this
vegetation variance request process to reflect current organizational
changes and levee safety program principles such as utilizing agency
technical reviews, applying a systems approach, and ensuring COE levee
safety technical leads are part of the process.
Due to strong interest from sponsors in how changes to this
vegetation variance request process may impact them, COE solicited
comments on the proposed revisions through the Federal Register, with a
notice and comment period from February 9, 2010 to April 26, 2010. COE
received more than 500 comments from more than 100 separate
organizations and individuals. As a next step, COE is considering
whether to post, for the second time, a revised draft vegetation
variance request policy for public comment.
Question. Out of the hundreds or thousands of levee failures over
the years, how many (and what percent) were caused by vegetation on a
levee?
Answer. It is very difficult to determine after the fact whether
one factor, such as vegetation, can be attributed to the cause of a
levee breach, unless it was observed, documented, and studied during
the actual failure. Because direct impacts of vegetation on levees
cannot be quantified, potential impacts are based on field
observations. COE is aware of instances in which vegetation has been a
hindrance to inspections, monitoring, and flood fighting during a flood
event. Moreover, vegetation can obstruct the ability to detect
indicators for a potential levee breach, such as seepage.
Question. As part of the vegetation variance process, is COE
willing to consider regional variances which address vegetation
management within the context of unique geographic settings such as
exist in California?
Answer. COE recognizes that just as no two regions are the same
ecologically, no two levee systems are the same from an engineering
perspective. The current draft policies allow for the consideration of
the unique engineering and environmental context of particular levee
systems to develop vegetation management solutions that address both
levee safety and natural resource requirements. The ultimate goal is to
work with resource agencies and levee owners to transition noncompliant
levees to COE's standards, which may include obtaining vegetation
variances or identification of other solutions to fit the specific
regional conditions. For example, since 2008, COE and California have
been engaged in the California Levee Roundtable, a collaborative
partnership of Federal, State, and local organizations that facilitates
the consideration of the local environmental and engineering context to
develop systemwide levee solutions throughout the region. COE hopes to
be able to continue this collaborative process with willing State
participants.
Question. Is COE willing to consider regional variances which
prioritize vegetation management with respect to all risk factors,
without inhibiting or delaying the remediation of higher-priority risk
factors?
Answer. COE supports prioritizing how and when levee deficiencies
are addressed based on risk. This approach has been integrated into the
COE systemwide improvement framework policy. This policy provides an
opportunity for local levee authorities to use an interagency approach
to identify solutions that optimize resources, and to sequence
improvements and corrective actions based on risk. This approach is
available to the Central Valley levees through the California Levee
Roundtable.
Question. Is COE willing to consider regional variances which
provide clear guidance on the level of detail needed for a variance,
how that detail will be evaluated, and an appeal procedure should COE
and the local sponsor disagree on the outcome of the process?
Answer. The most recent revisions to the draft vegetation variance
process are designed as a collaborative approach through which there
will be early determination on the most viable approach to meeting COE
policies and standards while complying with applicable laws,
regulations, and treaties. The intent is that any conflicts or issues
should be raised and resolved during the collaborative process as
opposed to having a formal appeal process. As such, it is likely that a
decision to pursue a vegetation variance could be identified early in
the process, diminishing the need for extensive environmental and
engineering analysis. For situations in which the levee sponsor would
like to pursue a vegetation variance request, more detail has been
added to the technical requirements in the draft policy so the levee
sponsor can better estimate the cost requirements. Though the review
and approval process remains the same, COE believes these steps are
necessary to make a well-informed decision about a levee system that is
providing economic and safety benefits to the public living behind the
levee.
Question. How does COE intend to evaluate, disclose, and address
the impacts of this process on the environment and endangered species
impacts?
Answer. COE recognizes that in carrying out its responsibility to
promote safety and reduce the risk of damage to property through
structurally sound levees, the agency must address environmental and
natural resource needs through compliance with all applicable laws,
regulations, and treaties. COE will comply with all applicable
environmental requirements in implementing the policy for requesting a
variance from COE vegetation management standards for levees and
floodwalls.
COE believes that the best approach is to review the environmental
impacts of the application of specific standards as they are applied to
site-specific circumstances. With this approach, COE recognizes that
each levee is a unique flood risk reduction system that operates within
the broader and equally unique local ecosystem. This approach also
recognizes that the analysis of potential environmental impacts is
dependent upon future, undetermined actions and decisions of the levee
sponsors who operate and maintain the levee systems.
When environmental requirements are triggered as COE makes
decisions on the inspection standards applied to specific levee
systems, the COE will work closely with the levee sponsors, appropriate
resource agencies and tribes, as well as other interested parties to
complete the required environmental compliance.
Question. Many encroachments that do not comply to new policies,
including but not limited to trees, in California's levee systems were
either installed, permitted, or required by COE. In other cases the
encroachments existed at the time the completed Federal project was
turned over to non-Federal sponsors for operation and maintenance.
Under COE's new policies (or new implementation of old policies) how
will the COE's share responsibility for addressing the construction and
environmental costs of compliance?
Answer. ``Encroachments'' are features such as fences and utility
lines requested by the non-Federal sponsor to be added within the levee
system project real-estate easement after project completion.
Encroachments and vegetation are handled differently under COE
policies. COE has a well-defined encroachment permit process.
Unpermitted encroachments will be the responsibility of the non-Federal
sponsor to correct, including construction costs and environmental
compliance. For vegetation, related policies are still under review and
not yet final. However, in the final policy COE intends to clearly
identify responsibilities of the non-Federal sponsor and COE, including
situations when COE will be responsible for addressing the cost of the
vegetation (both corrective actions and environmental compliance).
Question. California's Department of Water Resources (DWR)
developed a rough cost estimate that compliance with COE's vegetation
guidance would cost about $7 billion for 1,600 miles of Federal levees
in the Central Valley. If that is correct, would you think that
compliance is a good investment?
Answer. The California DWR also has said that given the overall
condition of the levees in the Central Valley, higher-risk deficiencies
such as underseepage, structural instability, and erosion should be
addressed first. In general, COE agrees with this assessment. COE
supports DWR's goal to leverage resources by prioritizing levee
remediation in order to maximize improving safety. COE is currently
working with DWR to incorporate such prioritization as part of the
State's long-term strategy for levee improvements that will be outlined
in the California Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
Question. Does COE have its own cost estimates for compliance with
its vegetation guidance?
Answer. No, meeting COE vegetation management standards is an
operation and maintenance responsibility typically implemented by a
local levee sponsor.
Question. Will section 104 credit and section 408 approval be
available for projects that do not meet the Levee Vegetation ETL, as
long as non-Federal partners are addressing higher-risk factors. How
will this be manifested in COE processes?
Answer. COE supports modifications that will improve the levee
system and recognizes it may not be possible for a local levee sponsor
to address all deficiencies at one time. The determination for credit
(now considered under section 2003 of WRDA 2007, not section 104) or
section 408 approval for levees that do not meet COE standards for
vegetation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Further, the
vegetation variance request process and the section 408 approval
process can be combined where appropriate.
coe deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION
Question. It is my understanding that you have or are planning to
implement an engineering circular entitled ``USACE Process for the
National Flood Insurance Program Levee System Evaluation''. This EC for
the first time establishes a 10-year time limit for levee
certification.
Can you tell us how you arrived at this 10-year limit, whether
stakeholders were involved in that process?
Answer. Currently there is no FEMA requirement for periodic review
of levee certifications. Until FEMA policy is established, it is
recommended that, for every certification issued by COE after 10 years,
the certification should be reviewed or verified. Flood risk and levee
conditions can change over time and it is important to ensure that a
levee still meets expected requirements. The 10 years is to serve as a
maximum timeframe between certification determinations. A certification
can be reviewed any time before the 10 years, if it is of professional
opinion there are indications that the project may no longer meet levee
certification requirements. Throughout development of this EC,
stakeholders were provided opportunities to provide input.
Question. What do you see as the process going forward for those
levees whose certification is older than 10 years, and can you give us
a sense of how this decertification effort will impact COE's civil
works budget?
Answer. It is a local community's responsibility to provide FEMA
documentation that a levee meets NFIP criteria for flood mapping
purposes. COE does not anticipate any impacts from this effort on the
Civil Works budget because we do not budget for levee certification.
coe deg.CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Question. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has told my office that
there is a high probability that a moderate to severe earthquake could
lead to the failure of more than one-half of the levees in the
Sacramento Delta. According to the 2009 Delta Risk Management Strategy
developed by the California DWR using USGS data: ``an earthquake of
magnitude 6.7 or greater has a 62 percent probability of occurring in
the San Francisco Bay Area between 2003 and 2032. Such an earthquake is
capable of causing multiple levee failures in the Delta region which
could result in fatalities, extensive property damage and the
interruption of water exports from the Delta for an extended period of
time.''
What actions has COE taken to reduce the risk of major, multiple
levee failures in the Sacramento Delta?
Answer. COE is partnering with the State of California and the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) as described below on the following
initiatives related to improving the levee system in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta:
Geographic Information System (GIS) Contingency Mapping and
Emergency Response Planning.--A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
was signed between COE and the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR), allowing COE and DWR to initiate phase 1 of
GIS Flood Contingency Mapping and Emergency Response Planning
for the Delta region. The team met with Delta counties in
August 2010 to gather input on concepts for the GIS products,
response report, and related data. The second round of meetings
were held in November 2010 to present the 35 percent complete
product, validate data collected thus far, and gather
additional information from county and RD representatives.
During July 2011, the PDT met with State and local
representatives to review the 65 percent product. The 100
percent product is expected in fall 2011. This will constitute
the end of our phase I of GIS Flood Contingency Mapping and
Emergency Response Planning for the Delta region. The products
will be immediately useful for emergency response planning and
will include:
--Standardized GIS database of Emergency Management data;
--Flood Contingency Map Books and large-scale wall maps of the
Delta region; and
--An accompanying report documenting the existing framework,
existing data, and any potential data gaps.
In May 2011, COE, along with other State, Federal, and local
agencies, participated in the California Emergency Management
Agency-led 2011 Golden Guardian Exercise. This year included a
3-day Full Scale Exercise based on a major flood in
California's Inland Region (Delta).
Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study.--The Delta Islands
and Levees Feasibility Study (Delta Study) is a cost-shared
study to explore potential solutions to address ecosystem
restoration needs, flood risk management problems, and related
water resources issues in the Delta and Suisun Marsh area. The
President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $1.015 million for
this feasibility study. A Feasibility Cost Share Agreement
(FCSA) was executed in May 2006 with the California DWR, the
non-Federal sponsor. The COE-DWR study team meets regularly to
move the study forward and holds periodic Agency Coordination
Meetings with associated Federal, State and local agencies,
including BOR.
On August 11, 2011, COE will participate in an interagency
meeting to discuss preliminary Sacramento--San Joaquin Delta
Modeling. The objective of this modeling is ``to develop
representative hydrodynamic, sediment transport, water quality,
and ecosystem models that enable COE's Sacramento District to,
with solid scientific support, understand the system-wide
impact of natural and purposeful changes to the Delta and allow
it to proactively manage these vital water resources.'' We
expect the basic model to be completed by December 2011. This
will be a useful tool to aid project planning and emergency
response planning in the Delta.
The feasibility study will culminate in a feasibility report that
will make recommendations on possible solutions and next steps.
Interagency Federal Action Plan.--On a broader level, COE
supports the Interagency Interim Federal Action Plan for the
Bay-Delta (December 2009) and its Update (November 2010). The
Action Plan consists of studies, programs, and actions that
address essential Bay-Delta issues including helping to ensure
integrated flood risk management. The Bay Delta Conservation
Plan (BDCP) has been identified as a priority effort by the
State and in the Interim Federal Action Plan. COE's Regulatory,
Operations, and Planning Programs regularly participate in
coordination related to the BDCP. Regulatory and operations
have proactively engaged the State, BOR, and others to ensure
that they understand Clean Water Act section 404 and section 10
and section 14 of the River and Harbors Act permitting
requirements and processes that may be required for the BDCP.
COE also participates in interagency (State-Federal) groups
focused on advancing science to inform management decisions,
including those related to levees, in the Bay-Delta.
Question. How does COE prioritize which levees it repairs?
Answer. In coordination with local and State partners, mainly the
California DWR, COE prioritized levee improvements in the 2006 ``Report
to Congress'' based on risk associated with levee failure (protection
of life, property, infrastructure, etc.). Ongoing project
prioritization is based on how well each project met environmental,
economic, and other implementation criteria including availability of a
local cost-share partner. The Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility
Study will make recommendations to address flood risk management for
the Delta as a system.
Question. When prioritizing levee repairs, has COE taken into
account which levees are most likely to allow salt water to enter the
fresh water supply for 20 million Californians should the delta levees
fail?
Answer. System-wide assessments and recommendations, including
impact of delta levee failure on the freshwater supply, will be
evaluated under the Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study. The
2006 ``Report to Congress'' considered risk to water supply.
Question. Does COE have an estimate of the overall damage,
including loss of the fresh water supply, and cost to repair the levees
should a serious earthquake strike northern California?
Answer. COE does not have a current estimate of the overall damage,
including loss of the fresh water supply, and cost to repair the
levees. This will be evaluated under the Delta Islands and Levees
Feasibility Study. The California DWR published a report that does
provide an estimate. This effort is the State's in-kind cost-share for
the Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study.
Question. Does COE have an estimate of how much it would cost to
reduce the risk of massive levee failure from ``high'' to ``moderate''
or ``low''?
Answer. No. This will be evaluated under the Delta Islands and
Levees Feasibility Study.
Question. The maritime industry in California carries more than 40
percent of the Nation's waterborne international cargo. Recent studies
by COE show that there is more than $400 million worth of cargo
disrupted for every foot of reduced depth of channel. However, while
dredging costs on a per-yard basis have increased 160 percent
nationally over the past decade, ports across California and the Nation
have not been provided adequate funding to maintain their
congressionally authorized dredge depths. Why is it that numerous
Federal channels in California are not at their congressionally
authorized depth and width?
Answer. Navigation channels rarely have full depth and width
available. At present, only 2 of the top 10 navigation projects in COE
inventory have full depth and width available. These two projects (both
are in the State of California) are, in large part, naturally deep and
do not require significant maintenance dredging.
Question. How does the President's budget request for fiscal year
2012 achieve the goals of maintaining the channels in California to
their authorized depth and width as well as meeting the President's
National Export Initiative?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $8.75
million in the operation and maintenance account for the Oakland
Harbor, and $8.15 million for the Richmond Harbor; as well as $350,000
in the construction account to continue work associated with the
construction of the Oakland Harbor 50 feet deepening. These efforts
support commercial use of deep draft navigation projects (1million tons
of commercial cargo or more per year) as follows: the Oakland Harbor
has 17 million tons of commercial cargo per year and the Richmond
Harbor has 25 million tons of cargo per year.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $65
million for the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/New Jersey;
$42 million for construction/expansion of dredged material placement
facilities at the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah, Georgia; and
Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida in order to continue maintenance of the
deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000 for preconstruction
engineering design of Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia; and $726,000
for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island Harbor (Brownsville),
Texas. The budget also includes $580 million in the Operation and
Maintenance appropriation to maintain our high and moderate commercial
use deep draft navigation projects that support 1 million tons of
commercial cargo or more per year.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. The Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in my State faces
acute water needs. For years, the only intake for a land mass the size
of Connecticut was in the Cheyenne River. That location had many
problems, including the intake coming precariously close to taking in
air when the Corps of Engineers (COE) would draw down the Oahe
Reservoir. There were also silt problems exacerbated by drawn down and
heavy metals in the river. To its credit, COE took the lead in building
a new intake in the main stem of the Missouri in deeper water without
silt. A number of agencies also contributed to that project.
Unfortunately, the reservation still faces an extremely undersized
water treatment plant and pipelines. The present day needs on this
large reservation are about 8 million gallons a day and future needs
are estimated at 12 million gallons a day. Their present water
treatment plant and pipelines can only handle 1.2 million gallons a
day. As a result, there is a moratorium on the construction of any new
homes. This is a reservation where there are often two or three
families living under one roof. When they have a fire on the
reservation the water system is depleted immediately. In the short
term, we must rebuild the core of the system--an untreated water line,
a water treatment plant, and a treated water line. This is an important
issue for public health, safety, and the economic needs of the
reservation. There was an authorization in the last Water Resources
Development Act bill of $65 million under the COE's Environmental
Infrastructure program, but it has not been funded. Recently, USDA
Rural Development awarded a large grant/loan package to the tribe to
start this project, but Rural Development doesn't have enough money to
complete the entire project. In the same way that we had a multi-agency
approach with the intake, I want to ask if you will consider
participating on a multi-agency approach in the future. Rural
Development has taken the lead but I wish to see COE and other agencies
also play a role. Will you do so?
Answer. At my request, the Omaha District Tribal Liaison will
contact you to ensure that we remain current on the status of your
efforts to address these concerns. However, COE has three main
missions:
--flood and storm damage reduction;
--commercial navigation; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Because environmental infrastructure projects fall outside of these
missions, they do not compete well for COE funding given the many other
needs across the country that are within the COE's primary mission
areas.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
coe deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION
Question. There is no question that my State understands the
critical need for sound levees that are reliable and provide the best
protection possible for our community. In many ways, what we
experienced in Katrina and Rita was a preview for the rest of the
Nation of just how vulnerable we are. Approximately 700 counties across
the country are home to thousands of miles of levees. Most of these
levees were built a generation ago and were designed and engineered at
a time when the satellites and GPS were just a dream. After decades of
relying on older technology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have arrived in
communities--large and small--with new a standard for levee
certification. These communities are very concerned with the
significant consequences of having to meet the standards. For some
communities it presents a stark choice: find the money to repair and
update these levees or drive up the insurance rates to unsustainable
levels.
General Van Antwerp, what information and technology is COE using
to certify these levees?
Answer. Participation in the National Flood Insurance (NFIP) is a
decision of the local community. It is a local community's
responsibility to provide FEMA documentation that a levee meets NFIP
criteria for flood mapping purposes. There are three cases in which COE
may perform a NFIP levee system evaluation:
--If the levee is operated and maintained by COE;
--If it is part of an ongoing COE project; or
--If funding was provided by another Federal agency or by a local
sponsor and it has been demonstrated that COE is uniquely
equipped to perform the work and that such services are not
reasonably and quickly available through ordinary business
channels.
For situations in which COE is performing a NFIP levee system
evaluation, it will follow procedures in Engineer Circular (EC) 1110-2-
6067, ``USACE Process for NFIP Levee System Evaluation''. The processes
in this EC only apply to COE when performing levee evaluations for NFIP
purposes. Other entities may still follow the requirements in title 44
of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10),
Mapping Areas Protected by Levee Systems; however, the EC is consistent
with and founded on the principles of 44 CFR 65.10 while updating
methods and references to current COE practices and criteria.
Question. Does this take into account the assessments and
evaluation made by the local sponsors?
Answer. Yes, all best-available information will be considered
during the analysis.
Question. What resources, if any, are available to assist local
communities in meeting these standards?
Answer. COE and FEMA work closely together with the local
communities to ensure the most accurate and current levee information
is available to them and to identify how this information informs the
NFIP mapping process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
coe deg.PANAMA CANAL
Question. As you know, the expansion of the Panama Canal expansion
is due to be completed in 2014. Several east coast ports are vying for
Federal funding to deepen their channels or make other improvements in
order to handle larger Post-Panamax vessels, which require 48 feet of
depth and higher air drafts.
What are the economic opportunities that will come from the
expansion of the Panama Canal?
Answer. It is difficult to say what overall effect this 2014 lock
opening will have on the U.S. economy, or what opportunities it may
provide.
Question. Do these opportunities warrant the deepening of all east
coast ports that currently serve Panamax vessels so that they can
accommodate Post-Panamax ships?
Answer. Probably not, at least not at this time. The ports make the
initial business decision to pursue large capital investments necessary
to take advantage of the post-Panamax shipping opportunities. The Corps
of Engineers (COE) evaluates requests to deepen, widen, or lengthen
channels to estimate the costs and benefits to the Nation of the
proposal.
Question. How is COE choosing to make its investments in port
projects related to the Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. Most of the funding in COE coastal navigation program is
not related to the opening of the Panama Canal lock. However, on the
Atlantic and gulf coasts, several ports are working with COE on
proposals to deepen and widen their channels to accommodate the largest
of the post-Panamax vessels, which will be able to reach them more
directly after the new locks on the Panama Canal open in 2014. On the
Atlantic coast, the United States now has two ports with channels deep
enough to receive these ships when they are fully loaded (Norfolk and
Baltimore) and will have a third (New York/New Jersey) by 2014 based on
the current COE construction schedule. The United States also has
several other ports with depths of 45 feet on the Atlantic and gulf
coasts, which these vessels can use when less than fully loaded.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $65 million for
the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/New Jersey; $42 million
for construction/expansion of dredged material placement facilities at
the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah, Georgia; and both
Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida, in order to continue maintenance of
the deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000 for
preconstruction engineering and design of Savannah's harbor expansion,
Georgia; and $726,000 for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island
Harbor (Brownsville), Texas.
Question. Is there any coordination with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Department of Commerce, and other Federal
agencies in selecting the ports that should be deepened or in making
related infrastructure investments (highways, rail, etc.) that support
deepening projects?
Answer. Yes. For example, COE is working with the DOT to improve
decisionmaking on Federal investment in coastal navigation
infrastructure through better coordination. DOT is providing
information on previous years' selected TIGER Grant recipients to COE,
which we will be considering as part of the Civil Works budget
preparation. Similarly, the DOT has invited COE technical experts to
advise it during the upcoming review process for next year's TIGER
Grant selections. Our staffs are also working on common metrics for
comparing potential investments that support coastal navigation, and
for evaluating the performance of those investments.
Question. If it is found that significant new private sector
revenue will be generated from the taxpayer investment in port
deepening projects related to the Panama Canal's expansion, would it
make sense, in these tight fiscal times, to finance these projects
through a Federal loan or loan guarantee program (perhaps through an
infrastructure bank)?
Answer. There may be advantages to such an approach, as an option
in lieu of the traditional cost-sharing. Many ports can borrow or raise
funds on their own. A Federal program like an infrastructure bank, in
which proposed investments, at ports and elsewhere, compete with each
other for support based on their return to the Nation, could be used
where needed to catalyze public and private sector investment.
______
Questions Submitted to Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
bor deg.INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT
Question. You have proposed a new account for these Indian Water
Rights Settlements. How much mandatory funding accompanies the $51.5
million in discretionary funding you have proposed for fiscal year
2012?
Answer. Title VII of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-291) (CRA) provides $60 million in mandatory funding for each of
fiscal years 2012-2014 for the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund,
which was established in the Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-11). Mandatory funding for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
Project in the amount of $60 million described above is included in the
Indian Water Rights Settlement Account in the President's fiscal year
2012 budget.
CRA also provided mandatory funding in fiscal year 2011 for four
other Indian water settlements. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is in
discussions with the tribes in the four new settlements to develop
contract and engineering plans for the use of the mandatory funds. Once
the contracts have been agreed to and engineering plans have been
developed, BOR will be able to develop a construction timetable and
thereby develop proposals for the use of the funds.
Question. Where is the funding coming from within your program for
the Indian Water Rights Settlements?
Answer. CRA provides $444.9 million in mandatory funding and
authorizes $244.4 million in discretionary funding to BOR in the four
Indian water rights settlements within CRA. As well, for each of the
fiscal years from 2012-2014 CRA also provides $180 million in mandatory
funding, or $60 million each year, for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
Project to accompany the authorization of appropriations of $870
million in title X of Public Law 111-11.
Specifically, for BOR, title III--the White Mountain Apache Tribe
Water Rights Quantification appropriates $152.7 million in mandatory
funding and authorizes $11 million in discretionary funding; title IV--
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement appropriates $219.8 million in
mandatory funding and authorizes $158.4 million in discretionary
funding; title V--Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights appropriates $16
million in mandatory funding and authorizes $20 million in
discretionary funding; and title VI--Aamodt Litigation Settlement
appropriates $56.4 million in mandatory funding and authorizes $55
million in discretionary funding.
Question. Do the Water Rights Settlements require specific funding
amounts annually?
Answer. There are no specific dollar amounts that are required for
each year in the legislation but there are timeframes which are
specified for settlement implementation. The amounts requested are
based on capability as determined by the scope of the work that is
expected to be performed within CRA.
Question. What is the nature of the projects that these funds will
be used for? Aren't they rural water systems?
Answer. Each of the four settlements in CRA authorizes the
construction of various projects, principally water construction
projects. CRA requires BOR to:
--Construct a Rural Water System for the White Mountain Apache Tribe;
--Rehabilitate the Crow Irrigation Project and to construct a
Municipal, Rural and Industrial Water System for the Crow Tribe
Water Rights Settlement;
--Provide financial assistance in the form of grants on a
nonreimbursable basis to eligible non-Pueblo entities for the
construction of Mutual Benefit projects, primarily groundwater
projects for the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement;
and
--Construct a Regional Water System for the Aamodt Litigation
Settlement.
Question. How do these projects differ from the seven on-going
rural water projects funded in the water and related resources account?
Answer. CRA authorized the Secretary to enter into Settlement
Agreements with specific tribes and to undertake the specific actions
included in those Settlements. One key difference is that the projects
authorized under CRA settle claims against the United States through
negotiated settlements. If project and financial timelines are not met,
the negotiated settlements may be terminated. Not only are the
significant investments of time and funding associated with negotiating
the settlements at risk, but underlying these settlements is the
quantification of tribal water rights. If the settlements fail, the
tribal water rights are not quantified and the communities affected
would revert to the prior state of uncertainty with respect to the
quantification and the effect of Federal tribal rights on State-based
rights. The rural water projects also address water supply needs and
provide regional drinking water systems. However, the United States
does not face the same legal burden in meeting those future needs as it
does with respect to meeting the obligations associated with the
settlements authorized under CRA.
Question. Can these new projects proposed for funding in fiscal
year 2012 utilize all of the discretionary funding recommended in
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. BOR expects to use all of the discretionary funds that are
being requested as well as some of the mandatory funding that is made
available within the CRA. In fiscal year 2012, BOR is requesting $51.5
million in discretionary funding in the Indian Water Rights Settlement
account, of which $24.8 million is directed to the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project. The balance of the discretionary request, or $26.7
million, is for the remaining four new settlements.
Question. Why did the seven ongoing projects compete so poorly in
the fiscal year 2012 budget compared to these four new projects?
Answer. The seven ongoing rural water projects did not compete for
funding with the tribal settlements that are funded within the CRA.
These projects have separate authorizations and are at widely varying
points in their completion schedules. BOR prioritizes funding for its
ongoing (authorized) rural water projects based on established
criteria. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the
required operation and maintenance (O&M) component. For the
construction component, BOR gives priority to projects nearing
completion and projects that serve on-reservation needs. For BOR, CRA
authorized and appropriated $444.9 million in mandatory funding for
five specific tribal water settlements. The Congress also authorized
$249.3 million in discretionary funding within the CRA.
CRA settlements require numerous conditions that have to be
fulfilled by the Secretary within specified dates in order to satisfy
the terms of the agreements. If the conditions are not met, the
settlements may fail and the parties to the settlements will likely
return to the courts for the resolution of their grievances. The
funding BOR requested for CRA projects is required to fulfill the terms
of the CRA.
bor deg.RURAL WATER
Question. Four of these ongoing rural water projects received
roughly $500,000 each. Can anything constructive be done with $500,000
for these ongoing projects? What do you anticipate to be accomplished
with this small amount of funding?
Answer. Funding amounts for the four rural water projects only
reflect Federal funding and does take into account the contributed non-
Federal funding. Funds requested by BOR for fiscal year 2012 and the
planned use of the funds are shown below:
Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System (Montana).--
Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the tribes and the non-
Federal sponsor, Dry Prairie, to perform a minimal level of
administrative business for the project; no design or
construction would be performed.
Lewis & Clark Rural Water System (South Dakota, Minnesota,
Iowa).--Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the project
sponsor to perform a minimal level of administrative business
for the project; no design or construction would be performed.
Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Rural Water System (Montana).--
Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the tribe and the non-
Federal sponsor, North Central Authority, to perform a minimal
level of administrative business for the project; no design or
construction would be performed.
Jicarilla Apache Rural Water System (New Mexico).--Funding in
fiscal year 2012 continues design and construction of existing
water and wastewater facilities.
Non-Federal funding for Fort Peck and Rocky Boy's has not been
totally contributed. Non-Federal funding for Lewis & Clark will be
fully contributed in fiscal year 2011 and non-Federal funding for
Jicarilla has been totally contributed and exceeded.
bor deg.MNI WICONI
Question. The authorization for Mni Wiconi, one of the rural water
projects, sunsets in 2013. Will this project be completed by that date
based on the budget request, or will the project require an
authorization change?
Answer. It is anticipated that the Mni Wiconi Project will be
completed by the sunset date of 2013 if funding is provided at the
current budget request level.
bor deg.NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Question. Has BOR undertaken a needs assessment for the next 25
years?
Answer. BOR has multiple activities within the WaterSMART Basin
Studies Program that are in the process of assessing future needs for
water in the Western United States. The Basin Studies are 50/50 cost
shared activities with non-Federal entities to assess future water
supply and demand imbalances including the impacts of climate change.
As part of these activities future water demand will reflect changes to
water needs from population changes, irrigation, and changes to
evapotranspiration from climate change as well as any other stresses on
the system. If current or future imbalances between supply and demand
are identified, the Basin Studies will develop adaptation and
mitigation strategies including structural and non-structural
opportunities within the basin.
Through the Basin Studies Program beginning in fiscal year 2012,
BOR will offer the opportunity to conduct feasibility studies as
authorized by the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (Public Law 111-
11) of 2009 with respect to adaptation and mitigation strategies
identified through the Basin Studies or other similar appraisal level
studies including the impacts of climate change. Also within the Basin
Studies Program, BOR began the West Wide Climate Risk Assessments
(WWCRAs) in fiscal year 2010. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, BOR is
identifying changes to agricultural demands in a changing climate as
part of the WWCRAs. In future years, the WWCRAs will explore other
changes to water demands and needs by working with stakeholders within
the eight major BOR river basins identified within Public Law 111-11.
With respect to the needs of BOR's infrastructure, although a small
number of BOR offices assess and project their individual needs 10 or
more years into the future, there has been no comprehensive BOR-wide
assessment covering the next 25 years. Most of BOR's assets are not
considered ``replaceable units of property'' and, therefore, do not
have well-defined service lives, nor are there good predictive
estimates for such future needs. However, in September 2009, BOR
updated its Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) needs for a
defined 5-year timeframe related to aging infrastructure. These needs
have been broadly characterized as potential costs associated with
BOR's ``aging infrastructure''.
BOR also has planning activities underway with its rural
communities who are pursuing rural water projects at specific locations
throughout the West. These activities are undertaken pursuant to
competitive criteria developed under Public Law 109-451.
Finally, in the area of dam safety, BOR maintains an active program
to monitor existing dams and initiate corrective actions where
appropriate. This program helps ensure the safety and reliability of
BOR dams to protect the downstream public and property.
bor deg.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Question. How do you propose to address BOR's aging infrastructure
given the decreasing Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budget?
Answer. To address the requirements of aging infrastructure on
projects where BOR is directly responsible for daily O&M, BOR continues
to assess the condition of its assets and prioritizes funding to
address requirements of greatest importance, given the current budget
environment. The prioritization of requirements is based largely on a
risk-based approach, evaluating not only the significance of the
deficiency involved, but also the potential consequences should the
activity not be undertaken.
Through BOR's continued support of a past and current philosophy
and emphasis on preventive maintenance and regular condition
assessments (field inspections and reviews), many of the service lives
on BOR assets and facilities have been extended, thereby delaying the
need for significant replacements and rehabilitation efforts (including
the related funding needs). Although BOR and its beneficiaries have
benefited greatly from this preventive maintenance philosophy, BOR
recognizes that as assets and facilities age, they require an increased
amount of maintenance. Sometimes this requires more frequent preventive
maintenance, and, in other situations, significant extraordinary
maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement may be required.
BOR's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget is $40.8 million for various
projects for Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance
(RAX) activities across BOR. This compares to the fiscal year 2011
enacted budget of $45.8 million. This request is central to mission
objectives for operating and maintaining projects ensuring delivery of
water and power benefits. BOR's RAX request is part of its overall
Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments,
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment,
and strategic collaboration to continue to improve the management of
its assets and deal with its aging infrastructure challenges. This
amount represents only the fiscal year 2012 request for discretionary
appropriations. Additional RAX items are directly funded by revenues,
customers, or other Federal agencies.
bor deg.AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Public Law 111-11 provided you with authority to address
aging infrastructure. Do you plan to budget for these projects?
Answer. BOR is currently developing its policy to implement the
authority provided under Public Law 111-11 to allow extended repayment
of extraordinary (nonroutine) and emergency extraordinary maintenance
costs on project facilities. Water users are currently required by
Federal law to pay these costs, often substantial, in advance.
It is important to note that much of the operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding responsibilities for BOR's assets is the responsibility
of our project beneficiaries and those operating entities that operate
and maintain our transferred works facilities. For some operating
entities and project beneficiaries, rehabilitation and replacement
funding needs may exceed their available resources and ability to
provide the funds in advance. In particular, many smaller irrigation or
water conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year
incurred absent financing assistance. BOR expects to consider funding
such projects in the future based on the policy and funding priorities
and water user financial capability, as appropriate.
bor deg.PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
Question. Please explain how the revised Principles and Guidelines,
to be called the Principles and Requirements, will impact BOR's
construction and other programs.
Answer. The Principles and Requirements are not yet finalized and
it is anticipated that agencies will have some level of flexibility in
developing agency-specific guidance to allow for the achievement of
their specific missions and authorities. Two essential differences
between the proposed Principles and Requirements and the 1983
Principles and Guidelines will affect BOR's planning and evaluation
process.
First, under the 1983 Principles and Guidelines, agencies relied
solely on economic benefit-cost analysis to recommend a particular
alternative for implementation. When evaluating, comparing, and
recommending a specific alternative for implementation under the
proposed Principles and Requirements, agencies are to fully consider
the social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed
alternatives before selecting the one to be recommended for
implementation.
Second, the proposed Principles and Requirements may apply to a
broader scope of Federal water resource activities than the 1983
Principles and Guidelines. This means that certain BOR programs and
activities not previously subject to the 1983 Principles and Guidelines
may be subject to the Principles and Requirements.
bor deg.CLIMATE CHANGE
Question. What is BOR doing to address Climate Change in the West?
Answer. BOR is addressing the stressors of climate change through a
comprehensive set of activities, including participating in Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and Climate Science Centers (CSCs),
providing West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, and conducting research
and development of climate analysis tools through the WaterSMART Grant
and Science and Technology Programs. BOR is also supporting the
Department of the Interior's Priority Goal for Climate through these
activities to support the LCCs, conduct vulnerability assessments, and
implement adaptation actions. LCCs and CSCs are an important part of
the framework established by Secretary Salazar in Secretarial Order
3289 to address climate change by bringing science capability to
resource managers. BOR is conducting research through the Science and
Technology program, which includes collaboration with the Department of
the Interior (Department) Climate Science Centers. BOR's Science and
Technology program also established the Climate Change and Water
Working Group (C-CAWWG) in 2008 to partner with other Federal agencies
to address the needs of water managers as they manage the Nation's
water and hydropower resources under a changing climate.
Through the Basin Study Program, which includes the Basin Studies,
West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, and the LCCs, BOR is conducting
vulnerability assessments to identify the impacts of climate change to
water resources in each of the major river basins in the West, as
authorized under section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act (subtitle F of
title IX of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law
111-11, 42 U.S.C. 10364). In April 2011, BOR submitted its first report
under section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act regarding risks to future
water supplies from climate change. The report, entitled ``SECURE Water
Act Section 9503(c)--Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011'', is
available at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/ and identifies current
uncertainties regarding projections of climate change risks and
impacts, while highlighting likely significant impacts associated with
the projected rise in temperature, changes to precipitation, reduced
April 1 snowpack levels, and changes to both the timing and quantity of
streamflow throughout the Western United States. The vulnerability
assessments conducted under the Basin Study Program will contribute to
the Department's Priority Goal for Climate Change. Additionally, in
fiscal year 2011, BOR identified a number of adaptation actions (e.g.,
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, retrofitting of Hoover Dam to wide-head turbines, and Pilot Run
of the Yuma Desalting Plant) being conducted to adapt to stressors
within the Western United States, including those from climate change.
These adaptation actions will also contribute to the priority goal and
span a wide array of BOR's mission responsibilities from water supply
planning efforts, retrofitting of hydropower turbines, to the
restoration of rivers and ecosystems.
bor deg.SECURE WATER
Question. What guidance documents exist for implementing the
Cooperative Watershed Program and the SECURE Water Act?
Answer. The Cooperative Watershed Management Act, subtitle A of
title VI of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Act) of 2009
(Public Law 111-11), authorized the Department of the Interior
(Department) to provide financial assistance to establish and expand
collaborative watershed groups. The act authorizes direct financial
support for the operations of a collaborative watershed group, as well
as watershed project funding, including restoration projects. The act
calls for the Department to establish an application process for the
program and prioritization and eligibility criteria for considering
applications, in consultation with the States.
In the summer of 2010, the Department received input from the
States regarding the program processes and criteria in response to a
questionnaire. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget requests
$250,000 to implement the CWMP through a funding opportunity. The
funding opportunity announcement will describe the proposal selection
process and criteria, taking into consideration the early feedback
received from the States. BOR expects to post the draft funding
opportunity announcement in the Federal Register later this year in
order to solicit additional public comments on the proposed selection
process and criteria. The funding opportunity announcement will then be
revised, as needed, based on comments received and will be posted on
www.grants.gov before the end of 2012. The funding opportunity
announcement will be the first document describing program processes
and procedures. Additional guidance will be developed as program
implementation begins.
Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act (subtitle F of title IX of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009), authorizes BOR to assess
the risks and impacts of climate change to water resources, identify
adaptation strategies, and provide financial assistance for feasibility
studies. BOR implements section 9503 through complementary activities
within the WaterSMART Basin Study Program and Science and Technology
program. This comprehensive approach allows BOR to incorporate the
best-available science--through coordination with science agencies--
into climate change adaptation planning with stakeholders. The Basin
Study Program activities include the West-Wide Climate Risk
Assessments, the Basin Studies, and the Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. Guidance related to each of these activities is available
through program specific links on BOR's Basin Study Program Web site at
www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/basinprogram. A document entitled ``Basin Study
Program Framework'', available at the aforementioned Web site, provides
an overview of the Basin Study Program and specifically describes the
process for conducting a Basin Study. Additionally, in April 2011, BOR
submitted its first report to the Congress under section 9503 of the
SECURE Water Act, identifying the risks to future water supplies as
well as potential changes in demands and impacts on BOR's mission
responsibilities from climate change. The report, entitled ``SECURE
Water Act Section 9503(c)--Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011,''
is available at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/and provides a
comprehensive explanation of BOR's activities (including primarily the
West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments) that contributed to the report.
bor deg.BAY-DELTA INTERAGENCY PLAN
Question. Are there remaining interim Federal Bay-Delta Interagency
action plan items that are unfunded and if so, how will they be funded?
Answer. Implementation of the four elements of the Interim Federal
Action Plan (IFAP) is a multi-year process. Multiple Federal agencies
are strategically aligning resources to implement the IFAP. To date,
BOR has funded programs and projects to support those elements of the
IFAP that are within BOR's purview. Funding in the future is subject to
appropriations. Budget requests will be submitted as appropriate and
will continue to be a priority for BOR in the future. Potential funding
sources include, but may not be limited to Water and Related Resources,
California Bay-Delta Restoration, and Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund.
bor deg.TITLE XVI PROGRAM
Question. These projects are critical to providing additional water
sources to many western communities, including many communities in
California. Is there more that BOR can do to assist in these programs?
Answer. Water reuse projects are a critical aspect of water supply
sustainability in the West. By improving efficiency through reuse,
title XVI projects provide flexibility during water shortages and help
to diversify the water supply. On May 23, 2011, BOR selected eight
congressionally authorized projects to receive approximately $11.3
million in fiscal year 2011 title XVI construction funding. In
addition, recently BOR invited sponsors of potential new water
recycling projects to apply for cost-shared funding to develop new
title XVI feasibility studies. On May 9, 2011, after applying program
criteria to funding applications submitted by non-Federal sponsors, BOR
selected eight entities who will leverage $1.1 million in Federal
funding to complete $4.9 million in studies of new water reuse
projects.
Question. What is the backlog of unfunded projects?
Answer. For previously authorized title XVI projects, the remaining
authorized Federal cost-share totals approximately $595 million once
fiscal year 2011 funding has been applied. BOR is currently working to
gather information from project sponsors to determine whether any
projects have smaller costs than expected, in which case Federal cost-
share may require adjustment, and to refine estimates of each project
sponsor's construction plans over the next few years. Once additional
communications with sponsors have been completed, BOR will have an
updated estimate of the remaining Federal cost-share for authorized
projects.
Question. How many separate projects are authorized, and of these
does BOR have an opinion on the viability of the individual projects?
Answer. There are currently 53 authorized title XVI projects. We
are developing a list of authorized projects that sponsors are not
planning to pursue with new or additional construction at this time.
Question. Why don't these projects compete well within the
administration budget?
Answer. Water reuse through the title XVI program is a key aspect
of the Department's WaterSMART program. The President's fiscal year
2012 budget, which includes $29 million for such projects, points to
the crucial role of water reuse in efforts to address water supply
sustainability and represents a significant increase over funding
levels for the program in recent years.
Question. Has placing these projects under the WaterSMART Program
given them more or less visibility within the BOR budget?
Answer. By incorporating the title XVI program into WaterSMART, the
Department has been able to articulate the role of water reuse in
efforts to stretch the limited water supplies in the West. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request builds on lessons learned in other programs
such as WaterSMART Grants, including the use of funding opportunities
that incorporate prioritization criteria to identify projects that most
closely match program goals. Through the use of such funding
opportunities, project sponsors have a chance to communicate to BOR the
expected benefits of each project--how each project can be expected to
contribute to water supply sustainability, benefits to the environment
and water quality, and any contributions to increased energy efficiency
in the delivery of water, among others.
The Department's coordinated approach to addressing water supply
sustainability issues in ways that maximize the benefits of Federal
funding extends beyond title XVI and existing WaterSMART Grants. This
year as part of WaterSMART, for example, BOR and USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) worked together on an innovative
funding opportunity to leverage funding for water delivery agencies and
agricultural producers in California's Central Valley. BOR announced
its selection of five Bay-Delta Agricultural Water Conservation and
Efficiency Projects for funding, totaling $4.2 million, on May 18,
2011. The selected projects will increase district-level efficiencies
through BOR funding and also facilitate water conservation and/or water
use efficiency on farms. NRCS will provide up to an additional $5
million in funding and technical assistance to growers in the selected
districts for eligible on-farm conservation practices.
Title XVI projects, along with WaterSMART Grant projects, are also
included as part of the Department's Priority Goal for Water
Conservation, which provides additional visibility.
bor deg.SOUTH OF DELTA WATER ALLOCATIONS
Question. As you know, I and many others have been closely
following the BOR's water allocation for south-of-Delta water users in
California's Central Valley. I was pleased to learn of BOR's decision
last week to increase the allocation for farmers from 65 percent to 75
percent of their service contract. This followed two previous rounds of
increases in recent weeks. However, there remains a great deal of
frustration and consternation in California as to why BOR is unable to
provide 100 percent of the allocation given the historic level of snow
and rainfall we have experienced this year. Do you expect to increase
the allocation of water supplies to south-of-Delta users again this
year? If so, do you believe that you will ultimately be able to
announce a 100 percent allocation?
Answer. On April 8, 2011, BOR increased the allocations for the
south-of-Delta agricultural project water users from 65 percent to 75
percent, and on April 25, from 75 percent to 80 percent.
The most probable runoff forecast for this water year shows that we
will be in the upper quartile of the historical annual volumes. We are
currently analyzing the runoff forecast and are preparing our forecast
of CVP operations. Our studies should be completed later this summer
and a determination will be made about further increases to the
allocation. With the current operational constraints, it may not be
possible to achieve 100 percent allocation this contract year. Factors
affecting BOR's ability to declare a 100 percent allocation for the
south of Delta agricultural water users include the actions required by
the biological opinions to avoid jeopardizing listed species and
project operations.
BOR has been able to utilize flood flows that have reached Mendota
Pool to supplement the water supply to the extent that the flood flows
can be forecasted. We have also been able to augment the allocated
water supply with water that the districts rescheduled from contract
year 2010 and supplemental water exported from the Delta between March
1 and May 8. With these additional water supplies, the total delivery
to the south-of-Delta agricultural water users will exceed the volume
of an 80 percent allocation.
bor deg.CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Question. After nearly 20 years what is the status of the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund in addressing the goals of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act?
Answer. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Activity
Report (CPAR), dated August 25, 2009, and made public in December 2009,
provides a detailed report on the status of restoration activities. In
general the report identifies a number of activities that have been
completed under the CVPIA and remaining activities which are yet to be
completed. The fiscal year 2010 ``Annual Accomplishment Report to
Congress'' will provide an update on the status of all CVPIA program
activities and will be available to the Congress and the public before
the end of 2011.
Question. How much funding has been expended to date for these
purposes?
Answer. From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2009 the Program
has expended just more than $972 million for program implementation:
--$599.5 million--Restoration funds;
--$290.9 million--Water and related resources;
--$76.2 million--State of California cost share;
--$5.3 million--California Bay Delta Restoration; and
--$29,000--American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Question. Do you have an estimate as to when this program would be
complete?
Answer. The CVPIA fish and wildlife restoration program is
comprised of two broad types of activities: those with endpoints (e.g.,
structural fish restoration actions and fish screens); and those that
are annual ongoing (e.g., instream flow management, gravel
replenishment, scientific monitoring and wildlife refuge incremental
level 4 water acquisition and conveyance. The annual ongoing activities
are expected to occur in perpetuity and thus completion dates do not
apply. The activities with endpoints will attain completion however
those dates have not been established since their implementation is in
some cases beyond the long-range planning timeframe of the next 10
years. Therefore, no date has been set for the reduction in Restoration
Fund collections from water and power contractors since the reduction
is contingent upon completion of activities with endpoints. See the
CVPIA Program Activity Review Report (CPAR, 2009) for more information
on program performance measures and completion criteria.
Question. Is there a better way to allocate the collection of fees
among the users?
Answer. BOR is required per CVPIA section 3407(c)(2) to collect $50
million per year for the Restoration Fund (indexed to about $76 million
in current dollars). Because other CVPIA revenues have not been as high
as anticipated, BOR has been required to assess the maximum mitigation
assessment required by CVPIA. This assessment is paid by water and
power contractors and is capped at $30 million annually (indexed to
about $46 million in current dollars).
Although BOR cannot require its water contractors to pay additional
annual payments in excess of the CVPIA designated amounts of $6 and
$12, respectively, per acre-foot (October 1992 dollars) for agriculture
and municipal and industrial water users, respectively, there is no
comparable limitation on the amount paid by power contractors.
Consequently, when BOR must collect $30 million (October 1992 dollars)
in charges, it has no discretion but to collect the balance from its
CVP power contractors.
CVPIA did not authorize BOR to collect less than $50 million per
year (unless activities are completed) or to collect more from water
contractors. Through fiscal year 2009 (based on a 10-year rolling
average), power contractors have paid about 32.7 percent of all
collections into the Restoration Fund with the balance paid by water
users.
Question. Are there other ways to improve fee collections into the
fund?
Answer. These financial obligations, issues, and impacts are being
examined in detail in an ongoing comprehensive evaluation that BOR is
preparing in collaboration with Western Area Power Administration that
is addressing the following areas:
--Identification of the activities and projects that have met
prerequisites for completing the remaining requirements, and
the impact on future water and power contractor collections.
(CVPIA allows reducing collections from contractors once
activities are complete.)
--An evaluation of BOR's discretion and flexibility regarding
financial obligations and funding under the law.
--An evaluation of the CVPIA reimbursability requirements and BOR's
discretion related to repayment requirements.
--An assessment of the extent to which CVPIA's financial collection
mechanisms have resulted in anticipated Restoration Fund
revenues, along with any problematic consequences.
--An assessment of options for assessing and collecting funds for
reimbursable activities if and when the costs exceed
contractors' credits.
BOR recognizes that the financial viability of the CVP hinges on
the availability and marketability of a reliable and competitive source
of power plans to complete the above-mentioned evaluation by December
2011. BOR staff has met with representatives of the Northern California
Power Association and the Central Valley Project Water Association to
ensure their concerns are addressed as part of the evaluation. BOR is
committed to working with our stakeholders to address concerns about
CVPIA.
bor deg.CALFED
Question. As you know, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a joint
effort of Federal and State water agencies, environmental organizations
and other water users to plan and implement an environmental permitting
process that will restore habitat for Delta fisheries and insure
reliable water deliveries to 25 million Californians. The goal of the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan is to devise a 50-year plan of water system
and ecosystem improvements, and environmental law compliance through
adaptive management. It will still likely take 10 to 15 years to
complete the projects necessary to increase water deliveries south of
the Delta. Until the plan is fully implemented, I fear that farmers
will continue to struggle to receive enough water.
Can you please provide me with an update on BOR's efforts to help
develop a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan?
Answer. Federal agencies are fully engaged in developing the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The three lead agencies, Department of
the Interior, through BOR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and the Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
together with COE and the U.S. Geological Survey have significantly
enhanced Federal engagement on the BDCP. BOR has and will continue to
provide expertise throughout the BDCP process to ensure Central Valley
Project (CVP) operations and water deliveries are considered,
evaluated, and addressed. BOR will evaluate the BDCP in consideration
of CVP statutory and contractual obligations. BOR expects to pursue
section 7 consultation with NMFS and FWS for CVP operations as part of
the BDCP process.
BOR serves as a Federal co-lead agency in preparation of the BDCP
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS).
The BDCP EIR/EIS will include both programmatic and project-specific
analyses in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Preparation of the EIR/EIS has slowed since the beginning of 2011 to
allow further formulation and development of the BDCP including
identification of the BDCP proposed Project. Federal lead agencies are
coordinating with the new State administration and a revised schedule
for completion of both the BDCP and the associated EIR/EIS is currently
under development. The BDCP EIR/EIS will identify and analyze potential
environmental impacts of permitting and implementing the BDCP Proposed
Project as well as alternatives to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the
EIR/EIS schedule must track with identification of the BDCP Proposed
Project.
Question. What are the greatest challenges you (anticipate) in
completing the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and
implementing the Plan?
Answer. Challenges to complete the EIR/EIS for the BDCP include
finalizing the identification of a proposed Project for the BDCP;
gaining multi-agency support for the effects analysis methodology;
gaining agreement on an array of alternatives to be analyzed in the
EIR/EIS; determining future governance strategies; determining short-
term construction and long-term financing strategies.
Question. Are there small projects, statutory changes or
administrative actions that can be taken in the 10- to 15-year interim
period before the Plan is fully implemented that will allow for
increased water deliveries to south-of-Delta users?
Answer. Actions that could be implemented in the next 10-15 years
will be addressed in a near-term plan, which is being discussed as part
of the development of the BDCP.
bor deg.SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION
Question. As the author of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act, I have a keen interest in BOR's implementation of
various programs the legislation authorized. I know that the Settlement
is also an important priority for BOR, but the administration has never
requested the level of new appropriations in the early years needed to
ensure full implementation. Full funding benefits all parties:
--the Friant Water Users;
--the third-party landowners; and
--numerous interests seeking full restoration of the river.
When do you expect to release the San Joaquin River Restoration
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement?
Answer. BOR released the Draft Program Environmental Impact
Statement/Report (Draft PEIS/R) for the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (Restoration Program) for public review on April 22, 2011. The
60-day public comment period ended on June 21, 2011. The Draft PEIS/R
analyzes and discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of
implementing the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC, et al., v. Rodgers,
et al., (Settlement) consistent with the requirements of NEPA and the
State equivalent to NEPA-CEQA. BOR is the NEPA lead agency and the
California DWR is the CEQA lead agency for the document. BOR
anticipates completing the Final PEIS/R in early fiscal year 2012 and
signing a Record of Decision shortly thereafter.
Question. What is your plan to ensure sufficient funding to meet
the timeline for completing San Joaquin River restoration projects that
are called for in the settlement and the Programmatic EIS?
Answer. We recognize that some actions required by the Settlement
are unavoidably behind schedule. This includes certain channel and
structural improvement projects that may be beneficial for successful
reintroduction of salmon. We are initiating consultation with the
parties to the Settlement to develop a new schedule based upon the
recently released Draft PEIS/R. This new schedule will assure
implementation of the Restoration Program in a manner that addresses
the requirements of the Settlement for expeditious action while meeting
the requirements of the legislation to minimize impacts on third-party
interests. A revised funding schedule will be formulated once a new
settlement schedule has been developed. Funding for the Restoration
Program will remain a priority as we proceed with the program's
implementation. The fiscal year 2012 budget requested $9 million for
this program.
Question. The Settlement Act required BOR to establish a
``Recovered Water Account'' to allow Friant contractors to obtain
additional water for storage during wet years. I understand that BOR
has recently made a decision regarding the ``Recovered Water Account''
that may help provide some additional supplies to Central Valley
farmers this year. Can you please explain?
Answer. On October 23, 2006, the U.S. Eastern District Court of
California approved the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC et al. v.
Kirk Rogers, et al. Under paragraph 16(b), the Settlement requires BOR
to develop a Recovered Water Account to monitor and record reductions
in water deliveries occurring as a result of the Settlement and make
water available at a total cost of $10 per acre-foot to contractors who
experience a reduction in water deliveries as reflected in their
Recovered Water Account. Recovered Water Account water is to be made
available during wet hydrologic conditions, when water is not otherwise
required to meet other obligations of the Secretary of the Interior.
In 2010, the Friant Division long-term contractors did not
experience substantial reductions in water deliveries as a result of
the Settlement and thus, had relatively low balances in their Recovered
Water Accounts. Since early 2011, the San Joaquin Basin has been
experiencing wet hydrologic conditions and water is available in
Millerton Lake that is not otherwise needed to meet other obligations
of the Secretary of the Interior. In response to this condition, in
early April, BOR credited an additional 460,000 acre-feet to the Friant
Division long-term contractors Recovered Water Accounts. The 460,000
acre-feet of credits were based on a projected average water supply
impact for 2012 to 2015. The credits were allocated to Class 1 and
Class 2 contractors in proportion to anticipated impacts and contract
amounts. With the allocation of 460,000 acre-feet of credits, BOR also
made Recovered Water Account water available to each contractor
accordingly.
Consistent with the Settlement, the Recovered Water Account water
is made available at a total cost of $10 per acre-foot. This relatively
low-cost water provides a source of water for groundwater banking and
other activities that will assist the Friant Division long-term
contractors in avoiding future impacts of the Settlement. With the
allocation of 460,000 acre-feet of credits and making this Recovered
Water Account water available, BOR has worked to avoid some of the
future water supply impacts that may occur with the implementation of
the Settlement.
bor deg.LAKE POWELL/LAKE MEAD
Question. I understand that yesterday, BOR announced that it will
release an additional 3.33 million acre-feet of water from Lake Powell
to Lake Mead based on significant snowpack in the Upper Basin of the
Colorado River. Combined with previous releases totaling 8.23 million
acre-feet, that will bring the total to 11.56 million acre-feet this
year. Unfortunately though, because of the prolonged drought we have
experienced, I suspect we have a long way to go before we refill Lake
Mead. Can you tell me about how much water we will now have in Lake
Mead and how far does this get us in terms of recovering from the many
years of drought?
Answer. Glen Canyon Dam is projected to release approximately 12.46
million acre-feet (MAF) from Lake Powell to Lake Mead, which represents
an additional 4.23 MAF of water this water year (October 1-September
30) for Lake Mead. At the end of the water year BOR projects that Lake
Mead will have approximately 12.87 MAF of water in storage
(approximately 50 percent full). Projected releases from Glen Canyon
Dam are updated monthly throughout the year to reflect changing
hydrology.
In terms of drought recovery, it is challenging to quantify because
it is largely dependent on future hydrology; it is not uncommon to have
short periods of high annual runoff from the Rocky Mountains during
extended drought periods.
Due to this year's higher inflow, BOR projects the first occurrence
of shortage in the lower Colorado River Basin could be in 2015, at a 5-
percent probability. At this time last year, BOR had projected an 8-
percent chance of shortage as early as 2012.
Question. How much storage capacity remains in Lake Mead?
Answer. Discounting exclusive flood control space (approximately
1.5 MAF), Lake Mead has an available capacity of 25.877 MAF. By
December 31, 2011, BOR projects that Lake Mead will have 13.973 MAF of
water in storage, which will take up 54 percent of its available
storage capacity. At this level the remaining unused storage capacity
at Lake Mead will be 11.904 MAF (46 percent of Lake Mead's total
available capacity).
bor deg.IMPERIAL, COACHELLA, AND METROPOLITAN WATER
Question. What do these additional waters mean in terms of
deliveries to lower Colorado River users, particularly those in
California:
--the Palo Verde Irrigation District;
--Imperial Irrigation District;
--Coachella Valley Water District; and
--the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Answer. The amount of water available to be delivered to water
contractors in the Lower Basin, including California contractors, is
dependent on the condition determined for the operation of Lake Mead
under the 2007 Record of Decision for Colorado River Interim Guidelines
for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake
Powell and Lake Mead (Interim Guidelines). The operating condition is
determined based on reservoir elevations projected for January 1 of the
upcoming year. In 2011, the Secretary has determined that the operating
condition is Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS). This determination
will not change due to the increased flow into Lake Mead. Current
projections for 2012 and 2013 indicate that the most probable operating
condition will once again be in the Normal--ICS Surplus range, with up
to a 30 percent chance of a Surplus Condition in 2013.
The Secretary has the discretion to declare either a Normal or
Surplus Condition when Lake Mead elevations are between 1,075 feet mean
sea level (MSL) and 1,145 feet MSL. During a Normal Condition, water
contractors are allowed to take delivery of their full entitlement. In
an ICS Surplus Condition, water contractors may take delivery of their
full entitlement plus delivery of Intentionally Created Surplus water,
up to the limits allowed under the Interim Guidelines. If over the next
few years the elevation of Lake Mead were to increase above 1,145 feet
MSL, this would trigger a Surplus Condition. Those contractors with a
surplus entitlement would be allowed to take delivery of their surplus
entitlement up to limits established in the Interim Guidelines in
addition to a full entitlement.
bor deg.QUAGGA MUSSEL
Question. In January 2007, quagga mussels were detected in Lakes
Mead and Mohave within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Since
then, Federal, State, and local agencies have been working to prevent
the spread of this environmentally and economically damaging non-native
aquatic invasive species. Despite their best efforts, quagga mussels
continue to impact water users along the Colorado River system--
clogging filters, pipes, and pumps. Most traditional methods of control
are not compatible with drinking water and environmental regulations.
Given that 25 million people down river rely on the Colorado River as a
key element of their water supply, resolving, or at least managing the
quagga problem may be a priority for BOR. Can you please explain what
BOR has done to address the problem and what does it propose to do in
the future?
Answer. As a high-priority component of BOR's Science & Technology
(S&T) Program since 2008, BOR has focused invasive mussel research
activities on improving early detection methods; identifying,
developing, demonstrating, and implementing facilities protection
technologies and strategies; and assessing ecological impacts.
Researchers are engaged in a number of mussel-related activities
including monitoring of more than 350 water bodies throughout the
Western United States for the presence of mussels, coatings testing to
prevent or reduce settlement on critical infrastructure, development of
a promising treatment product called ZequanoxTM (based on
the common bacteria Psuedomonas florescens), and field evaluation of
filtration and UV treatment technologies to exclude mussels from raw
water systems. The potential of several other technologies is also
being explored for removal or settlement prevention on intake
structures and within pipelines including elevated pH control
strategies; pulsed pressure devices; turbulence generating devices;
carbon dioxide injection; dissolved oxygen reduction; potential for the
use of certain registered herbicides; retrofit of trashrack raking
systems; fish predation; and alternative fish screening technologies.
Many of these activities involve collaboration with other Federal and
State agencies, BOR's managing partners, and private industry and are
expected to evolve as future research needs and new technologies are
identified. BOR is also continuing to assess the long-term ecological
impacts related to mussel infestations in western water bodies.
BOR has also developed an Equipment Inspection and Cleaning Manual
in cooperation with COE. This manual provides recommendations for
inspection and cleaning of vehicles and equipment as a prevention tool
to limit the spread of mussels and other invasive species carried to
new sites by contaminated equipment. Since release of this manual, many
other agencies and organizations have adopted its mussel prevention
protocols. BOR also hosted the 17th International Conference on Aquatic
Invasive Species in San Diego last year to help attract attention of
the global scientific community to the importance of these mussels in
the western watersheds of the United States.
Question. How much has BOR spent to address the quagga mussel
problem?
Answer. It is estimated that BOR will have spent more than $12.5
million through fiscal year 2010 and includes appropriations, power
revenues and other funding from customers.
Question. What are those funds being used for?
Answer. Since 2008, BOR funding has supported mussel-related
activities including prevention, early detection and rapid response,
control and management, research and development, and education and
outreach.
Question. How has the quagga mussel impacted water quality and
habitat in the Colorado River both above and below Lake Mead?
Answer. Quagga mussels appear to be impacting water quality and
habitat in the Colorado River above and below Lake Mead. Water clarity
is increasing and, as a result, the production of aquatic weeds is
increasing and becoming a problem at pumping plants intakes. The extent
to which this change is caused by mussels versus other factors has not
been quantified. Quagga mussels are also expected to affect nutrient
dynamics and therefore have a detrimental impact on fisheries. BOR is
continuing to assess the long-term ecological impacts related to mussel
infestations including changes in water quality, interactions with
other benthic organisms, and the potential for cyanobacteria-producing
toxins in western water bodies.
Question. What else could we do to address the problem, to protect
habitat and wildlife, and to preserve water and irrigation district
infrastructure?
Answer. BOR continues to address evolving issues through
monitoring, research, outreach, and education activities. Further
knowledge is continually being gained through research that improves
our understanding of mussel-related ecological and infrastructure
impacts in the West and supports our strategies to mitigate impacts to
water and hydropower facilities. Prevention of mussel movement to new
water bodies is a very important activity, but it falls primarily to
agencies that manage recreation at lakes and reservoirs and have
authority to control the movement of watercraft and invasive species.
As a high-priority component of BOR's S&T program since 2008, BOR
has focused invasive mussel research activities on improving early
detection methods; identifying, developing, demonstrating, and
implementing facilities protection technologies and strategies; and
assessing ecological impacts. Researchers are engaged in a number of
mussel-related activities including monitoring of more than 350 water
bodies throughout the Western United States for the presence of
mussels, coatings testing to prevent or reduce settlement on critical
infrastructure, development of a promising treatment product called
ZequanoxTM (based on the common bacteria Psuedomonas
florescens), and field evaluation of filtration and UV treatment
technologies to exclude mussels from raw water systems. The potential
of several other technologies is also being explored for removal or
settlement prevention on intake structures and within pipelines
including elevated pH control strategies; pulsed pressure devices;
turbulence generating devices; carbon dioxide injection; dissolved
oxygen reduction; potential for the use of certain registered
herbicides; retrofit of trashrack raking systems; fish predation; and
alternative fish screening technologies. Many of these activities
involve collaboration with other Federal and State agencies, BOR's
managing partners, and private industry and are expected to evolve as
future research needs and new technologies are identified. BOR is also
continuing to assess the long-term ecological impacts related to mussel
infestations in western water bodies.
BOR has also developed an Equipment Inspection and Cleaning Manual
in cooperation with COE. This manual provides recommendations for
inspection and cleaning of vehicles and equipment as a prevention tool
to limit the spread of mussels and other invasive species carried to
new sites by contaminated equipment. Since release of this manual, many
other agencies and organizations have adopted its mussel prevention
protocols. BOR also hosted the 17th International Conference on Aquatic
Invasive Species in San Diego last year to help attract attention of
the global scientific community to the importance of these mussels in
the western watersheds of the United States.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
bor deg.ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY
Question. Commissioner Connor, as you know I have worked closely
with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) over several years on the Odessa
Subarea Special Study to look at surface options for irrigation to
reduce the impact to the aquifer. Clearly, agriculture is vital to
Washington State's economy and the Central Washington area is a huge
part of the industry. We are so close to finishing the Study to
determine the best path forward, but I am hearing that the BOR doesn't
plan to fund the remainder. Can you please tell me your plan to ensure
the completion of the study?
Answer. BOR recognizes the importance and understands the
significance of the Columbia Basin water issues, and specifically the
Odessa Subarea Special Study (Study). In this regard, BOR has partnered
with the State of Washington (State) to investigate the possibility of
continued development of the Columbia Basin Project to deliver project
surface water to replace the current ground water use in the Odessa
Subarea. The Study is near completion; however, faced with considerable
competing demands for aging infrastructure, satisfying Endangered
Species Act regulatory requirements on operating projects, and other
high-priority water issues throughout the 17 Western States, it was not
possible for BOR to provide funding for the study in the fiscal year
2012 President's budget. BOR will continue to work with the State to
bring the Study to completion as soon as possible. BOR and State of
Washington Department of Ecology have jointly prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) to meet the National Environmental
Policy Act and State Environmental Policy Act requirements. The draft
EIS was released to the public from October 26, 2010 through January
31, 2011, with more than 210 comment letters received. The final EIS is
anticipated to be completed by late 2011.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
bor deg.RURAL WATER
Question. Given increases in prices over time and the necessary
noncontract and overhead costs associated with construction projects,
it follows that the longer a project takes to complete, the more
expensive it will be. Has the extension of the completion of Bureau of
Reclamation's (BOR) Rural Water Supply Projects increased overhead
costs at the expense of construction?
Answer. Yes. As annual appropriations are less than what is
necessary to support full project construction, we believe some Rural
Water Supply Projects are incurring increased overhead costs at the
expense of construction.
Question. If so, by how much?
Answer. BOR does not have any way of quantifying such an increase
and does not have specific data to determine the actual extent to which
increased overhead may impact the total cost of completing projects.
Question. How does BOR propose to restore the funds which had to be
used to cover overhead costs so that construction can be completed?
Answer. Historically, cost indexing authorized for each of the
current rural water projects has kept pace with inflation, and coupled
with a favorable construction climate, projects appear to be
progressing within original cost estimates. The funds requested by BOR
for rural water construction are formulated to account for projected
construction capabilities and other mission critical work.
______
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. So thank you for taking it all with good
humor. Thank you very much.
And the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., Wednesday, April 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:21 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ANNE HARRINGTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION
ADMIRAL KIRKLAND DONALD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR NAVAL
REACTORS
DR. DONALD COOK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee's
oversight hearing on the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) fiscal year 2012 budget request.
NNSA has requested $11.8 billion for fiscal year 2012. It
is an increase of $1.1 billion, or 10.2 percent, more than the
fiscal year 2011 level. I think in a sense, they are an
endangered species because they are probably the only one,
Senator Alexander, that is going to get this kind of a raise. I
noted all of the smiles on their faces when they came into the
room. This is, in fact, the largest increase to NNSA since it
was established 11 years ago.
This increase also follows another record-breaking increase
of $813 million, or 8.2 percent, in fiscal year 2011. Based on
the 2012 budget request, NNSA's budget would grow by about $2
billion over 2 years.
The budget increase presents a number of opportunities
including:
--accelerating efforts to secure all vulnerable nuclear
materials by the end of fiscal year 2013 to reduce the
threat of nuclear terrorism;
--extending the life of nuclear weapons currently in the
stockpile;
--replacing or upgrading aging infrastructure needed to
ensure the safety, security, or reliability of nuclear
weapons; and
--designing nuclear reactors that will operate for 40 years
without refueling for Ohio Class ballistic missile
submarines.
Now, with these opportunities also come some challenges.
Regarding nonproliferation, the goal announced in April 2009 to
secure all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years has
accelerated nuclear security efforts.
I would like to highlight a few recent achievements over
the last 2 years. NNSA has removed 960 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium, enough nuclear material for 38 nuclear
weapons. NNSA has removed all highly enriched uranium from six
countries. One of these countries was Libya. Given the recent
unrest in Libya, the presence of this dangerous nuclear
material in an unstable part of the world would have increased
the risk of nuclear terrorism. Removing highly enriched uranium
from six countries in 2 years is much faster than one country a
year that NNSA has averaged in the last 13 years. NNSA has also
completed security upgrades at 32 buildings in Russia
containing weapons usable materials.
Now, despite this progress, stockpiles of nuclear weapon
materials around the world are still vulnerable to theft. In
particular, all of the publicly known cases of theft of weapons
usable nuclear material were perpetrated by insiders.
Corruption and insider threats are endemic in many parts of the
world, including Russia. That places unsecured weapons usable
nuclear weapons in great jeopardy.
I would like to discuss how NNSA has addressed this threat
for a moment. Regarding nuclear weapons activities, I am
concerned about your ability to develop reliable costs and
schedule estimates for complex nuclear infrastructure projects.
You plan to build three new facilities that will each exceed $3
billion in costs, and in some cases may exceed $6 billion--the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at Los Alamos, the
uranium processing facility at Y-12, and the pit disassembly
and conversion facility at Savannah River. NNSA plans to spend
$682 million on these three projects alone in fiscal year 2012,
and will reach a peak of $1.1 billion by fiscal year 2014. New
cost estimates for these facilities are three times more than
the original estimates. So, we need to discuss this.
NNSA has a long history of underestimating budget needs and
increasing cost projections because of design schedule, design
changes, and schedule delays. If the costs for these facilities
increase further, I am concerned that it could harm higher-
priority missions, such as life-extension programs and
increased weapon surveillance. NNSA must demonstrate to the
Congress that it can effectively manage these complex projects
and complete them on time and on budget.
Modernizing our infrastructure on time and on budget,
however, is not enough. NNSA must clearly demonstrate how this
new infrastructure will not only enhance the safety, security,
and reliability of our nuclear weapons, but also help reduce
the size of the stockpile.
The new START Treaty was a step in the right direction by
reducing the size of our actively deployed nuclear weapons to
1,550. However, we still maintain 5,100 nuclear weapons. A
major justification for investing in new infrastructure is to
reduce the hedge; that is, the weapons we hold in reserve in
case an unforeseen problem occurs with their reliability and
performance.
NNSA must do a better job explaining how these multi-
billion dollar facilities and major investments in experimental
facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility, will help
us draw down the stockpile further.
As you know, Mr. D'Agostino, this is important to me. You
are asking for a lot of money, so the performance has to be
there to back up this additional money in reduction of nuclear
weapons.
Joining us today to explore these important national
security issues is Thomas P. D'Agostino, the Administrator of
the National Nuclear Security Administration. Senator
Alexander, I want you to know I have the highest respect for
him. We had substantial classified briefings on the prior
effort on the Reliable replacement Warhead program and, before
that, on the proposal for increased nuclear weapons, plutonium
pits, advanced weapons concepts, and on and on. He has always
been an absolute straight shooter, and I really, really prize
that. So, I know what you say is the truth, and I very much
appreciate that.
Joining Mr. D'Agostino is Dr. Donald Cook, the Deputy
Administrator for Weapons Activities; Anne Harrington, the
Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Nonproliferation; and Admiral
Kirkland Donald, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors. So,
thank you all for taking time to be here today, and let me turn
to Senator Alexander for his comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. As always,
it is good to work with you and to see you. And thank you for
our very accomplished witnesses for being here. I look forward
to your testimony.
I have three or four points I would like to make.
Number one, if Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran were
here, I would say--and if they come I will say--that most of
NNSA's responsibility are in support of the U.S. military, and
this appropriation ought to be treated in part like Defense
spending. And that will become increasingly important as we
make budgets over the next several years because when we have a
Government that is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7
trillion, we have a lot of tough decisions to make. And we
have, as the Senator said--the Chair said--we have a
significant increase in a--in nuclear modernization, for
example. We agreed on that. The President agreed with that in
connection with the vote of the new START Treaty, which I
supported. I think it was a wise treaty. But at the same time,
we do not want our nuclear weapons to begin to resemble a
collection of wet matches, and they will not, given the plan
that is laid out here.
So, that is my first point, Madam Chairman, that I think as
we talk with Senators Inouye and Cochran, that when allocations
are made, that this spending should be defense spending and not
be competing with National Labs, other environmental clean-up,
et cetera.
Number two, I would like to follow up on Senator
Feinstein's point about management of projects. Probably the
area where we in the Senate have not done as well as we should
have is in the area of oversight. That really is a true
function of the Congress, especially of the appropriations
subcommittees. I mean, it is our job really to understand
issues. We work hard on that, but we get pulled in many
different ways and do not have a chance to do that as much as
we should.
And that should be particularly true with the Department of
Energy (DOE) and with this part of DOE because it is just full
of multi-billion dollar projects. I just left a meeting with
Secretary Chu. We were talking about environmental management
projects, which are a different part of DOE. But there, he has
got massive projects, and when we are spending too much, there
are difficult decisions. We have got to clean up radiation. We
have got to clean up mercury. But if we can save $1 billion
here or $1 billion there, that money can go to National
Laboratories. It can go to research for energy. It can go to
environmental clean-up. It can go to a whole variety of areas.
So, I hope that I can support the chairman and that we can
vigorously assist you in taking a fresh look at project
management as we go through this period of reduced spending. In
fact, we are going to have to if we are going to have the money
to do what we need to do.
Third, I have a list of about $20 billion of your major
NNSA projects. And it would be nice to talk about ways to
figure out what is it really going to cost, and then can it
stay that way? I remember while I was running for Governor, a
group in Knoxville wanted a road built. And I asked the
chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, well, how do you propose I
do that if I am elected? He said, well, I would get the best
possible person to run it, to agree on a plan and meet with him
once a month, and see if you are following the plan. Well, I
was elected. I got that person to come be the transportation
commissioner. We met once a month. The road got built. So,
maybe we need to make sure that we get designs that we agree
with, cost amounts that we agree on, and have monthly report
sessions to make sure that we are on schedule or not on
schedule. Maybe we can be of assistance in that way.
Fourth, that leads me to some questions I will be asking
during my question time about whether it is a good idea, Mr.
D'Agostino, to spend time consolidating a contract at Oak Ridge
and Pantex, or Y-12 and Pantex, whether you could really save
more money and more of your management energy doing that and
causing the contractor to work on that, or whether you would be
better off working on all these big projects I was just talking
about. So, we will get into that.
Finally, I am delighted to see--delighted to talk a little
bit about naval reactors. It has always puzzled me, Senator
Feinstein, about why we seem to do so well with the naval
reactors and we cannot build a nuclear power plant in the
United States. In fact, one of my proposals, and I was only
partly in jest, that the way to have clean electricity in the
United States, the largest amount of it, is just to build seven
nuclear-powered destroyers and plug them in around the country
where the population centers are, and have, you know, add
15,000 or 20,000 megawatts of clean electricity. We could
probably get that done in a short period of time. We are able
to--I mean, both have been safe. We have never had a fatality
either in connection with a naval reactor or with a civilian
reactor. But I think we have a lot to learn from naval reactors
that we might transfer to our civilian reactor program. So, I
will look forward, Admiral, to talking about that and what you
think we might learn from that as well as supporting your
efforts.
So, Madam Chair, this is--and ought to be--a fascinating
hearing. I look forward to the testimony and thank you for your
time.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator, and I look
forward to working with you. We did so on Interior, and we will
do so on this subcommittee as well.
Let me turn to you now, Mr. D'Agostino. Will you be making
the comments for everybody at the table?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Alexander, thank you for the opportunity to address this
subcommittee today. But more importantly, thank you for your
continued support of the NNSA and the 35,000 men and women
working across our enterprise to keep our country safe, protect
our allies, and enhance global security. We could not do this
work without strong bipartisan support and engaged leadership
from the Congress.
As I come before you today, the capability NNSA offers to
the Nation, and indeed the world, are on display in real time.
Just last week, I had the opportunity to travel to Nevada to
visit the Remote Sensing Laboratory. For 7 weeks, the talented
and dedicated men and women at the Remote Sensing Laboratory
had been working with their colleagues from across the
enterprise to support the response to the devastating
earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011.
They had been providing critical information to our interagency
colleagues and to our partners in Japan. Of course, our
thoughts and prayers are with the Japanese people during this
very difficult time, but I was honored to have the opportunity
to thank our men and women personally and directly last week
for their outstanding work.
Our ability to respond to this crisis is the latest example
of the vital and diverse role we play in implementing the
President's nuclear security agenda and of the need to invest
in the future of our enterprise. This budget request seeks the
funds required to make these investments.
As I see it, the budget request can be broken down into
three key themes. First, we're investing in the future.
President Obama has requested $7.6 billion for our weapons
activities account to support our effort to leverage the best
science and technology in the world to maintain our nuclear
deterrent. This will enable us to enhance our surveillance of
the stockpile, continue to design modern facilities that we
need to maintain our Nation's expertise in uranium and
plutonium processing and research, and proceed with key life
extension programs for our weapon systems.
A critical part of that is the life extension program for
the W78 warhead. Consistent with the policies in the
President's Nuclear Posture Review, we have submitted a request
to this subcommittee and the House Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee to begin studying the requirements for the W78
life extension, including the option for interoperability of
the nuclear explosive package with the Navy's W88 warhead. I
strongly encourage this subcommittee to approve this request.
Investing in a modern enterprise is critical to our
stewardship program, but it also supports the full range of
NNSA's nuclear security missions, which brings me to the second
key theme that this budget request shows, and that is
implementing the President's nuclear security agenda. As
President Obama has said in his speech in Prague in April 2009,
the threat of a terrorist acquiring and using a nuclear weapon
is the most immediate and extreme threat we face. Preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons and keeping dangerous materials
out of the hands of terrorists is a vital national security
priority.
To address that threat, we are requesting $2.5 billion in
2012 and more than $14.2 billion over the next 5 years for our
nuclear nonproliferation programs. This will provide the
resources required to meet the commitment secured during the
2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
To power the nuclear Navy, President Obama has requested
$1.1 billion for NNSA's naval reactors program. This will allow
us to continue the design work on the propulsion unit for the
Ohio Class Replacement Submarine in order to meet the Navy's
required procurement date of 2019. It includes critical
investments in a modern and sustainable spent fuel, spent
nuclear fuel infrastructure at the naval reactor site in Idaho
National Laboratory. And finally it seeks the resources to
refuel the land based prototype in upstate New York.
Madam Chairwoman, I realize that this subcommittee has many
competing requirements and that this request comes at a time of
acute financial stress for our entire country. But I believe
nothing is more important than ensuring our Nation's security.
It is my responsibility to assure you that we can manage these
increases wisely.
That brings me to the third key theme outlined in this
budget request, and that is our commitment to improve the way
we do business and manage our resources.
For us, improving our project management is part of the
implementing, achieving our mission, and implementing the
President's nuclear security agenda. To better ensure that we
bring these major projects to completion on time and on budget,
we will ensure that we have qualified project managers leading
our major projects. We will set costs and schedule baselines on
construction projects when design work is 90 percent complete,
and we will subject these estimates to rigorous independent
reviews.
We are partnering with our Management and Operations (M&O)
partners to streamline our governance model to devote more
resources to critical mission work while maximizing safety and
security at our sites. We are making sure that we have the
right contracting strategy in place. We are continuing to find
innovative ways to save money across the enterprise. For
example, since 2007, our Supply Chain Management Center has
used new technologies and pool purchasing power to drive
efficiencies across our sites. The result has been more than
$213 million in auditable cost savings.
PREPARED STATEMENT
All of this is part of our effort to create one NNSA, a
true partnership between all of our programs and all of our
partners to fulfill a common mission. Taken together, these
steps will ensure that we have a modern, 21st century nuclear
security enterprise that is safer, more secure, more efficient,
and organized to succeed. That is the vision outlined in this
budget request. It supports the full range of NNSA missions,
and, more importantly, it represents a critical investment in
the infrastructure, the people, the science, technology, and
engineering required to fulfill our missions. I look forward to
working with the members of this subcommittee to help make that
vision a reality.
With that, we would be happy to take any questions you may
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas P. D'Agostino
Thank you for the opportunity to present the fiscal year 2012
President's budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This budget request will allow the NNSA to meet
its commitments to the American people and our international partners
to provide for nuclear deterrence, to reduce nuclear dangers around the
world, and to provide the capabilities to address the broader national
security challenges of the 21st century.
The vision of NNSA is to make the world a safer place. NNSA's
mission is to enhance global security through nuclear deterrence,
nonproliferation, counterterrorism, naval nuclear propulsion, and to
support national leadership in science and technology.
Recognizing the economic challenges facing our Nation and the
budget pressures being felt throughout the Federal Government, the
President demonstrates through this fiscal year 2012 budget request his
strong commitment to the nuclear security of our country and our allies
by proposing an unprecedented investment in NNSA's mission. This
investment is a commitment to recapitalize the nuclear security
enterprise and do it in a way that makes sense.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request provides $11.78
billion to invest in a modern, 21st century nuclear security
enterprise, implement the President's nuclear security agenda, and
improve the way the NNSA does business and manages its resources.
The fiscal year 2012 request represents an increase of 5.1 percent
more than the $11.2 billion requested for fiscal year 2011, reflecting
a commitment to investing in a modern enterprise that can support the
full range of nuclear security missions. The request highlights the
vital role NNSA plays in implementing the President's nuclear security
agenda and the broad, bipartisan consensus that has developed over the
last 2 years regarding the role NNSA plays in enhancing our Nation's
security and the resources needed to get the job done.
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
Secretary of Energy Chu and I work closely with Secretary of
Defense Gates and other Defense Department (DOD) officials to ensure
that NNSA remains focused on a strong interagency partnership that
meets our national security requirements and promotes NNSA's
sustainability. As a result, the President's request includes $7.6
billion for the weapons activities appropriation, an 8.9 percent
increase more than the President's fiscal year 2011 request and a 19.5
percent increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation to invest in
the future of the nuclear security enterprise. These resources will
support, among other things, the operation and construction of the
modern research facilities needed to do cutting-edge science and
attract the next generation of nuclear security experts. It continues
implementation of the President's commitment to invest $85 billion over
the next decade to sustain the nuclear deterrent and to modernize the
infrastructure that supports it, as well as to implement the agenda
outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review, the Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Plan and the updated section 1251 report submitted to the
Congress.
NNSA's budget request also includes associated out-year projections
in the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) that identifies
resources needed to meet the continuing requirements for significant
long-term investments in the deliverables, capabilities and
infrastructure of the enterprise.
These resources will help us invest in a modern, 21st century
Nuclear Security Enterprise that can sustain the stockpile and support
our full range of nuclear security missions. With these investments,
NNSA will be able to continue to move toward an enterprise that is
safer, smaller, more secure, more efficient, more sustainable, and more
adaptable.
The request includes an increase of 3.1 percent more than the
fiscal year 2011 level to protect and advance the scientific
capabilities at the U.S. national security laboratories and a 21
percent increase for infrastructure improvements, including continuing
work on the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security
Complex and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility
(CMRR) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These capital projects are
key for ensuring safe, secure, and reliable uranium and plutonium
capabilities for nuclear security and other important missions.
To power the nuclear navy, the budget request includes $1.2 billion
for the NNSA's Naval Reactors program, an increase of 7.8 percent more
than the fiscal year 2011 President's request. The programs in this
appropriation support the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet. Specifically, the
request supports the administration's decision to recapitalize the sea-
based strategic deterrent. The Ohio Class ballistic submarines, the
most survivable leg of the Nation's strategic deterrent, are reaching
the end of their operational life. The request will enable Naval
Reactors to continue reactor plant design and development efforts begun
in 2010 for procurement of long-lead reactor plant components in 2017,
in support of Navy procurement of the first Ohio Class submarine
replacement in 2019. Providing the Ohio Class replacement a life-of-
the-ship reactor core will require substantial advances in
manufacturing technology to provide a new cladding and a new fuel
system. The request also supports the refueling of a land based
prototype reactor, providing a cost-effective test platform for these
new technologies.
Increased funding is also requested for the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project, which will replace the more than 50-year old
Expended Core Facility as the location for naval spent nuclear fuel
receipt, inspection, dissection, packaging, and secure dry storage.
Fiscal year 2012 funding continues the conceptual design for the
facility, equipment, and related systems, as well as continues meeting
the National Environmental Policy Act's requirements and project
oversight (e.g., engineering procurement and construction management).
Detailed project engineering and design work will commence in fiscal
year 2013 and construction will commence in fiscal year 2015.
These vital projects will replace facilities that date back to the
dawn of the cold war with modern facilities that can support the full
range of nuclear security missions--including maintaining the nuclear
deterrent, preventing proliferation, securing vulnerable nuclear
material, powering the nuclear Navy and providing the Nation with the
best emergency response and counterterrorism capabilities possible.
They will also ensure that NNSA can continue to work with the
Department of Defense and other interagency partners to keep the Nation
safe.
IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S NUCLEAR SECURITY AGENDA
The fiscal year 2012 budget request also provides the resources
required to continue to work toward the President's commitment to
secure vulnerable nuclear material around the world within 4 years, a
key national security goal. The budget request includes $2.5 billion
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in fiscal year 2012 and $14.2
billion over the next 5 years to reduce the global nuclear threat by
detecting, securing, safeguarding, disposing and controlling nuclear
and radiological material worldwide, as well as promoting the
responsible application of nuclear technology and science.
This request reflects the significant accomplishments of NNSA's
nuclear nonproliferation programs in the past year, and seeks the
resources needed to complete the President's goals. This budget request
provides the resources required to meet commitments secured from
international partners during the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit to
remove all remaining highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Belarus,
Ukraine, Mexico, and other countries by April 2012 and to work with the
Defense Department to improve international nuclear security
cooperation.
The request of $2.5 billion is a decrease of 5.1 percent from the
fiscal year 2011 President's request, but an increase of 19.6 percent
more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This 5.1 percent or $138
million decline flows logically from the fiscal year 2011 request which
was ``front loaded'' to accelerate the effort to secure vulnerable
nuclear materials within the President's stated timeframe. Even with
this decrease, the NNSA's budget request remains consistent with our
overall strategy to ensure that programs supporting the President's
commitment to lead an international effort to secure all vulnerable
nuclear materials around the world in 4 years are fully funded in the
request. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative efforts related to
radiological material, as well as the International Nuclear Material
Protection and Cooperation program's activities to enhance the ability
of our foreign partners to detect nuclear smuggling at border crossings
and in megaports have been prioritized to accommodate accelerated
nuclear material lockdown efforts. The decrease in the request for
Fissile Materials Disposition reflects the completion of long-lead
procurements for the MOX and Waste Solidification projects,
as well as the decision to wait to request additional funds associated
with the $400 million United States pledge for the Russian program
until agreement is reached on milestones for the program.
IMPROVING THE WAY NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DOES
BUSINESS
Consistent with the President's commitment to deliver on critical
national nuclear security missions at the best value to the American
taxpayer, the fiscal year 2012 budget request will enable NNSA to
continue to improve the way it does business and manages resources. The
President's budget request for Federal oversight and staff included in
the Office of the Administrator appropriation is $450.1 million, an
increase of 0.4 percent more than the fiscal year 2011 request and an
increase of 7 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
NNSA recognizes that the fiscal year 2012 budgetary investments
come at time of severe economic challenge for our country and a renewed
commitment to reduce the deficit. To maintain bipartisan support for
the NNSA programs, the enterprise has a responsibility to work together
as ``One NNSA'', a fully integrated enterprise that operates
efficiently, is organized to succeed, that performs its work
seamlessly, and speaks with one voice. This ``One NNSA'' needs to be a
true partnership among Headquarters, the Site Offices and our
Management and Operations (M&O) partners.
Changing the way NNSA does business is an important part of the
effort to transform a cold war nuclear weapons complex into a 21st
Century Nuclear Security Enterprise. NNSA simply cannot expect the
Congress to support major investments in its programs and its
facilities unless the enterprise can demonstrate that the Department of
Energy is a responsible steward of the taxpayer's money.
NNSA needs to do better, which is why the Federal sector leadership
is working with its M&O partners to streamline the enterprise
governance model in order to devote more resources to critical mission
work and maximize NNSA's ability to complete its mission safely and
securely.
NNSA is making sure that it has the right contracting strategy in
place. The agency is improving its project management by, for example,
ensuring that NNSA no longer sets cost and schedule performance
baselines on construction projects until design work is 90 percent
complete, ensuring it has the right leadership teams in place, and
performing independent cost reviews. NNSA has also created a new policy
and oversight office for managing major projects. The new office
reports directly to the Administrator. This will help ensure that
project management gets the high-level focus it requires.
We are already beginning to see results. NNSA is increasingly
recognized for its efforts to be an effective steward of tax dollars.
For example, since 2007, NNSA's Supply Chain Management Center has
saved $213 million by using pooled purchasing power to drive
efficiencies across the enterprise. In the last year NNSA's Kansas City
Plant won the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige Award, America's highest
honor for innovation and performance excellence. Two other NNSA
programs were recognized with Project Management Institute (PMI)
awards. In 2010, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative became the
first Federal project to receive PMI's Distinguished Project Award,
while the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory received PMI's project of the year.
CONCLUSION
The Nation has carefully evaluated its security needs in an
international landscape that remains challenging and uncertain. NNSA
has charted a path forward that shows our unwavering commitment to the
Nation's security and enhances our formidable capabilities to address
broader security challenges.
The NNSA is a technically based organization with a strong nuclear
heritage that serves as the base for our contribution to a wide range
of national security solutions. NNSA is rooted in the management of our
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the application of nuclear
energy for naval propulsion. Additionally, NNSA capabilities support a
broad range of U.S. and international activities that address existing
dangers, identify and prepare for future challenges, and advise the
U.S. Government and our international partners on nuclear security
matters.
This budget request takes the NNSA into the next decade and
strengthens the capabilities that are themselves integral elements of
our nuclear deterrent. The challenge is to retain the capabilities that
continue to be essential, and to identify and develop those needed for
the future.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Data provided by DOE and your entity shows that there are
more full-time equivalent (FTE) staff working at the three
nuclear weapons labs--Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia--than
at the height of the cold war. In 1987, there were 12,160 FTEs
when the United States had 23,575 nuclear weapons. In 2009, the
labs had 13,977 FTEs when the United States had one-third the
number of nuclear weapons, namely 5,113.
So, you have had 15 percent more FTEs to maintain a nuclear
stockpile that is 78 percent smaller. Could you please tell us
why?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am. I think it's due to a couple of
reasons, and I--if it is possible, I would like for my
colleagues to also answer--follow on with me behind me.
I think one of the main reasons is we have an inherently
different program now than we had during the height of the cold
war. During the height of the cold war, we were in the process
of constantly cycling and training and designing, develop,
test, deploy, and take out systems, so there was a constant
flow in production. And that type of a process allows a very
efficient design through production through finishing off a
life-cycle process, if you will, in our weapon systems. And we
are obviously doing underground nuclear tests.
Now, we are relying on science a lot more, if you will, to
ensure that we can take care of these--the stockpile without
underground testing. That is a completely new era that we have
had to, in fact, invent, if you will, with our laboratories to
develop the tools, deploy the tools. Tools in this case I am
talking about are computers, are large, experimental
facilities, like the dual access radiographic hydro test
facility at Los Alamos, the National Ignition Facility at
Lawrence Livermore, the Z machine at Sandia--develop these
tools in order to do a lot more subcritical experiments and
basic science and material experiments and use the codes to do
this. And this requires a tremendous amount more, in my view,
of scientists and engineers in order to achieve that
capability.
So, the job, I think, in many respects is a harder job, and
is not directly attributable one-to-one to the size and number
of the stockpiles.
I think the second major reason is we have, in my view,
particularly as we look at the data, an increase in the
recognition of how these laboratories contribute to a much
broader range of national security and nuclear security work
than they did 20, 30 years ago. We are obviously--in many
cases, our response, the DOE's response, to the Macondo oil
spill--the BP oil spill is what it has been called--much of
that technology came from three national security laboratories
themselves. I would ask Don to add.
Dr. Cook. I think it is a good question. Madam Chairman, if
I could add to what the administrator has said, I would
emphasize that we do have a broader range of work for multiple
agencies. The national weapons labs especially are very
important capabilities. They are accessed routinely these days
by the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Director
of National Intelligence, in addition to DOE.
With regard to the stockpile, it is true that we have the
oldest stockpile we have ever had.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that is going to continue.
Dr. Cook. Yes. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I mean you are just going to build the
stockpile.
Dr. Cook. I think that is a clear statement. It is going to
continue. It is also currently the smallest stockpile we have
had since the days of the Eisenhower administration. The fact
that it is the oldest and smallest means now that as we go
forward, while we may continue to reduce warhead numbers, we
must modernize, at the same time, the deterrent warheads and
the infrastructure. And those are key contributors to the size
of the workforce that we have.
Senator Feinstein. Just as an aside to my colleague, you
know when I was mayor of San Francisco--it has been that long
ago--we computerized the city. I had the computer companies in
and talked to them because it was a big contract. We thought
oh, it would save the city money. I think it was a substantial
number of employees, in the thousands; I cannot remember what.
So, we did it. Do you think it reduced employments? No. It
increased employments. So, you know, I think there is that
factor that technology does not necessarily reduce employees
qualified to handle the technology.
But since it is just the two of us, and I will give the
ranking member as much time as he wants, I want to just ask one
other question right now.
Senator Alexander. Please go ahead.
Senator Feinstein. I expressed some concern about the risk
of insiders stealing or helping to steal nuclear materials, and
I think the large number of sites around the world magnifies
that threat. For example, Russia and countries in the former
Soviet Union alone have more than 230 buildings at more than
130 sites that store weapons usable nuclear materials.
So, the question is, what is NNSA doing to consolidate
nuclear materials to a much smaller and easier to protect
number of sites and buildings, especially in Russia?
Mr. D'Agostino. If I could start and then ask Anne
Harrington to follow on.
Senator Feinstein. Please.
Mr. D'Agostino. But we have a very active program with the
Russians to not just secure material at their sites, but we
have a sustainability component with the Ministry of Defense in
Russia. We have essentially completed the security work there,
and they have agreed and are following up on making sure that
those security upgrades are maintained and to have them out
into the future.
With Rosatom, which is what--a little bit more on the
civilian side or a little bit more equivalent to the NNSA, we
have an active program of upgrading their sites there, and we
have more of a cost-share arrangement to do on the work there.
There is more work that has to be done in Russia, and
Anne's team is working actively to partner with our colleagues
there to make this happen.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just stop you. Does it need 230
buildings at 130 sites?
Mr. D'Agostino. In fact, this is one of the concerns that
we, together with the Russians, acknowledge that the more
material that you have and more sites there is, the harder it
is to protect. In this country, we have undertaken our own
efforts for material consolidation because in the long run it
is cheaper to protect material at fewer sites.
Senator Feinstein. How many sites do we have in comparison?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, the 230 sites are--we have our 7 main
sites, but within those 7 sites we are looking to move material
out of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to reduce the security
footprint and move some of that material into some of our other
sites because we think it is not just safer to protect, but it
is also cheaper. We hope to be saving some security dollars as
a result of that.
Senator Feinstein. We will mark that down.
Mr. D'Agostino. Anne, do you want to add anything, please?
Ms. Harrington. I would just add that it is a matter of our
program policy that any country in which we work, we do
encourage the consolidation of materials. And, in fact, that is
what the 4-year effort is really aimed at, is not just
consolidating materials, but consolidating and then removing
the materials permanently, and then providing physical security
upgrades in that interim period between when we negotiate the
agreement and physically remove the material.
Senator Feinstein. Ma'am, let me just interrupt you again.
I understand that April 2010 was the halfway mark of the goal
of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years. Are
you on track to secure it all in 4 years?
Ms. Harrington. Well, April 2010 would have been 1 year, so
approximately now would be 2 years from April, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Well, now it is 2 years.
Ms. Harrington. Yes, correct. We are about halfway at this
point.
Senator Feinstein. So, you have 2 more years.
Ms. Harrington. Correct. I have to admit the continuing
resolution situation that we have been in up until recently
this year has presented some real challenges in terms of
maintaining our schedule. We have deferred some other
activities in order to keep these removals on schedule. We will
have perhaps a little slippage, but not out of calendar years.
We certainly are on track right now with Ukraine, Mexico, and
Belarus to meet those high-level nuclear security summits
commitments to remove all materials by the time we hit the 2012
summit. So, we feel confident right now that we can make up----
Senator Feinstein. You could make that 2-year goal.
Ms. Harrington. We are on schedule to do that right now.
Senator Feinstein. One quick question, are you prioritizing
the sites?
Ms. Harrington. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. So, there is a list of priorities?
Ms. Harrington. Correct.
Senator Feinstein. Could we see that list please?
Ms. Harrington. We can get that to you, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vice Chairman? You go ahead, and then we will go back
and forth.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Mr. D'Agostino, I would like to have just a little
conversation with you about big projects and bringing them in
on time and on budget. I mean, you have got a former mayor here
and a former Governor here, so we are frustrated by the lack of
executive opportunities we have in the U.S. Senate. So, this is
a chance for us to weigh in.
But you have got some really big things going on. I mean,
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) is estimated to cost $4.2
to $6.5 billion. That is a pretty big range. I mean, and a few
years ago it was $1 billion, and then it was $2 billion, then
it was $3 billion, and it is still going up. The Chemistry and
Metallurgical Research Facility at Los Alamos, the range for it
is $3.7 to $5.8 billion, and that is a massive range. And then
we can go down the list of other big projects. Mixed oxide
fuel, which is nearly $5 billion. The Life Extension Projects
that is part of our nuclear modernization, those are $3 billion
and $4 billion. So, these are big, big projects. And I remember
the excitement that happened in Oak Ridge when the Spallation
Neutron Source came in on time under budget, although it was a
massive physics project.
So, what can we do to be helpful to administrators, such as
yourself, to set up a process by which we can take these big--I
mean, I can add up at least $20 billion of projects over the
next few years just in your area, and come up with a goal and a
design, and then together we will see if we can stick to that
goal and design and see if we can do it in a way that does what
we need to do, but at the least possible cost.
I know that is your objective, but sometimes that is hard
to do in Government. What can we do to help you achieve that?
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator Alexander, first of all thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to executives in this
fashion and get your insight as well.
I think one of the main things as a subcommittee that you
can do is give us the time to interact in sessions such as this
and in other sessions where we can talk about, on a fairly
regular basis, our progress, our plans, and our steps on
meeting our, essentially, our collective objectives of
providing the Nation the capability. The objective is not to
spend all that money; that is not the objective. The objective
is to get the capability for the Nation, as you said, in a
fashion that gets it on time, on budget, and what the country
needs to move forward. So, time with you, Sir, with the
subcommittee as a whole, with you and your staff, and
reporting, you know, on the appropriate basis is very helpful
to us.
Senator Alexander. But would not the first thing to do to
be--to get a design and a cost estimate that you can live with?
Would that be the first thing? How do we get to that point?
Mr. D'Agostino. I basically see three broad steps that we
are in the process of taking and either have completed or need
to finish off on. One is getting our policy--project management
policies correct. We have in the Department, most recently
within the last year, and now are implementing in our projects,
whether they are small dollar projects or billion dollar
projects, a couple of key principles. And that is, we do not go
off and declare what something is going to cost until we
actually know what it is we are building and we have that
design largely completed. Once that baseline is set, then it
sticks. That would be one thing.
The second thing is annual detailed independent peer review
analysis. One of the things that we have learned from the
Office of Science, which talked about the spatial neutron----
Senator Alexander. Analysis of what, of the construction?
Mr. D'Agostino. Of the construction project--of the project
itself, independent peer reviews on an annual basis of the
projects themselves, so this is something we are committed to
doing. And, in fact, for two of these large facilities that we
were just talking about, that is actually under way. My
principal deputy, Neile Miller, sitting behind me, has started
this type of an interaction and dialogue with the Defense
Department, people outside of the NNSA and even outside of DOE,
to bring project experts and other experts that independently
check our work on a regular basis. That is another important
policy element that we have in place.
The next important thing is bringing the right people to
bear on the problem. One of the great things that Neile Miller
has brought to the table is looking at and recognizing that
over the next 10 years, project management is our--has to be
our key focus in this organization because that will define,
first of all, can we----
Senator Alexander. Well, let me not be rude and interrupt.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Let me go--get you to slim that answer
down a little bit. I mean, what are the three steps you need to
take? Do you not first need to design--you first you need a
policy.
Mr. D'Agostino. We have to get the policy right.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Mr. D'Agostino. We have to get a design----
Senator Alexander. Then you have to get a design.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. That we have actually checked
on, that has been independently checked to be true and been
validated--independently checked and validated.
Senator Alexander. Then you need a cost estimate, is that
fair?
Mr. D'Agostino. That cost estimate and the design will go
together.
Senator Alexander. So, those come together.
Mr. D'Agostino. We have a schedule.
Senator Alexander. So, once you have a policy and a cost
estimate design, then you are ready to go, is that----
Mr. D'Agostino. Then we are ready to go----
Senator Alexander. Right.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. And then we will come back
and----
Senator Alexander. And then it is the regular review of
your progress toward a goal.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Alexander. And our involvement in that--well, lets
just--take these two examples of the UPF--I mean, there you
have got $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion in the Chemistry and
Metallurgical Building at Los Alamos, $3.7 to $5.8 billion. How
soon before we get--is the policy set on those two projects?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, it is, to get 90 percent design on
those projects, yes, Sir.
Senator Alexander. Okay. When we do we get 90 percent
design on those two projects?
Mr. D'Agostino. October 2012, is that right, Don?
Dr. Cook. Yes. It is the end the end of fiscal year 2012.
Senator Alexander. Yes, the end of next year----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. We will have our policy and
our cost-estimate design at some number.
Dr. Cook. That is correct. We are now just a bit beyond 50
percent full engineering design on each of the two projects,
chemistry and metallurgy research, UPF. Another step we have
taken is to require actually the parent companies to integrate
the design teams, look for common buys, gloves boxes we will
use in both facilities, develop a plan of phasing that allows
us to build--these are, after all, new nuclear builds. They are
the hardest categories to replace capabilities really that have
exceeded 60 years of age.
Senator Alexander. Right. So by the end of next year there
is a design and a cost estimate. But between now and then, what
do we need to know about what you are doing to help you get a
cost estimate you can live with? I mean, what do we need to be
doing?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, Sir, you need--one of the things you
will need to know is that we are not just resting on input we
are getting from our M&O contractors. We are having these
independently checked on one case, and we are probably going to
have two independent checks because these are such large
facilities. The one that we are doing with our colleagues in
the Defense Department, and we will commission another
independent check ourselves separately from that because one of
the things I want to get us in the habit is under promising and
over delivering, and when we make a commitment we deliver on
that commitment.
Senator Alexander. Well, we can continue this discussion
another time. But to me, this boils down to a pretty simple
thing, from our point of view, a very complex operation from
yours. But it is to define the points where we get a real cost
estimate and a real design and we say okay, that is it, you
know. And we are then going to probably embark on a 3-, 5-, 6-,
or 7-year period, right, of construction.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Sir.
Senator Alexander. And so, during that period of time we
should be having quarterly discussions about are you on
schedule? If you are not, why not, so that we do not wind up
and find that a $4 billion cost estimate ends up being a $7
billion----
Mr. D'Agostino. We would be happy to come up quarterly
during the period of time as we get into construction in order
to let you know the progress. We will be getting ourselves
monthly updates on earned value as well. So, I think rolling it
out on a regular basis so you have confidence that we are on
track is----
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, that sounds awfully
primitive for me to suggest, but it is almost a matter of being
that simple from our--I mean, if every 3 months all they have
to report is we are under budget and we are on schedule, then
the meeting might last 10 minutes. If it is not, why, it might
take a longer period than that.
Senator Feinstein. I understand that, right.
Senator Alexander. So, I have some other questions, but I
think I will stop now. Thank you for your courtesy.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, all right. Let me just put my
philosophy on the table, which I think you already know. I am
not for new nuclear weapons. I will do everything I can to
prevent the development of a new nuclear weapon. I want to see
them gone all over the world, and I will support any program to
get that done, and I think I have been fairly consistent. We
have had this discussion before, and you know where I stand.
Okay. As you know, the JASONs have found that most
plutonium pits have a lifetime of at least 100 years. It is my
understanding that once again you are planning to manufacture
new plutonium pits for weapons undergoing life extensions. The
question is why.
Mr. D'Agostino. I will start and then I will pass to Dr.
Cook to add to that with some details.
The JASONs did validate the analysis that we have performed
at our laboratories that pit aging is not the issue that we
once thought it was 8--7, 8 years ago or so. And that is
actually a great thing because had it been the case where
plutonium aging was one of the things that we would have to
more aggressively go after, we would be looking in--at a
situation--looking at a different type of a problem on the need
to have a higher pit production capacity.
The plutonium production pit sustainment effort itself that
Don's program runs has a large part, in my view, couple of
components to it. One is bringing back and maintaining a
capability, maintaining a very small set of expertise in order
to--for the Nation to be able to respond to unknown technical
changes as a result of dealing with this very unique material
that is a manmade material that we have a fairly limited data
set of knowledge on. It has been around for 60 plus years or
so, and that is about all the information we have on it. So----
Senator Feinstein. Let me cut to it. If the pits are all
good, why do you want to manufacture new pits?
Mr. D'Agostino. Don.
Dr. Cook. Again, I think it was a very good question. Let
me try to give a quick technical answer.
JASON determined that the lifetime of the plutonium parts
in pits are good for 100 years or 80 was their conclusion. Due
to plutonium decay, which is by alpha--that is helium--that
interstitially causes a potential problem.
The actual problems that we have go well beyond that. We
have the plutonium pits in the midst of the chemistry of high
explosives with binders that decompose just like plastics in
cars exposed to the sun. The plutonium is radioactive; the
decay goes on. That degrades all of the plastics, all of the
cushions, all of the things that are around the pit. And it
also causes corrosion in the pit.
So, on the one hand, JASON is absolutely correct about what
they said, but the difficulty is that as weapons get older,
much of the chemistry in a radiolitic environment starts to
take over. And that has been the problem.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Dr. Cook. And we have invested many of the people and time
in surveillance to actually pin down in which weapon systems we
are seeing those kinds of problems, and we can predict how long
they are good for. Those are not good for 100 years.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I think I would like to have a
discussion with the JASONs, and particularly SIDREL. I have
discussed this in the past, and I would like to do it again,
and I would like to do it with both of you present----
Dr. Cook. I absolutely support that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And Senator Alexander,
because I hear different things. It is fair to say that you all
wanted to develop new nuclear weapons. That's what RRW
essentially did. It was killed because of it, and I do not want
to see, you know, RRW in disguise right now.
Mr. D'Agostino. We would be glad to come up and talk to
you, Senator, in a session. The key here are no new pit nuclear
component designs and we are very consistent with that. I think
Sid and I will be on the same page with this, but we would like
to be able to show you personally.
Senator Feinstein. Because what you have always led me to
believe is that modernization is really for the protection of
the workers who work around some of the chemicals that are
extraordinarily dangerous and may be deteriorating. But I was
under the express belief, based on some of our discussions,
that all of these new pits that were requested some years ago
were really forming the foundation of a new nuclear weapon, not
just a modernized nuclear weapon.
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator, I want to make sure I am clear on
what our plan is on plutonium sustainment so there is no
question about it.
What we are planning on doing is manufacturing a pit design
that we currently have in the stockpile of a particular warhead
and wanting to--because those we have very few of. And we
believe that in order to reduce the size of the stockpile, that
particular pit design, which already exists--it is not a new
pit--is going to be the pit design that will allow us to
potentially consolidate the number of different types of
warheads and allow us to reduce the overall number of warheads.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino. That is the key.
Senator Feinstein. So, how many pits are you talking about?
Mr. D'Agostino. On the plutonium sustainment? Don, what--
are there 20 per year?
Dr. Cook. The answer in terms of our capability----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. No, amount total to manufacture under
this proposal.
Dr. Cook. Let us see. We have been required by the
Department of Defense, by U.S. Strategic Command, and by the
requirements that we have laid to have a capability that is not
less than 50 pits per year nor more than 80 for the----
Senator Feinstein. So, are you saying to produce 50 to 80
new pits a year?
Dr. Cook. That to have not less than 50 and not more than
80 is the----
Senator Feinstein. Produced each year?
Dr. Cook. That capability requires, yes, that is correct.
Senator Feinstein. For a total of how many new pits?
Dr. Cook. That is the number per year, and so if one
calculates the number of years you would get that. It is
consistent with the----
Senator Feinstein. Calculated how many years?
Dr. Cook. It is consistent----
Senator Feinstein. Somebody must know how many pits you
plan to make.
Dr. Cook. Yes. It supports a stockpile of 3,000 to 3,500
weapons in aggregate, the total as the Nuclear Posture Review
and the national policy has laid out. Not that many will be on
active alert, but that is the requirement for the total number
including those----
Senator Feinstein. So, what you are telling me is that the
administration's design, or the Government's design, is that
there are essentially 3,500. Well, I will not use the word new
nuclear weapons, but with new pits essentially within what
period of time?
Dr. Cook. I--you know, I do not want to say that every one
of those is a new pit. The capability that we are putting in
place has that capability to manufacture that number of pits
per atom--per annum, and the comparable number of secondaries
in UPF at Y-12, if required. Overall, the capabilities support
the stockpile as envisioned in the Nuclear Posture Review, the
new START requirement. And the plan to continue to reduce the
number of nuclear weapons----
Senator Feinstein. To what?
Dr. Cook. All together.
Senator Feinstein. If you had these pits, how much would
you reduce the stockpile by? I mean, this is important.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, it is very important. We have a report
called the Stockpile Stewardship Management Report. There is a
section in it that is classified which goes system by system,
and it talks about taking--there are two numbers there. One is
obviously bigger than the other one. I would say just quick
math off the top of my head, there is about, if you will, once
the capability is in place, maybe a 40 percent reduction in the
size of the stockpile.
Senator Feinstein. I do not want you to do it off the top
of your head as much as I think you are terrific.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. This is a big thing for me.
Mr. D'Agostino. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. I mean, it is one of the reasons why I
am sitting right here--why I run for this office, because I
want my grandchildren and their children to grow up in a
nuclear-free world. I am going to do everything I can to be
helpful to get there. So, this is not something that I am just
going to fluff off and forget about.
Mr. D'Agostino. Madam Chairman, I would say we have the
details that we would like to share with you in the report that
we provided, and we will go over that in great detail with you,
with our Defense Department colleagues to show about the types
of changes that we are--that we collectively are planning on
making in our proposal, if you will, which this budget is a
part of. It is--budget----
Senator Feinstein. Because the way you have always sold
your program to me is that if we do this, we can reduce the
stockpile by more.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am, that is the case.
Senator Feinstein. You gave me some numbers before, but I
did not think they were very sufficient. So, I want to know
with this proposal and all this money you are getting, by how
much will the nuclear stockpile be reduced?
Mr. D'Agostino. We will be glad to go over that with you
precisely by--with actual numbers and warheads.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. I have three questions, and they do not
necessarily require long answers. But I would like to ask all
three questions----
Senator Feinstein. Go ahead.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Administrator, I am a little puzzled
by your single-mindedness on consolidating the contracts that--
at Y-12 and Pantex. I mean, they do not have overlapping
missions. They both seem to be operating efficiently right now.
You have got all these big projects to supervise and try to do
as efficiently as possible. GAO has been studying the
consolidation proposal, and a preliminary report suggests it is
not a great opportunity for savings.
Would it not be better to defer any decision about
consolidation until we get the GAO report in July, and instead
focus more of your time on working with the existing contractor
to find savings and on other big projects where you might find
savings?
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator Alexander, we are committed to
working with the existing contractor, and have worked with the
existing contractor to identify savings, and have gotten--
received some input from the existing contractor, who is doing
a very good job.
We have been looking at ways to make sure that we run our
enterprise in the most efficient and integrated fashion as
possible. One of our views is that we are looking to have an
enterprise, if you will, not eight independent sites make
maximizing their capability at their sites. And, in fact, I
have studied this for about 3 years. We did not just study it
ourselves. We asked an external consultant known as Navigant
Consulting, to take a look at what opportunities there are
specifically at each of these sites, and what could the Federal
Government realize from the standpoint of efficiency
improvements, couched in dollar terms, of course, but our goal,
of course, is to drive those resources into mission critical
work and have the workforce realigned from that standpoint.
So, we have done a study ourselves. We, in fact--we
commissioned a completely independent study, which showed many
hundreds of millions of dollars per year as an opportunity over
the next 10 years that could be saved--many hundreds of
millions of dollars.
I have not seen the GAO study. I recognize that there was a
press report I think that just came out recently. But what I
will say is--and I am anxious to see it frankly because it is
important for us, and this is why we are proceeding
methodically to make sure we get input from the contractor
community before we make a final decision. A decision will rest
essentially with the--the Secretary and I will go through and
we are going to conduct our external checks to make sure that
things are done in an appropriate manner.
This is probably, you know, one of the more important
decisions we will be making this year, and I am committed to
making sure that we have all the data. If the GAO has uncovered
new information, I want to make sure that gets factored into
our analysis and the like.
I do believe in discussions that are very sensitive to the
particular point on disruption of potential contract
competition might have on very important work that is ongoing.
And we have looked ahead at when we expect to be at the 90
percent design points and what it will take to independently
check those. And, as Dr. Cook mentioned, the end of next year
is roughly a period of time that--where that comes to play. And
it is clear we probably would not want to have any changes
prior to that point because as--because of the disruption
piece.
But we have managed contract changes in the past, and we
know it can be done in a way that does not impact the workforce
and does not disrupt, more importantly, the workflow that
happens there as well.
Dr. Cook, if you have any other insights on this.
Dr. Cook. I would just say we are paying particular
attention to making sure that we are not doing anything to
destabilize the UPF team or any of the M&O teams. They continue
to do very high-quality work.
With regard to the cost savings, it is not our objective to
reduce the employment levels. It absolutely is our objective to
increase productivity, not just through consolidation if
appropriate of contracts, but the linking of the deliverables
through all that we do. And we are studying that fairly
intensely as you might normally expect.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. The new mixed oxide fuel that
will be produced at Savannah River--do you have any concerns
about its safety if it is used in Tennessee Valley Authority
reactors? And should it be less expensive fuel for the
reactors, thus saving the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) rate
payers money?
Mr. D'Agostino. I will start, and then I will ask Dr.
Harrington to follow.
We have done, and there have been done a number of studies
with respect to mixed oxide fuel. It is the material--fuel
material that has been around for a while and has been in many
tens of reactors worldwide and operating for more than 20
years. So, I think the safety aspect of this is well
established.
We, of course, will continue to study this with potential
buyers at TVA, for example, to make sure that they have
complete and full access to any information they need to make
sure that they are confident in that.
Senator Alexander. My question simply is, is it safe to use
it, and will it be cheaper----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. To use it?
Senator Alexander. The answer is, yes, it is safe to use.
Ms. Harrington. Yes, it is. And I think on the question of
cost, obviously this is a nonproliferation program; it is not a
commercial fuel program, so there is that difference. And the
cost will be no more than and perhaps less than other
commercially available fuel.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I have one
other question, but I will defer to you for----
Senator Feinstein. No, please. I think I have satisfied my
questions, and I am going to follow up on the items of interest
to me.
Senator Alexander. I have got an idea you were going to do
that.
But my question is simply for the Admiral, and it goes back
to what I said. The Navy operates small reactors, and it has
about the same number of small reactors that we have civilian
reactors around the country, all of which are large. In the
civilian area, we speculate--I know Dr. Chu has talked about
this--that a small reactor might be a useful way for the United
States to move ahead with nuclear power, maybe 125, 150
megawatt reactors. What can the Navy's experience with small
reactors teach us about how we might move ahead in the civilian
side with small reactors?
Admiral Donald. Yes, Sir. Thank you for the opportunity to
be here today.
Senator Feinstein. Could you qualify small reactors?
Senator Alexander. Well, a small reactor--a typical one
like the new one, Watts Bar reactor being built at--by TVA is
1,180 megawatts. A small reactor, such as the one that B&W
proposes to build would be about 125 megawatts. And 125
megawatts, Dr. Chu has talked about a small reactor of that
size would be a lot cheaper to build, and it would be about
enough power to operate the entire Oak Ridge complex, for
example. The city, the laboratory, and the Y-12 facility might
all operate with that one small reactor. The argument for it is
it could be made in the United States, shipped to Oak Ridge or
Alaska, wherever they want to use them. And if they needed two,
they could put two side by side or three side by side. That is
the argument for it.
But with the Navy having all this experience since the
1950s, so successful with small reactors, I wonder--if we are
taking advantage of your experience or if this is one silo over
here and this is another over here.
Admiral Donald. Well, Sir, I think you really have to go
back to the very beginning of the commercial nuclear power
program. Where it started was with naval reactors. Amarico, we
are building the shipping port plant in Pennsylvania. Really
that design stemmed from what he had learned from building the
Nautilus and subsequent submarine plants and the technology--
basic pressurized water reactor technology, which is one of the
options for small modular reactors. That really was founded in
the Naval Reactors Program and has been developed through the
Naval Reactors Program with collaboration in commercial
industry either directly or indirectly. We have had engagement
with commercial industry over our history in design work and
things of that sort. Indirectly there are a significant number
of employees working in commercial nuclear who started in the
Navy nuclear program. So, many of the standards and
technologies and things that they learned in our program, they
have transitioned into the commercial sector.
With specific focus on the small modular reactors that are
being discussed today, in fact Babcock and Wilcox, B&W, who
is--has one of the options for a small modular reactor in
power, I believe it is called, it just so happens that they
also are one of our major suppliers, and they do much of our
work. In fact, about 70 percent of our industrial base is
really B&W type work that is done. So, there is some leveraging
there of lessons that they have taken from building our plants,
obviously with protecting our security, our classified
information, but translating that into what could be a viable
small modular reactor. So, I think that is a good synergy there
if that is to be made to happen.
I think there are those who--some have considered should we
just transition naval reactors directly into small modular
reactors, and the fact of that is that is probably not a good
idea. Because of the standards that we build them to, we have
to have shock standards that are significantly above what a
commercial reactor would have to operate at.
Our operating profile is very different from a commercial
plant, so we design them for different ends, and they actually
would likely not be cost effective for a commercial
application. But again, the application and the synergy between
the industrial base in the commercial world and the industrial
base in the naval world I think provides opportunity for them
to learn from what we have learned and provide opportunities in
small modular reactors, if the commercial industry sees them as
being feasible.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Admiral.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) was supposed to
demonstrate ignition by September 2010. However, the goal of achieving
ignition has been postponed by more than 1\1/2\ years because of
unexpected scientific and technical challenges.
How confident are you that the NIF will achieve ignition by June
2012? If this goal is not achieved by then, what does it mean for the
future of the ignition program?
Answer. Pending any unforeseen major technical challenges, I am
confident in NIF's ability to achieve ignition by fiscal year 2012. NIF
is currently operating on a schedule where as by the end of fiscal year
2011, all of the experiments and capabilities required for the NIF to
begin ignition experiments will be complete, and the goal is to
demonstrate ignition, or ``gain equal to one'', by fiscal year 2012.
``Gain equals one'' means the capsule will produce more energy than the
amount of energy delivered to the target, also called the hohlraum.
An National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) panel chaired by
the Under Secretary for Science, Dr. Steve Koonin, has been formed to
advise on technical progress, and the most recent review showed that
the National Ignition Campaign (NIC) is making excellent technical
progress. The principal focus is to ensure that a rapid, yet
reasonable, amount of progress is being made on completing the
scheduled ignition efforts. The NNSA's major concern is to ensure that
further delays do not occur, except as a result of presently unknown
technical issues that might have to be resolved. Ignition is a major
technical challenge and the present NIF work is a culmination of
decades of research. Should any unforeseen major technical issues arise
that could potentially impact the goal of achieving ignition by fiscal
year 2012, NNSA will re-evaluate and adjust the goals of the NIC
accordingly.
Question. NNSA owns 43 million square feet of physical
infrastructure.
What plans does NNSA have in place to reduce the footprint of the
labs and production facilities and reduce maintenance costs?
Answer. NNSA is continuing its footprint reduction efforts within
available funding. The fiscal year 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Plan conveys NNSA's strategy to consolidate and modernize
the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
NNSA has actively been working to comply with the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee fiscal year 2002 conference report 107-258 for
reduction of footprint. For the period 2002 through 2009 NNSA
constructed 1,447,865 gross square footage and eliminated 3,700,620
gross square feet of facility footprint. The net result of these
efforts is elimination of approximately 2,252,755 gross square feet of
the NNSA footprint. NNSA will continue working to meet this requirement
by reducing excess facilities as funds allow and by using footprint
reductions to ensure the offset requirement is met.
Question. NNSA has been criticized over the last several years for
failing to maintain an adequate surveillance program, which is
essential for determining the health of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
To what extent has NNSA improved its surveillance program and
addressed the concerns of the JASONs, lab directors, and the Department
of Defense (DOD).
Answer. Surveillance activities are essential to enabling continued
certification of the reliability of the stockpile without nuclear
testing. Surveillance involves withdrawing weapons from deployment and
subjecting them to laboratory tests, as well as joint flight tests with
the DOD to assess their reliability. These activities allow detection
of possible manufacturing and design defects as well as material
degradation over time. NNSA continues to implement a surveillance
program that builds on those core activities, which allows us to
support the current state of the stockpile, detect in advance potential
problems, and take remedial actions.
NNSA has reviewed the stockpile surveillance program and its
funding profile. Since fiscal year 2009, the surveillance budget has
increased by 50 percent, from $158 million to $239 million. In the
fiscal year 2012 budget, the President seeks to sustain this increase
and a more robust surveillance program throughout the fiscal year NSP.
With this increased funding, many improvements have been made on
surveillance. NNSA increased the number of planned laboratory and
flight tests from 48 in fiscal year 2010 to 74 in fiscal year 2011. The
total number of planned major surveillance activities (including pit,
canned subassembly, gas transfer systems, detonator cable assembly
tests and disassembly and inspection) also increased from 276 in fiscal
year 2010 to 432 in fiscal year 2011. In addition, surveillance
activities supported the development of diagnostic capabilities at Y-12
for critical components of the nuclear explosive package. These
capabilities will aid the current W76-1 production and surveillance of
other warheads in the stockpile. This increased testing rate and
improved diagnostics continue to be supported in the fiscal year 2012
budget request. Furthermore, NNSA has taken action to hire a
Surveillance Senior Technical Advisor, supported by an appropriate
staff through a newly developed Surveillance Governance structure to
assure a cohesive program, enables a cost-effective program, and
integrates surveillance activities across the nuclear weapons
enterprise. Together, the increased funding, additional focus, and
hiring of a senior surveillance engineer should address the concerns
expressed by the JASONs, laboratory directors, and DOD.
Question. The JASONs found that most plutonium pits in nuclear
weapons have a lifetime of at least 100 years. However, NNSA is
planning to manufacture new plutonium pits for weapons undergoing life
extensions.
Why does NNSA have plans to manufacture new pits? What are the
advantages and disadvantages?
Answer. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) found that in order to
sustain a safe, secure, and effective U.S. nuclear stockpile, for as
long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States must possess a modern
physical infrastructure and a highly capable workforce with the
specialized skills needed to sustain the deterrent and support the
President's nuclear security agenda.
In 2006, the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory reported that the majority of pits in the stockpile
can have estimated ``lifetimes'' in excess of 85 years or more based on
the best estimates of plutonium changes with aging. All nuclear weapons
generally and primaries specifically have other components with much
shorter shelf lives that have to be maintained or replaced on a more
frequent basis. Finally, as recognized by the JASONs and NNSA, the
science of plutonium aging is not complete. The uncertainties in these
estimates are large and contain significant variables which may affect
plutonium and pit lifetime that are not yet fully understood. As the
weapons age, they must be maintained in order to assure their
reliability and extend their lives. Throughout this maintenance or life
extension process, NNSA is directed by National Security Presidential
Directive 28 to look for opportunities to enhance the safety and
security aspects of the weapon (while still meeting the military
requirements originally established for the weapon). One of the ways to
enhance both safety and security is to move toward a stockpile that is
based on insensitive high explosives (IHE) instead of conventional high
explosives (CHE). IHE-based weapons are safer in almost every
environment across the Stockpile-to-Target Sequence. Should NNSA
receive authorization to proceed toward a totally IHE-based stockpile,
we will need the ability to either manufacture these previously
designed and tested pits or perform rework on existing pits.
The current facility that NNSA manages for producing plutonium pits
requires modernization to continue maintaining a ``safe, secure, and
effective'' stockpile in the future. The manufacturing capacity will
need to be increased to meet the anticipated requirement of 50-80 pits
per year by 2022. The aging infrastructure is being addressed through
TA-55 reinvestment. Additional programmatic investments will be
required to develop and sustain the workforce required to execute the
program at TA-55 in the coming years. What we are doing now is an
effort to create a sustainable plutonium pit manufacturing capacity at
the PF-4 facility that will be able to support the body of work
addressed in the fiscal year 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Plan. Moreover, the PF-4 facility is an important component of the
administration's effort to provide a sustainable Nuclear Security
Enterprise. Such a facility is one of the enablers for the United
States to shift away from retaining large numbers of nondeployed
warheads as a hedge against technical failure or geopolitical surprise.
The pit manufacturing capability being pursued for PF-4 will
provide NNSA the ability to produce a limited number of new pits, up to
80 per year, or to perform rework on existing pits--this does not mean
that each year we will exercise the full capacity of the facility. PF-4
will provide NNSA with the minimum capacity to support the President's
plan to life extend the stockpile. Per the NPR, each life extension
program will be conducted on a case-by-case basis and we will study
options for ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of each
nuclear warhead. Our scientists, engineers, and technicians will study
the full range of life extension approaches, to include refurbishment
of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different
warheads, and replacement of nuclear components. In any decision to
proceed to engineering and development, strong preference will be given
to the refurbishment and reuse approaches. However, we may not be able
to meet some critical Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan goals,
such as increased safety, security, and reliability, using those two
approaches. In such cases, replacement of nuclear components will be
pursued, but only when specifically authorized by the President and
approved by the Congress.
Possessing the ability to manufacture plutonium pits provides many
advantages to the Nation and to NNSA. We are able to exercise and
retain the highly skilled workforce of scientists, engineers, and
technicians central to a responsive manufacturing capability. Further,
we retain the agility necessary to respond to technical or geopolitical
issues in a timely manner, allowing us to retain a smaller hedge. The
pit manufacturing and rework capability presents opportunities to take
advantage of safety and security advancements to make the stockpile
safe, secure, and reliable.
FOUR-YEAR EFFORT
Question. April 2011 was the half way mark of the goal of securing
all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years.
Is NNSA still on track to achieve this goal in 4 years?
Answer. NNSA is currently on track to complete the objectives
outlined in its 4-year effort. NNSA's progress to secure and eliminate
nuclear material is described in more detail in the classified ``Report
to Congress on Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Material'' submitted jointly
in April 2011 by NNSA and DOD. Although the focused 4-year effort ends
in 2013, nuclear security is an enduring responsibility as long as any
material exists, and NNSA programs will continue to be guided by the
evolving threat environment.
NNSA plays a major role in the international effort to secure the
most vulnerable nuclear material around the world in 4 years, working
in coordination with DOD, the Department of State, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), other elements of the U.S. Government, and
international partners. NNSA programs have made significant progress
toward achieving key programmatic goals for securing and eliminating
weapons-usable nuclear material. NNSA's accomplishments include the
following:
--Removed approximately 3,085 kilograms of weapons-usable highly
enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium from countries around the
world, including 960 kilograms--enough material for 38 nuclear
weapons--since April 2009.
--Completed security upgrades at 32 buildings containing weapons-
usable material in Russia and initiated new insider threat
upgrades at 15 facilities in Russia since April 2009.
--Completed shipments of spent fuel from Kazakhstan's BN-350
plutonium production reactor to a secure facility in eastern
Kazakhstan in 2010. The spent fuel contains enough HEU and
weapons-grade plutonium for 775 nuclear weapons.
--Advanced efforts to establish Centers of Excellence (COE) for
nuclear security with China, India, Japan and the Republic of
Korea, working in coordination with DOD, NRC, and Department of
State. The COEs will provide national, regional, and
international training and workshops on nuclear security best
practices; demonstration of available and effective nuclear
security technologies; nuclear security research and
development; legal and regulatory frameworks; and bilateral
and/or regional nuclear security initiatives.
Question. What specifically does NNSA hope to achieve at the end of
those 4 years?
Answer. NNSA has a number of programmatic goals in support of the
broader international 4-year effort, including the following:
--Complete the removal of approximately 3,615 kilograms of weapons-
usable nuclear material cumulatively from sites around the
world by the end of 2013.
--Complete Material Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
upgrades at a cumulative total of 229 buildings with Category I
nuclear material by the end of fiscal year 2013. However,
security upgrades at additional buildings after 2013 may be
needed, as U.S. programs are guided by the evolving threat
environment.
--Continue working with DOD, NRC, and the State Department to support
the establishment of Centers of Excellence for nuclear security
with key international partners.
--Contribute to key global initiatives, including the Nuclear
Security Summit in 2012, the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, the implementation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1540, and the G-8 Global
Partnership.
--Lead efforts to implement the fifth revision of the nuclear
security recommendations document INFCIRC/225, ``The Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities'', which
will ensure strengthened physical protection of nuclear
material and facilities worldwide.
Question. How does NNSA prioritize to determine which nuclear
materials in which countries are the most vulnerable and need to be
secured first?
Answer. NNSA prioritizes its efforts to secure and eliminate
vulnerable nuclear material based on a number of factors, including
nuclear material attractiveness (amount and form of the material), the
existing site security conditions, the assessed country threat
environment, and political opportunity.
Question. What are the most significant challenges in securing the
highest-risk materials?
Answer. NNSA works with other countries to minimize the civilian
use of HEU, eliminate unneeded weapons-usable nuclear material, and
improve security of nuclear material by providing equipment and
training. In many cases, getting direct access to facilities to carry
out such work can be a challenging process. Sometimes, direct access to
facilities is not possible or appropriate, and NNSA works with other
elements of the U.S. Government on alternative approaches to improve
security of nuclear material such as regional centers of excellence for
nuclear security and support for global initiatives.
In addition, these NNSA programs are voluntary in nature, so each
country must first agree that it would like to cooperate with NNSA on
nonproliferation activities. In some isolated instances, a country has
decided that it does not wish to participate. In these instances, NNSA
looks to other organizations such as the International Atomic Energy
Agency to help facilitate nonproliferation efforts in that country.
MATERIAL CONSOLIDATION
Question. What is NNSA doing to consolidate nuclear materials to a
much smaller and easier-to-protect number of sites and buildings,
especially in Russia?
Answer. Under the International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation Program (INMP&C), NNSA is continuously promoting the
benefits of nuclear material consolidation with its partner countries
and especially within the Russian nuclear complex. In May 2010, INMP&C
held a Nuclear Material Consolidation Best Practices workshop, with
presenters from the NNSA complex and the Rosatom complex to exchange
lessons learned regarding the consolidation of nuclear materials. The
NNSA, through INMP&C, has also hosted Russian officials, including the
head of Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, to tour the Highly Enriched Uranium
Materials Facility at Y-12 and discuss the cost savings that will be
achieved by conducting this major consolidation effort.
It is standard operating procedure to evaluate intra-site
consolidation at every Russian site participating in INMP&C cooperation
and to support such consolidation when the sides can identify and agree
to an effective approach. INMP&C has supported the removal of all HEU
from one Russian site and has significantly reduced the number of
buildings requiring protection by supporting the consolidation of
nuclear material within sites in Russia. Moreover, INMP&C is currently
supporting a large intra-site consolidation activity at one Russian
site, and such activities are under consideration with several other
Russian sites. In addition, U.S. project teams from INMP&C look for
opportunities to transfer excess, nonweapons HEU out of facilities,
thereby decreasing the amount of material requiring protection.
The excess HEU transferred from sites is usually downblended into
low-enriched uranium (LEU) under INMP&C's Material Consolidation and
Conversion (MCC) Project. To date, that project has supported the
downblending of almost 14 metric tons of nonweapons HEU to LEU. On a
cost-sharing basis with Russia, the MCC Project is also supporting the
creation of additional downblending capacity at one Russian site in
order to increase the amount of excess nuclear material that can be
consolidated and then downblended into LEU. For this activity, Rosatom
will fund the additional downblending line, and the MCC Project will
support the associated security requirements. This additional capacity
is expected to become operational at the end of calendar year 2012. In
addition, the MCC Project continues to support the downblending of
returned Russian-origin fuel that has been consolidated from the FSU
and other countries. The MPC&A management is currently discussing with
Rosatom the potential to include additional excess material under the
MCC Project, which would remove significant quantities of such material
from four sites.
TECHNOLOGICAL SURPRISE
Question. A national security concern is always technological
surprise. In particular, the United States needs the best information
possible on the nuclear weapons activities of foreign countries.
What has NNSA done to increase our capabilities to monitor the
nuclear weapons capabilities of other countries, such as Iran?
Answer. NNSA has a long-standing research and development (R&D)
program focused on improving U.S. nuclear security through the
development of novel technologies to detect foreign nuclear weapons
proliferation/detonation and verification of foreign commitments to
treaties and agreements.
Using the unique facilities and scientific skills of the NNSA
Nuclear Security Enterprise as well as other DOE National Laboratories,
in partnership with industry and academia, the program sponsors R&D to
support U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policies and programs by closing
technology gaps identified through close interaction with NNSA and
other U.S. Government agencies and programs.
Specifically, NNSA provides technical expertise and leadership
toward the development of next-generation nuclear detection
technologies and methods to detect foreign nuclear materials and
weapons production. Through the development of new tools, technologies,
and techniques designed for the detection, location, and analysis of
global proliferation of nuclear weapons technology with special
emphasis on verification technology and transparency measures, NNSA
provides the Nation--both unilaterally and multilaterally--with the
technical means to monitor foreign nuclear weapons programs.
Question. How confident are you that the United States has the
means to detect a nuclear weapons test in another country?
Answer. NNSA, and its predecessor agencies, have more than 50 years
of history in developing the leading technologies used by the United
States to monitor and verify foreign nuclear testing. Working
intimately with the Department of Defense and other U.S. Government
agencies, NNSA develops and builds all space-based nuclear detection
equipment. This equipment, which continuously monitors the globe, is
operated by the U.S. Air Force for the Nation.
Further, NNSA develops other leading-edge technologies, such as
seismic sensors and radionuclide and particle collection systems for
the detection of a foreign nuclear test. Like the space-based sensors,
these ground-based systems are operated by the U.S. Air Force.
Where applicable, and in keeping with the President's nuclear
security agenda, NNSA transfers some of these technologies to
international nuclear monitoring organizations, such as the
International Atomic Energy Agency and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Organization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
Question. Administrator D'Agostino, it's my understanding that the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) shares jurisdiction
over fusion energy research with the Department of Energy's Office of
Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES). In Montana, the Plasma Physics Group at
the University of Montana is currently conducting research with an
emphasis on magnetic fusion. The University of Montana Plasma Physics
Group and other university programs are researching fusion energy in
conjunction with many of our National Laboratories including the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National
Lab and the National Ignition Facility (NIF). I, and many others, are
eagerly awaiting the results of the NIF full ignition tests this year.
In 1980, the Congress passed an authorization bill that envisioned
a demonstration fusion power plant by the year 2000. That clearly did
not happen. Today, China, South Korea, and many European nations are
investing in and advancing fusion energy research, with the hopes of
commercialization. Commercialization of fusion energy could assist our
Nation in achieving energy independence, and would undoubtedly lead to
job creation in whichever nation accomplishes it.
What are the resources in fiscal year 2011 that NNSA is currently
providing for the advancement of fusion energy?
Answer. Thermonuclear fusion is pursued at the Department of Energy
and NNSA for two important and different purposes. OFES, in the Office
of Science, is pursuing fusion science for eventual energy
applications.
NNSA pursues Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) in support of
Stockpile Stewardship. Thermonuclear fusion is the essential process of
all U.S. nuclear weapons. Much of SSP inertial confinement fusion
research can provide information relevant to inertial fusion energy, so
it can be thought of as dual use. NNSA built and operates its large
high-energy density facilities to support the stockpile. If successful,
ignition on the NIF will demonstrate that ICF in the laboratory is
feasible and, as a side-benefit, will be an important advance for
fusion energy. Other areas of the ICF program may help develop the
fundamental science of inertial fusion energy, including research on
direct drive and pulsed power fusion.
NNSA requested $481.5 million in fiscal year 2011 for the ICF
Ignition and High Yield Campaign. The ICF fiscal year 2011 budget is
$477.6 million. We have requested $476.3 million for fiscal year 2012.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the National Ignition Campaign (NIC)
and has made significant progress. We expect to perform full ignition
tests in the fiscal year 2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on
material properties under extreme conditions and on finishing up work
to validate codes devoted to the energy balance problem.
Question. How much additional funding would NIF require for full
commercialization within the current framework?
Answer. When NIF achieves ignition, it will establish the
scientific basis for inertial confinement fusion, but will not have the
performance required for the energy mission. The NIF was not designed
to be converted to a prototype commercial reactor. Significant
technical development, independent economical studies, and licensing
processes will be required beyond the demonstration of ignition on the
NIF for inertial fusion energy. In addition, the demonstration of
ignition at NIF does not guarantee that this would be commercially
viable.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the National Ignition Campaign (NIC)
and has made significant progress. We expect to perform full ignition
tests in the fiscal year 2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on
material properties under extreme conditions and on finishing up work
to validate codes devoted to the energy balance problem.
Several approaches to achieving thermonuclear fusion are being
pursued. In NNSA, we are pursuing indirect drive for the first
demonstration of ignition on the NIF and polar direct drive as an
alternate approach led by the University of Rochester. The Naval
Research Laboratory is engaged in direct drive research with an
alternate laser driver using a Krypton Flouride laser, and pulsed power
fusion research is conducted at Sandia National Laboratories. In the
Office of Science, heavy ion fusion, fast ignition, and other
approaches are being pursued.
DOE has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a
review on inertial fusion energy and to make recommendations on how
best to pursue inertial fusion energy as a long-range energy option
after the demonstration of NIF Ignition. NAS will assess the prospects
for generating power using inertial confinement fusion, and will
identify scientific and engineering challenges and cost targets. We
look forward to receiving the panel's interim report, expected in
September 2011.
Question. What are NNSA's goals for fusion energy in fiscal year
2012 and beyond?
Answer. NNSA's goal for the National Ignition Campaign (NIC) is to
demonstrate ignition on the NIF. In fiscal year 2012 and beyond, NNSA
will work to improve ignition performance and develop advanced ignition
concepts and platforms that further its Stockpile Stewardship mission.
NNSA will continue to provide peer-reviewed access to it major
facilities (NIF, Omega, and Z), which includes work in support of
inertial fusion energy as well as basic science. The Department will
review the report from NAS on ICF, and use the report's findings to
inform our decision on how to proceed with a program in inertial fusion
energy.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the NIC and has made significant
progress. We expect to perform full ignition tests in the fiscal year
2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on material properties under
extreme conditions and on finishing up work to validate codes devoted
to the energy balance problem.
Question. Can you detail the collaboration between NNSA and OFES?
Answer. The main mechanism for collaboration between the OFES and
NNSA's Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) program is the Joint Program
in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. High-energy-density
laboratory plasma physics is the study of matter at extremely high
density and temperature; it is a broad and rapidly growing area of
research that includes ICF, laboratory astrophysics, materials
properties under extreme conditions, and warm dense matter. Through the
joint program, OFES and the ICF programs conduct peer-reviewed
solicitations for basic high-energy density research and organize
scientific workshops. In fiscal year 2011, the joint program provided
support for 50 research awards in more than 30 institutions.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the NIC and has made significant
progress. We expect to perform full ignition tests in the fiscal year
2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on material properties under
extreme conditions and on finishing up work to validate codes devoted
to the energy balance problem.
Question. What is the current backlog of fusion energy related
experiments and what can be done to advance them?
Answer. In the near term, NNSA's ICF program will concentrate on
achieving ignition in the NIF. This is an essential step for stockpile
stewardship, and will also contribute to developing fusion energy.
Achieving ignition will be a great technical accomplishment and will
establish the scientific feasibility of inertial fusion energy. The
development of inertial fusion energy is not part of NNSA's mission
and, as such, no backlog of experiments exists.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the NIC and has made significant
progress. We expect to perform full ignition tests in the fiscal year
2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on material properties under
extreme conditions and on finishing up work to validate codes devoted
to the energy balance problem.
Fusion energy has proven to be a daunting and elusive goal. In
support of this goal, however, recently NAS' Committee on Inertial
Fusion Energy (IFE) has been asked to:
--Assess the prospects for generating power using inertial
confinement fusion;
--Identify scientific and engineering challenges, cost targets, and
R&D objectives associated with developing an IFE demonstration
plant; and
--Advise DOE on its development of an R&D roadmap aimed at creating a
conceptual design for an inertial fusion energy demonstration
plant.
The Department will evaluate the recommendations from the
subcommittee before deciding how to proceed.
Question. Where does our domestic fusion energy research stand in
comparison to China, South Korea, and other nations?
Answer. NNSA is the world leader in inertial confinement fusion
research, which we primarily conduct to support Stockpile Stewardship.
France and the United Kingdom also have strong programs in inertial
confinement fusion to support their nuclear weapons stockpiles. France
is building a NIF-scale laser facility named Laser Mega Joule (LMJ).
The UK has built a smaller laser facility named Orion. The Japanese
conduct research in inertial fusion for energy applications and have a
modest-size laser named FIREX I. Germany conducts research in heavy ion
fusion. The European Community has proposed the HiPER project to build
an inertial fusion energy research program. China is active in high-
energy density physics and is building a new large laser system at a
Government laboratory. This laser will be smaller than NIF and is not
likely to achieve ignition. A number of countries have modest z-pinch
pulse power programs for fusion. We are not aware of any substantial
ICF program in Korea. Many of the countries mentioned also have
significant magnetic energy fusion programs, and the OFES could provide
a detailed comparison for those technologies.
This year NIF is focusing on experimentally optimizing the laser
and target conditions as part of the NIC and has made significant
progress. We expect to perform full ignition tests in the fiscal year
2012 to 2014 window. NIF is also focusing on material properties under
extreme conditions and on finishing up work to validate codes devoted
to the energy balance problem.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS
Question. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is
responsible for implementation of export control regulations under 10
CFR 810 which authorizes transfer of peaceful nuclear technology. The
number of specific authorizations issued by Department of Energy under
10 CFR 810 has roughly tripled over the past 5 years and industry has
recently noted that the amount of time required for issuing these
authorizations has increased significantly as well. These delays have a
negative impact on the ability for U.S. firms to compete in the global
nuclear marketplace currently estimated to exceed $50 billion per year.
While industry has remarked on the professionalism and dedication
of NNSA staff, is the agency sufficiently staffed to respond the
increasing number inquiries and authorizations requested?
Answer. Pursuant to section 57b of the Atomic Energy Act, the
Secretary of Energy must authorize all U.S. persons who wish to engage
directly or indirectly in the production of special nuclear material
outside the United States, provided that the assistance is not inimical
to the interests of the United States. The Secretary of Energy's
authority is nondelegable. The implementing regulation for section 57b
of 10 CFR part 810 also requires DOE to address eight specific
questions to determine whether proposed assistance raises proliferation
concerns. Besides the analysis of the eight specific questions in the
regulation, the Department also requests via the State Department,
foreign government assurances from the recipient's government that
state that the assistance will be for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes,
will not be retransferred without U.S. consent, and that the resulting
nuclear material will be under IAEA safeguards. These assurances are
consistent with the requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy
Act and the nuclear suppliers group.
Over the past few years, as the global nuclear industry has seen
resurgence in business opportunities, the number of part 810
applications has increased accordingly. In 2007, the Department
authorized 1 specific authorization; in 2010, the Department authorized
15. In addition to an increase in the number of applications, the
complexity of the applications has also increased as nuclear commerce
has become more globalized. Each specific authorization requires
approval by the Secretary and must include an in-depth technical and
policy analysis addressing the eight questions in the regulation.
However, a vast amount of nuclear commerce that takes place with our
close trading and nonproliferation partners takes place under general
authorization provisions of 10 CFR part 810 and does not require the
same intensive analysis by the Department's staff. The Department has
recognized the increase in part 810-related activities by U.S. industry
and has brought on qualified and experienced staff to help adjudicate
these applications. The Department believes that it has the staff in
place to address the 810 applications that it currently receives and
has plans for streamlining its review processes to enable timelier
responses to industry's applications.
Question. If so, why are these delays increasing and what plan does
DOE have in place to make the 810 process more efficient?
Answer. One significant reason for the delays has been the lack of
prompt government assurances from our foreign partners. Some of the
assurances, especially from China and India, have taken more than 18
months to obtain. Without these assurances the Secretary would have
been unable to make the legally required noninimicality finding, and
the United States would not have been acting in accordance with the
nuclear suppliers group guidelines. We are working with the State
Department and applicants at the beginning of the part 810 process to
identify where potentially long delays may arise. We are also working
to structure applications in such a way that will enable us to
efficiently and effectively authorize the assistance within the bounds
of U.S. law and policy. We have also instituted new policies, such as
the ``deemed export'' process through which we have been able to find
ways to satisfy the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act for companies
that wish to employ foreign nationals in the United States, thus
alleviating one class of applications, which we had been unable to
process at all in the past.
Question. If not, what process improvements does DOE plan to put in
place to make the 810 process more efficient?
Answer. The Department is also looking at how the nuclear industry
does business in a globalized world and is reviewing potential
amendments to the part 810 regulation to reflect today's realities. The
part 810 regulation has remained essentially the same for more than 25
years. It was designed and implemented at a time in the U.S. nuclear
industry's history that is vastly different from how industry works
today or will work in the future. We recognize that the part 810
regulations need to be more user-friendly and consistent with current
U.S. nonproliferation policies.
NAVAL REACTORS FACILITY, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY
Question. The Naval Reactors Facility (NRF), located at the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL), is responsible for fuels and materials
research and development, and processing, analyzing, and storing
reactor cores that are removed from aircraft carriers or submarines at
refueling and decommissioning. NRF's location within the laboratory
boundaries enables the Navy to utilize the laboratory's capabilities,
such as the Advanced Test Reactor and the Idaho Nuclear Technology and
Engineering Center to fulfill mission requirements.
Please describe:
--which non-NNSA facilities at INL are used by the Naval Reactors
Program;
--the type of work performed for the program at each facility, and
whether it is performed by the Navy or others;
--a comparison of the work at each facility performed by or for the
Navy to the work performed by all other users in the aggregate,
expressed as a percentage for each facility; and
--whether each facility is essential to the mission of the program.
Answer. Naval reactors uses the following facilities at INL:
Advanced Test Reactor
Naval reactors utilizes Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) for materials
research and fuel system development. Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) at
INL prepares ``test trains'' that contain materials destined for
irradiation. The NRF ships those test trains to ATR. The ATR personnel
receive the test trains, insert them into the reactor, operate the
reactor, remove the test trains from the reactor, and ship the test
trains back to NRF. The data generated at ATR is needed to support the
operational fleet, support reactors currently being designed, and
develop fuel and poison systems for future reactors. For example,
testing currently underway to support the newly designed, reduced-cost
VIRGINIA forward fit (VAFF) core procurement will provide data needed
to develop operational limits, casualty procedures, refueling limits,
and shipping requirements that ensure safe and efficient operation of
our nuclear plants at sea.
In fiscal year 2012, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP)
will provide $64 million to ATR, representing approximately 62 percent
of ATR operations.
ATR is essential to the NNPP mission.
Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
Some naval spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at Idaho Nuclear
Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC). The INTEC personnel are
currently preparing that fuel for dry storage, loading it into uniquely
designed baskets, loading those baskets into shipping containers, and
shipping those containers back to NRF. INTEC is also preparing and
shipping naval transuranic waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant. The INTEC facility is needed to support NNPP commitments
to the State of Idaho in the 1995 Settlement Agreement and the 2008
Settlement Addendum. Failure to meet these commitments will potentially
prevent NNPP from receiving fuel at NRF, which would prevent NNPP from
refueling and defueling nuclear powered warships.
In fiscal year 2012, NNPP will provide $22.3 million of INTEC
funding, which represents approximately 21 percent of INTEC operations.
INTEC is essential to the NNPP mission.
Radioactive Waste Management Complex
NNPP disposes of remote-handled low-level radioactive waste (RH-
LLW) at Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). Operations at NRF
will continue to produce these wastes indefinitely. NNPP generates
approximately one-half of the RH-LLW that is disposed at RWMC. RWMC,
and the planned replacement, are essential to the NNPP mission. The
RWMC is the only cost-effective disposal path for this waste. Without a
disposal path, waste will collect within the ECF water pool and
eventually preclude spent-fuel processing operations. Spent-fuel
processing is essential to unload shipping containers that support
refueling and defueling nuclear warships and meeting NNPP commitments
to the State of Idaho in the 1995 Settlement Agreement and the 2008
Settlement Addendum. If RWMC suspended operations, Naval Reactors would
be forced to dispose of low-level radioactive waste off-site, at a
significantly higher cost.
NNPP will contribute to the construction costs for a planned
replacement facility.
The work done at RWMC and the work that will be done at RMWC's
replacement is essential to NNPP mission.
Materials and Fuels Complex
NNPP occasionally contracts examination of expended core and ATR
test specimens to Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) when detailed
analytical chemistry services are required to obtain the needed data.
These examinations require use of the MFC hot cell facilities and
analytical chemistry laboratories. These examinations are essential to
the NNPP mission. There are other analytical chemistry laboratories
(e.g., ORNL) that could perform these examinations; however, shipment
costs would be significantly higher. NNPP plans to ship specimens to
MFC for analytical chemistry evaluations in 2015. In the future, the
NNPP plans to make use of MFC capabilities (currently in development)
to perform focused ion beam machining, transmission electron
microscopy, and atom probe evaluations of irradiated material. Using
MFC capabilities eliminates the need for NNPP to develop these
capabilities at NRF or ship the materials for examination offsite.
The percentage of MFC's work that supports naval work varies from
year to year.
The work done at MFC is essential to the NNPP mission.
NNPP also subcontracts many site services (e.g., fire department
and emergency services) to INL contractors that require use of various
INL facilities. The total value of these services is $17 million in
fiscal year 2011. In addition to this, in fiscal year 2011, NNPP
initiated a permanent annual budget transfer of $1.5 million for
security and safeguards at INL. These services are essential to support
operations at NRF. If INL were not able to provide these services, the
NNPP would need to develop and fund these capabilities independently.
Question. Please describe the effect that suspending operations at
the facilities described in question one would have on NRF and the
Navy's ability to perform mission work.
Answer. Suspending operations at each of the facilities would have
the following impacts:
Advanced Test Reactor.--If ATR suspended operations, Naval
reactors would be unable to attain the information required to
resolve problems as they arise in the operating fleet, unable
to develop or improve future fuel systems and materials
applications, and unable to develop the life-of-ship core
required for the Ohio Replacement SSBN.
Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center.--If INTEC
suspended operations, Naval reactors would be unable to meet
the terms of its agreements with the State of Idaho, placing in
jeopardy the ability to refuel and defuel nuclear powered
warships.
Radioactive Waste Management Complex.--If RWMC suspended
operations, Naval reactors would be forced to dispose of low-
level radioactive waste offsite, at a significantly higher
cost.
Materials and Fuels Complex.--If MFC suspended operations, Naval
reactors would be forced to contract for equivalent
examinations offsite at significantly higher costs.
Question. Please describe in detail the amounts and sources (e.g.
DOD or DOE) of funding the program contributes for the use of the
facilities described in question 1, including any funding or transfers
provided for INL's safeguards and security program.
Answer.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Facility 2012 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATR.................................................... \1\ 64.0
INTEC.................................................. \2\ 22.0
RWMC................................................... \1\ 0.8
MFC.................................................... ...............
Site services (e.g. mail, EMS, fire)................... \3\ 17.0
Safeguards and security................................ \4\ 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE.
\2\ Navy.
\3\ DOE fiscal year 2011.
\4\ Permanent annual budget transfer.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS PROGRAM
Question. The Navy has a unique expertise in designing, building,
and maintaining modular reactors or use on their vessels, in addition
to an impeccable safety record.
Given this expertise, could you describe what role, if any, the
Naval Reactors program will (or could) play in DOE's planned Small
Modular Reactor program?
Answer. Since 1955, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) has
provided militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensured
their safe, reliable, and long-lived operation. NNPP's reactors are
designed to meet requirements associated with their military-unique
application, and are not suitable for commercial use. However, there
are areas for cooperation and possible technology transfer between
NNPP, other Government agencies, and industry. NNPP and the Office of
Nuclear Energy will continue to seek opportunities to collaborate and
share information with each other and other appropriate parties to the
mutual benefit of all organizations.
One example of interagency collaboration occurred in 2009 when NNPP
supported the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) ``Report on
Internal Safety Culture''. The exchange provided NRC with potential
initiatives to increase awareness of and improve the agency's internal
safety culture and to identify best practices currently used across the
nuclear industry. Specifically, NRC benchmarked NNPP to gather
information about practices, programs, and processes that could be
considered as best practices. As part of this process, NNPP offered
valuable insights and perspective from its extensive knowledge and
experience in this crucial area. Similar collaboration with the Small
Modular Reactor program may be possible.
As the Small Modular Reactor program moves forward, NNPP and the
Office of Nuclear Energy will continue to seek areas to cooperate to
the mutual benefit of each organization and taxpayers, while protecting
sensitive military technology.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
URANIUM DOWNBLENDING
Question. What is the most current estimate for the amount of down-
blended uranium that NNSA plans to down blend in 2012? Are future
years' estimates similar in size? What percent of the 10 percent cap
does that consume?
Answer. In fiscal year 2012, NNSA's contractors will down blend
approximately 8 metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Because a
majority of the resulting low-enriched uranium (LEU) will be retained
in two LEU inventories, only the fraction of the material that will be
used to compensate the down-blending contractors will enter the market
in fiscal year 2012. The estimated net quantity of LEU that will enter
the market is equivalent to 281 metric tons of natural uranium, or 1.4
percent of domestic demand for natural uranium (14 percent of the 10
percent guideline). Quantities comparable to those above are expected
to prevail for the next couple of years.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Mr. D'Agostino, Ms.
Harrington, Dr. Cook, and Admiral Donald, thank you very much
for your testimony today. I will be talking with you, Mr.
D'Agostino. Thank you very much.
This hearing is recessed.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Dr. Cook. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Wednesday, May 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:41 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Tim Johnson, Landrieu,
Lautenberg, Alexander, Cochran, McConnell, Collins, Murkowski,
and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Subcommittee's budget
hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2012
budget request.
DOE has requested $30.5 billion for fiscal year 2012. That
is an increase of $4.8 billion, or 19 percent, from fiscal year
2011. About $1.1 billion of the $4.8 billion increase, or 25
percent, is for the National Nuclear Security Administration's
(NNSA) nuclear weapons for nonproliferation and Naval Reactor
programs.
This subcommittee has already explored NNSA's budget with
Administrator D'Agostino 2 weeks ago. The rest of the increase
is for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, loan
guarantees, and basic energy research.
It is my understanding that DOE submitted this budget
request before the Congress passed the 2011 continuing
resolution, and so it does not reflect the new spending
reality. So, it is clear that DOE and the Congress will have to
make some joint, painful decisions and focus the limited
resources that we have on the highest priorities. Therefore, I
think knowing your highest priorities is of substantial
importance to us, Secretary. I hope that you will highlight
those. Do not feel shy.
I would like to just highlight the three largest increases
in this budget.
The largest single increase would be for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which would see
an increase of $1.4 billion or 76 percent. The only programs in
this account that see a decrease are hydrogen and water power,
and I know we want to discuss that.
Given the across-the-board budget increases for all other
programs, it is hard to determine which of these research and
development (R&D) programs would have the biggest impact on
energy use and the clean-energy economy.
Second, the Office of Science would see an increase of $5.5
million or 11 percent. So, those are the first two, EERE and
Office of Science.
Innovation clearly drives economic prosperity. The Office
of Science has been one of the leaders in new scientific and
technologies deliveries. For example, Argonne National Lab in
Illinois spent 10 years researching cathode materials for a
lithium ion battery that was small, energy efficient, and low
in weight. General Motors used this technology to develop the
battery it now uses in the Chevy Volt, the first mass produced
plug in hybrid electric vehicle. So, that is significant.
Despite these successes, the Office of Science must do a
better job explaining how basic research can lead to new clean-
energy technologies, and how it can better leverage large
scientific facilities to help American industry remain
competitive. I mean, I would hazard a guess that that would be
a substantial priority for all of us.
Third, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
would see an increase of $370 million or 206 percent. ARPA-E,
of course, holds a promise of advancing high-risk, high-reward
technology.
Even though ARPA-E is a new agency, I would like to ask
that you apply ARPA-E program management to other DOE offices,
such as the rigorous peer review process and contract or grant
negotiations completed in just a few months. Streamlining
contracting processes and assembling high-quality program
management teams, I think, would benefit many DOE energy
programs.
My last observation is that outside of NNSA, DOE's budget
does not provide a 5-year spending plan. Without this plan, it
makes it difficult to buy into committing to programs that
create large, out-year obligations.
Joining us today is, of course, Dr. Steven Chu, the
Secretary of Energy. In the full disclosure, I want to say that
I have the greatest respect and fondness for Secretary Chu. I
happened to meet him when he was head of Lawrence Berkley Labs,
and his achievements are many, marked, and quite astounding.
So, we all grant that you are a most brilliant secretary,
Secretary Chu, and we are delighted to have you here.
But let me turn to Senator Alexander for his remarks, if I
might.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
When I was the Education Secretary and was in your shoes, I
did not get that kind of compliment from the chairman of the
subcommittee, so I am a little jealous.
But, you know, I agree with her. I think, Dr. Chu, you are
one of the President's best appointees, that you have been a
terrific leader, and I am glad that you are spending this part
of your life in this form of public service.
I want to, in my remarks and then in the questions when my
time comes, I want to focus on some of the things that Senator
Feinstein talked about. And, for me, I would say it would be
putting a priority on energy research for our country,
something I know, Dr. Chu, you have long advocated.
In 2008, I went to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
gave a talk called ``A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy
Independence'', and suggested that we apply the same rigor and
ambitious goals to energy research that we did to the Manhattan
Project in World War II, and listed several objectives of such
a new Manhattan Project, most of them taken from The 14 Grand
Challenges of Engineering in the 21st Century that Chuck Vest
and the National Academy of Engineering had said. But they
included plug in electric cars, carbon capture, solar power and
recycling, used nuclear fuel, advanced bio fuels, green
buildings, and even fusion.
Now, you were a part, Dr. Chu, of the National Academy's
effort to say to the Congress what we should do to help our
country be more competitive. We called it ``America Competes''
based upon your report. And you have moved to form hubs, you
call them, in several areas, and in your request, you want to
form more. So, I would like to indicate my broad agreement with
that sort of strategy and work with you to find ways, even in
this tight budget situation, to find--to prioritize spending
and to find more money for clean-energy research.
For example, my colleagues have wanted to talk this week
about subsidies for energy for big oil. If we are going to do
that, I think we should talk about all subsidies. I suggested
on the floor this morning we might talk about big wind. The
taxpayers are on the hook for $27 billion over the next 10
years to subsidize windmills, which is more money than we would
save if we cut out the tax breaks for the five big oil
companies. That is just an example. And I am--that was based
upon the production tax credit that was put into place
temporarily in 1992.
Now, my staff research indicates we only use about--spend
about $6 billion on energy research in our Federal Government
every year, and I would wonder whether some of these long-term
subsidies for energy, whether big oil or big wind, might be
better spent for energy research.
There are other parts of the budget, even this budget,
where I wonder whether the energy efficiency section, I wonder
if energy efficiency money should go up at the level that it is
mentioned here, or we should increase the research budget.
There is $4 billion in unspent American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding and weatherization and State
energy grants. You're seeking $384 million more. Would that not
be better spent to take the Federal research budget up closer
to $7, $8, or $9 billion a year?
I, too, like ARPA-E. I think that is a very promising area.
We were only able to find $180 million for it this year,
although it is authorized at $300 million, and it is now fully
authorized.
So, I would just--I would like to weigh in favor of energy
research. I think many of my Republican colleagues see energy
research as an appropriate role for the Federal Government.
Long-term subsidies some of my Republican colleagues have
problems with. I deal with long term. Short-term, I support
jump starting electric cars, maybe natural gas trucks, jump
starting the first new nuclear plants through loan guarantees.
All these are things that you have suggested.
But, so I will be looking to work with you on seeing if we
can prioritize money from the current request, maybe look at
these long-term subsidies, and apply more our dollars over the
next 10 years to what you call hubs and I call a new Manhattan
Project for clean-energy independence.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. And I thank you, Senator Alexander.
We will proceed in 5-minute rounds and use the early bird
rule straight as people come in to attend. And so, Secretary
Chu, why do you not proceed with your remarks, and then we will
go to questions.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF STEVEN CHU
Secretary Chu. Thank you, Chairman Feinstein, and thank
you, Ranking Member Alexander, and the other members of the
subcommittee, first, for your kind remarks, and--but also for
giving me the opportunity to present and discuss the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for DOE.
President Obama has a plan for the United States to win the
future by out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building the
rest of the world, while at the same addressing the deficit.
Many countries are moving aggressively to lead in clean energy.
We must rev up the great American innovation machine to create
jobs and win this clean-energy race.
And to that end, President Obama has called for increased
investments in clean-energy research, development, and
deployment. In addition, he has proposed a bold, but
achievable, goal of generating 80 percent of America's
electricity from clean sources by 2035. DOE's fiscal year 2012
budget request of $29.5 billion supports these goals and
strengthens the Nation's economy and security.
We recognize that families are feeling the effects of high
gas prices right now, and while there are no silver bullets to
this challenge, President Obama is committed to breaking our
dependence on foreign oil and easing the burdens on families.
This budget helps reduce our reliance on oil by developing the
next generation of home grown bio fuels and by accelerating
electric vehicle research, development, and deployment. And
through energy efficiency programs, we will save money for
consumers by saving energy.
In addition, the budget supports the research, development,
and deployment of renewable energy, the modernization of the
electric grid, and advancement of carbon capture and
sequestration technologies. The budget also supports loan
guarantees for renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
Nuclear energy has an important role to play in our energy
portfolio, and that is why the budget requests additional loan
guarantee authority and invests in the research and development
of advanced nuclear technologies.
To unleash innovation, the President's budget supports the
groundbreaking research through DOE's Office of Science. For
example, we are investing in basic energy sciences, advanced
scientific computing, biological and environmental science, and
all key areas for economic competitiveness. In addition, the
Office of Science supports widely used facilities that provide
unique analysis tools for materials, chemistry, and biology
research.
The budget invests $515 million in ARPA-E, and this will
allow ARPA-E to continue to support research projects that aim
to deliver game-changing clean-energy technologies. ARPA-E's
projects are generating excitement in the private sector.
For example, through a combined total of $24 million from
ARPA-E, six companies have already been able to advance their
research efforts and show the potential viability of their
cutting-edge technologies. This early support enabled those
companies to achieve R&D milestones that, in turn, have
attracted more than $100 million in private sector funds to the
projects. This is precisely the innovation leverage that is
needed to win the future.
Another key piece of our research effort is the energy
innovation hubs. Through the hubs, we are bringing together top
scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing
energy goals, but where a concentrated effort over a longer
time horizon is needed to establish innovation leadership. The
budget requests $146 million to support the three existing hubs
and to establish three new hubs in the areas of batteries and
energy storage, smart grid technologies and systems, and
critical materials.
Finally, the budget supports the Energy Frontier Research
Centers (EFRC), which are working to solve specific scientific
problems that are blocking clean-energy development. To better
integrate and maximize our research efforts, DOE is organizing
along the lines of business. This will help us create a sum
that is worth more than the parts.
In any specific technological area, we are examining
current business projections and looking across ARPA-E, the
Office of Science, and our applied technology side to determine
where we in DOE can add the most value to accelerate the pace
of innovation.
For example, we have instituted a SunShot Initiative with
participation from ARPA-E, Office of Science, and EERE to make
the solar energy cost competitive with any other form of energy
before the end of this decade. And this would position the
United States to lead in this growing industry.
At a time when industry, the Congress, and the American
people are making critical energy decisions, we need to make
sure to adequately fund the Energy Information Administration
(EIA), the Nation's premier source of independent statistical
information about energy production and use. Even a modest
increase to support the EIA will go a long way in providing the
Congress and others with an unbiased data and analysis needed
to make informed decisions.
In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget also
strengthens our security by providing $11.8 billion for DOE's
NNSA. The request of $7.6 billion for weapons activities
provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller, yet
still safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile without
additional nuclear testing.
It also provides much needed resources to strengthen
science, technology, and engineering capabilities, and to
modernize the physical infrastructure of our nuclear security
enterprise.
To support the President's goal of securing all vulnerable
nuclear material around the world in 4 years, the budget
invests $2.5 billion in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
program. Through our investments, the Obama administration is
laying the groundwork for the Nation's future prosperity and
security. At the same time, we are mindful of our
responsibility to the taxpayer. We are streamlining operations
and cutting back in multiple areas, including eliminating
unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The United States faces a choice: Will we lead in
innovation or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean
energy, we must act now, and we cannot afford not to.
Thank you and I am pleased to now answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Chu
Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Department of Energy (DOE).
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama laid out a plan
for the United States to win the future by out-innovating, out-
educating, and out-building the rest of the world, while at the same
time addressing the deficit. The President's budget request invests in
much-needed programs while cutting back where we can afford to.
Many countries are moving aggressively to develop and deploy the
clean-energy technologies that the world will demand in the coming
years and decades. As the President said, this is our generation's
``Sputnik moment''.
We must rev up the great American innovation machine to win the
clean-energy race and secure our future prosperity. To that end,
President Obama has called for increased investments in clean-energy
research, development, and deployment. In addition, he has proposed a
bold, but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of America's
electricity from clean sources by 2035.
A clean-energy standard will provide a clear, long-term signal to
industry to bring capital off the sidelines and into the clean-energy
sector. It will grow the domestic market for clean sources of energy--
creating jobs, driving innovation, and enhancing national security. And
by drawing on a wide range of energy sources including renewables,
nuclear, clean coal and natural gas, it will give utilities the
flexibility they need to meet our clean-energy goal while protecting
consumers in every region of the country.
DOE's fiscal year 2012 budget request of $29.5 billion supports
these goals and strengthens the Nation's economy and security by
investing in the following priorities:
--Supporting groundbreaking basic science, research, and innovation
to solve our energy challenges and ensure that the United
States remains at the forefront of science and technology;
--Leading in the development and deployment of clean and efficient
energy technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, accelerate
the transition to a clean-energy economy, and promote economic
competitiveness; and
--Strengthening national security by reducing nuclear dangers,
maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent, and
cleaning up our cold war nuclear legacy.
While we are investing in areas that are critical to our future, we
are also rooting out programs that aren't needed and making hard
choices to tighten our belt. Additionally, we are improving our
management and operations so we function more efficiently and
effectively.
LEADING IN THE GLOBAL CLEAN-ENERGY ECONOMY
As the President said in his State of the Union Address, investing
in clean-energy will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and
create countless new jobs here at home. DOE's budget request invests
$3.2 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
Through programs to make homes and buildings more energy efficient,
including a new ``Better Buildings Initiative'' to make commercial
buildings 20 percent more efficient over the next decade, we will save
money for families and businesses by saving energy. That is money that
can be re-invested back into the economy. In addition, the budget
supports the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) of renewable
sources of energy like wind, solar, and geothermal. It supports the
modernization of the electric grid and the advancement of carbon
capture and sequestration technologies. And it helps reduce our
dependence on oil by developing the next generation of biofuels and
accelerating electric vehicle research and deployment to support the
President's goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by
2015. This includes a $200 million competitive program to encourage
communities to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure.
We're also focused on moving clean-energy technologies from the lab
to the marketplace. Over the past 2 years, DOE's loan programs have
supported more than $30 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and
conditional commitments to guarantee loans for 28 clean-energy and
enhanced automotive fuel efficiency projects across the country, which
the companies estimate will create or save more than 61,000 jobs.
Building on this success, we are requesting new credit subsidy that
will support approximately $1 to $2 billion in loan guarantees for
innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. These
deployment efforts build on the substantial investment made in the
clean-energy sector by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA), and are supplemented by tax incentives that have also played an
important role in bringing clean-energy projects to market, such as the
48C manufacturing tax credits and the 1603 cash grants in lieu of
investment tax credits, which the 2012 budget also expands. We are also
requesting $100 million in credit subsidy for a new ``Better Buildings
Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools, and
Hospitals'', which will guarantee up to $2 billion in loans to support
energy efficient retrofits.
Nuclear energy also has an important role to play in our energy
portfolio. To jumpstart the domestic nuclear industry, the budget
requests up to $36 billion in loan guarantee authority. It also invests
in the research and development (R&D) of advanced nuclear technologies,
including small modular reactors (SMR).
SUPPORTING GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE
To spur innovation, the President's budget request invests in basic
and applied research and keeps us on the path to doubling funding for
key science agencies, including DOE's Office of Science. As Norm
Augustine, former chairman of Lockheed Martin and former Under
Secretary of the Army, has said, underfunding R&D in a time of
austerity is like removing the engine of an aircraft to reduce its
weight.
That is why the budget request increases support for DOE's
comprehensive research strategy to accelerate energy breakthroughs.
Through $5.4 billion for the Office of Science, we're expanding our
investment in basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, and
biological and environmental sciences--all key areas for our future
economic competitiveness.
The budget invests $550 million in the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy, (ARPA-E). The administration also seeks an additional
$100 million for ARPA-E from the Wireless Innovation Fund to support
wireless clean-energy technologies. This investment will allow ARPA-E
to continue the promising early stage research projects that aim to
deliver game-changing clean-energy technologies. ARPA-E's projects are
generating excitement both in DOE and in the private sector. For
example, through a combined total of $24 million from ARPA-E, six
companies have been able to advance their research efforts and show the
potential viability of their cutting-edge technologies. This extremely
valuable early support enabled those companies to achieve R&D
milestones that, in turn, have attracted more than $100 million in
private sector funds to the projects. This is precisely the innovation
leverage that is needed to win the future.
Another key piece of our research effort is the Energy Innovation
Hubs. Through the Hubs, we are bringing together our Nation's top
scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing energy goals,
but where a concentrated effort over a longer time horizon is needed to
establish innovation leadership. DOE has established three Energy
Innovation Hubs in the areas of energy efficient buildings, modeling,
and simulation for nuclear reactors, and fuels from sunlight. The
budget requests $146 million to support the three existing Hubs and to
establish three new Hubs in the areas of batteries and energy storage,
smart grid technologies and systems, and critical materials. The Energy
Innovation Hubs were modeled after DOE's BioEnergy Institutes, which
have established an outstanding 3-year track record.
Finally, the budget continues to support the Energy Frontier
Research Centers (EFRCs), which are mostly university-led teams working
to solve specific scientific problems that are blocking clean-energy
development.
The Energy Innovation Hubs, ARPA-E, and EFRCs represent three
complementary approaches to advance groundbreaking discovery. When you
think of the EFRCs, think about a collaborative team of scientists such
as Watson and Crick unlocking the secrets of DNA. When you think of
ARPA-E, think about visionary risk-takers launching new technologies
and start-up companies out of their garages. When you think of the
Hubs, think of large, mission-oriented research efforts such as the
Manhattan Project, the development of radar at MIT's Radiation
Laboratory during World War II and the research in America's great
industrial laboratories in their heyday.
We don't know where the big energy breakthroughs are going to come
from. To reach our energy goals, we must take a portfolio approach to
R&D: pursuing several research strategies that have proven to be
successful in the past. But I want to be clear--this is not a ``kitchen
sink'' approach. This work is being coordinated and prioritized, with a
360-degree view of how these pieces fit together. Taken together, these
initiatives will help America lead in science and technology
innovation.
NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY
In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget request also
strengthens our security by providing $11.8 billion for DOE's National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The 5-year fiscal year 2012 to
fiscal year 2016 request of nearly $65 billion for NNSA reflects the
President's nuclear security priorities, as well as his commitment to
modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise and sustain a strong
nuclear deterrent for the duration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (New START) and beyond.
The request of $7.6 billion for weapons activities provides a
strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still safe, secure and
effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing. It also
provides much-needed resources to strengthen science, technology, and
engineering capabilities and to modernize the physical infrastructure
of our nuclear security enterprise.
The President has identified the danger of terrorists getting their
hands on nuclear weapons or the material to build them as the greatest
threat to global security. To support the President's goal of securing
all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in 4 years, the budget
invests $2.5 billion in the NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
program. This is part of a 5-year, $14.2 billion commitment for the
program.
The budget also requests $1.2 billion to support the Navy's nuclear
powered submarines and aircraft carriers. And it provides $6.1 billion
to protect public health and safety by cleaning up the Nation's cold
war nuclear legacy.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Through our investments, we are laying the groundwork for the
Nation's future prosperity and security. At the same time, we are
mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer.
We are cutting back in multiple areas, including eliminating
unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies, reducing funding for the fossil
energy program and reducing funding for the hydrogen technology
program. We're streamlining operations to reduce administrative costs.
And we're making some painful cuts, including ending operation of the
Tevatron accelerator and freezing salaries and bonuses for hard-working
National Laboratory, site and facility management contractor employees.
Finally, we continue to make progress on a management excellence
agenda to improve our operations.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said that
America faces ``our generation's Sputnik moment'' and that we need to
out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world to
capture the jobs of the 21st century. ``In America, innovation doesn't
just change our lives. It's how we make our living.'' Through
innovation in promising areas like clean energy, the United States will
win the future and create new industries and new jobs. To lead in the
global clean-energy economy, we must mobilize America's innovation
machine in order to bring technologies from the laboratory to the
marketplace. DOE is on the front lines of this effort. To succeed, DOE
will pursue game-changing breakthroughs, invest in innovative
technologies, and demonstrate commercially viable solutions.
In addition to energy advances that spark economic growth, national
security remains fundamental to the Department's mission. Through
bipartisan ratification of the New START treaty with Russia, America,
and its global partners are leading by example in implementing the
focused expansion of domestic and international activities to reduce
the threat of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, and unsecured or
excess weapons-usable materials. The NNSA supports the international
effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world
within 4 years. The NNSA also fulfills the President's commitment to
modernize the Nation's nuclear stockpile until a world without nuclear
weapons can be realized.
DOE's fiscal year 2012 budget request is $29.5 billion, an 11.8
percent or $3.1 billion increase from fiscal year 2010 current
appropriation levels. The fiscal year 2012 request supports the
President's goals to increase America's competitiveness by making
strategic investments in our Nation's clean-energy infrastructure and
to strengthen our national security by reducing the global threat of
nuclear materials. The President has called for advancing research on
clean-energy technologies and manufacturing, doubling the share of
electricity generated from clean-energy supplies by 2035, and putting 1
million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. DOE's request prepares
for a multi-year effort to address these interconnected objectives and
prioritizes R&D of renewable energy technologies to expand sustainable
energy options for the United States.
The fiscal year 2012 budget builds on the intense planning,
execution, and oversight of the $35.2 billion from ARRA. By the end of
fiscal year 2010, DOE successfully obligated $32.7 billion of ARRA
funds, including all funding that was set to expire. In developing the
fiscal year 2012 budget request, the DOD has taken these investments
into account and will oversee execution of these funds with value to
the taxpayer in mind. ARRA investments are focused on:
--energy conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8 billion);
--environmental cleanup ($6 billion);
--loan guarantees for renewable energy and electric power
transmission projects ($2.4 billion);
--grid modernization ($4.5 billion);
--carbon capture and sequestration ($3.4 billion);
--basic science research ($1.6 billion); and
--the ARPA-E ($0.4 billion).
DOE's ARRA activities are strengthening the economy by providing
much-needed investment, saving or creating tens of thousands of jobs,
cutting carbon pollution, and reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget supports three strategic
priorities:
Transformational Energy.--Accelerate the transformation to a
clean-energy economy and secure U.S. leadership in clean-energy
technologies.
Economic Prosperity.--Strengthen U.S. science and engineering
efforts to serve as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity
and lead through energy efficiency and secure forms of energy.
Nuclear Security.--Enhance nuclear security through defense,
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and environmental clean-up
efforts.
As the President has articulated, innovation is essential to
America's economic competitiveness. To meet the challenge of ``our
generation's Sputnik moment'', DOE supports a coordinated strategy for
research and development across all of its programs. With every
initiative DOE undertakes, sound science is at the core. In fiscal year
2012, we will increasingly emphasize cross-cutting initiatives to link
science throughout DOE, specifically with energy and national security
programs in order to deliver results to the American taxpayer. In the
Office of Science, the Department requests $5.4 billion, a 9.1 percent
or $452 million increase more than the fiscal year 2010 current
appropriation levels, to support an elevated focus on the advancement
of the United States' leadership in fundamental research. ARPA-E is
building on established gains since its initial funding in fiscal year
2009 through the ARRA to perform transformational research and create
game-changing breakthroughs for eventual market adoption. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request includes $550 million for ARPA-E to sustain
investment in new energy technologies.
Energy Innovation Hubs play a key role in solving specific energy
challenges by convening and focusing top scientific and engineering
talent to focus on those problems. The Hubs bring together
multidisciplinary teams of researchers in an effort to speed research
and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological
development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-
related technologies. DOE is proposing to double its commitment to this
research approach by requesting three new Hubs to focus on batteries
and energy storage, critical materials, and Smart Grid technologies and
systems. DOE will continue funding the three Energy Innovation Hubs
introduced in fiscal year 2010 to focus on developing fuels that can be
produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficient building
systems design, and using modeling and simulation tools to create a
virtual model of an operating advanced nuclear reactor. Complementing
the Hubs, DOE plans in fiscal year 2012 to continue coordination with
the Office of Science's EFRCs, which exemplify the pursuits of broad-
based science challenges for energy applications.
Energy Security--Promoting America's Energy Security Through Reliable,
Clean, and Affordable Energy
In his State of the Union Address, the President outlined clearly
to the American people his roadmap for transforming our Nation's energy
economy to meet the demands of future generations. ``Instead of
subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's'', he said.
To meet the President's challenge, DOE must recruit the sharpest
research minds and build on its aggressive discovery agenda across all
programs to achieve breakthroughs on the most-pressing energy
challenges facing the United States.
In his address, President Obama laid out a goal for clean-energy
sources to account for 80 percent of America's electricity by 2035. In
fiscal year 2012, DOE requests funds to help achieve this Presidential
objective and address many of the energy delivery challenges facing
American families and energy providers.
Applied Research, Development, and Deployment.--Meeting the
President's goal of making America the first country to have 1 million
electric vehicles on the road by 2015, DOE will research cost-
competitive methods to develop electric vehicles, increase the
adaptability and capacity of the grid to enable vehicle charging,
incentivize communities to invest in electric vehicles and
infrastructure and send these vehicles to the Nation's roadways. DOE
will also launch competitive manufacturing research for breakthrough
technologies in energy efficiency diagnostics and retrofits to help
business owners around the country save money on energy costs.
Loan Guarantees.--The Loan Programs Office (LPO) is a vital tool
for promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio
of clean and efficient energy technologies. In fiscal year 2012, DOE is
requesting credit subsidies to support approximately $1 to $2 billion
in loan guarantees for renewable energy deployment and up to $36
billion in additional authority to loan guarantees for nuclear power
projects. DOE will also continue to streamline and prioritize the
issuance of loan guarantees to leverage private sector investment in
clean-energy and energy efficiency projects that will save and create
jobs.
Better Buildings Initiative.--Last year, commercial buildings
consumed roughly 20 percent of all energy in the U.S. economy.
Improving energy efficiency in our buildings can create jobs, save
money, reduce our dependence on oil, and make our air cleaner. The
President's Better Buildings Initiative will make commercial buildings
20 percent more energy efficient over the next decade through
initiatives that include:
--re-designing the current tax deduction for commercial buildings and
upgrades to a credit that is more generous and that will
encourage building owners and real estate investment trusts
(REITs) to retrofit their properties;
--improving financing opportunities for retrofits through programs
including a new Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee
Initiative for Universities, Schools and Hospitals, for which
DOE requests $100 million in credit subsidy to guarantee up to
$2 billion in loans for energy efficiency retrofits for these
facilities;
--creating a $100 million Race to Green competitive grant program for
State and municipal governments to implement innovative
approaches to building codes, performance standards, and
regulations so that commercial building efficiency will become
the norm in communities across the country; and
--calling on CEOs and university presidents to join DOE and other
Federal partners in a Better Buildings Challenge to make their
organizations leaders in saving energy.
The Better Buildings Initiative builds on our investments through
ARRA and our continued commitment to passing ``HOMESTAR'' legislation
to encourage American families to make energy saving upgrades in their
homes.
Electricity Reliability and Energy Management.--Reliable,
affordable, efficient, and secure electric power is vital to expanding
economic recovery, protecting critical infrastructures, and enabling
the transition to renewable energy sources. The fiscal year 2012
request invests $238 million to bring the next generation of grid
modernization technologies closer to deployment and commercialization,
to assist States and regional partners in grid modernization efforts,
and to facilitate recovery from energy supply disruptions when they
occur. The request includes a new Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub
that will address the total electricity system, covering applied
science, technology, economic, and policy issues that affect our
ability to modernize the grid. The fiscal year 2012 request also plans
an expansion of the Home Energy Score program that provides homeowners
with information on how their homes can be more energy efficient and
guidance for saving on home energy costs. This is in addition to the
President's support for passage of the HOMESTAR rebate program in 2011.
Investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy generation, and
grid modernization are fundamental steps necessary for creating a
clean-energy economy. We must also invest in the improvement of
existing sources of energy that will provide a bridge between current
and future technologies. These technologies are already a major segment
of the energy mix and will play a critical role in providing a solid
foundation that will make possible the creation of a new energy
economy.
Leadership in Nuclear Energy.--Nuclear energy currently supplies
approximately 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and 70 percent of
the Nation's clean, noncarbon electricity. The request for the Office
of Nuclear Energy includes $380 million for R&D, in addition to key
investments in supportive infrastructure. In addition, DOE is engaging
in cost-shared activities with industry that may help accelerate
commercial deployment of SMRs. The request includes funding for cost-
shared design certification and licensing activities for SMRs, the
deployment of which holds promise for vastly increasing the generation
of clean energy on a cost competitive basis. DOE will also promote
nuclear power through the Loan Guarantee program, which is requesting
up to $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority in fiscal year
2012.
Advanced Fossil Energy--Experience in Carbon Capture and Storage.--
The world will continue to rely on coal-fired electrical generation to
meet energy demand. It is imperative that the United States develop the
technology to ensure that base-load electricity generation is as clean
and reliable as possible. The Office of Fossil Energy requests $452.9
million for R&D of advanced coal-fueled power systems and carbon
capture and storage technologies. The budget focuses resources within
the fossil energy program on activities that can reduce carbon
pollution and have potential benefits for both the existing fleet and
new power plants--specifically, postcombustion capture R&D and geologic
carbon storage R&D.
Ending Tax Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Producers.--In accordance with
the President's agreement at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out
subsidies for fossil fuels so that we can transition to a 21st century
energy economy, the administration proposes to repeal a number of tax
preferences available for fossil fuels. Tax subsidies proposed for
repeal include, but are not limited to:
--the credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells;
--the deduction for costs paid or incurred for any tertiary injectant
used as part of a tertiary oil recovery method; the ability to
claim the domestic manufacturing deduction against income
derived from the production of oil and gas and coal; and
--expensing the exploration and development costs for coal.
Improving Energy Information.--Because of the central connection
between energy and the U.S. economy, the Nation's leaders, energy
markets, producers, manufacturers and consumers need reliable, timely,
impartial, and transparent information, and analyses. Such information
enhances the debate over energy utilization strategies, the development
of alternative energy sources, and investment decisions, and is
essential during times of energy ``shocks''. The EIA requests $124
million to update its energy data collection and analysis programs to
reflect the current industry composition and operation in order to
continue to provide a comprehensive picture of energy markets and
industry as a whole. The request places a special emphasis on providing
better data on energy consumption in homes, commercial buildings, and
manufacturing establishments to enable EIA to maintain the high-quality
of the information needed to inform decisions by the private sector, by
Government policymakers, and by households.
Economic Security--Sharpening America's Competitive Edge Through a
Clean-Energy Economy
To meet ``our generation's Sputnik moment'' and promote economic
competitiveness, the United States must demonstrate leadership in
clean-energy technologies. ``We'll invest in biomedical research,
information technology and especially clean-energy technology--an
investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and
create countless new jobs for our people'', said President Obama before
the Congress in the State of the Union Address. President Obama
outlined his comprehensive vision to lead our Nation's clean-energy
economy and provide economic security to Americans. As the
administration seeks to reduce Federal Government spending, DOE
recognizes its role and has tightened its expenditures in several areas
such as oil and natural gas. The fiscal year 2012 budget request
acknowledges DOE's missions to achieve these imperative goals while
setting forth a clean-energy economy for entrepreneurs and
manufacturers to reclaim their competitive edge in clean-energy
innovation.
DOE plans to promote economic security by building on the progress
made through the more than $32 billion in grants and contracts under
ARRA, which made historic investments in the Nation's economy and has
put the country on target to double renewable energy generation by
2012. ARRA helped create tens of thousands of jobs and, combined with
the fiscal year 2012 request, will help DOE accelerate the transition
of our Nation to a clean-energy economy.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget supports the plan to
rebuild our economy through clean-energy research and development by:
Expanding ARPA-E To Spur Innovation.--The President's request
proposes $550 million for the ARPA-E program, plus an
additional $100 million for the program from the Wireless
Innovation and Infrastructure initiative for a total of $650
million. ARPA-E performs transformational and cutting-edge
energy research with real-world applications in areas ranging
from grid technology and power electronics to batteries and
energy storage. The budget also supports programs with
significant promise to provide reliable, sustainable energy
across the country, such as the SunShot initiative aimed at
making solar energy cost competitive. With focused investment
in manufacturing innovation and industrial technical
efficiencies, the President's proposal will move private sector
capital off the shelves and into the marketplace.
Targeting Investments for Future Economic Growth.--To secure a
competitive advantage in high-tech industries and maintain
international leadership in scientific computing, we will
invest in core research activities for energy technologies, the
development of general biological design principles and new
synthetic molecular toolkits to improve understanding of
natural systems, and core research activities to advance the
frontiers of high-performance computing. Underlying these
investments in research is the education and training of
thousands of scientists and engineers who contribute to the
skilled scientific workforce needed for a 21st century
innovation economy.
Doubling the Number of Energy Innovation Hubs To Solve Key
Challenges.--Innovation breakthroughs occur when scientists
collaborate on focused problems. The fiscal year 2012 budget
request proposes three new Energy Innovation Hubs that will
bring top American scientists to work in teams on critical
energy challenges in areas such as critical materials,
batteries and energy storage, and Smart Grid technologies.
These will join three existing Hubs that focus on fuel
generation from sunlight, building efficiency, and nuclear
reactor modeling and simulation.
Integrating Research and Development.--DOE has identified areas
where coordinated work by discovery-oriented science and
applied energy technology programs hold the greatest promise
for progress in achieving our energy goals. The Energy Systems
Simulation to increase the efficiency of the Internal
Combustion Engine (ICE) will produce a set of modern, validated
computer codes that could be used by design engineers to
optimize the next generation of cleaner, more efficient
combustion engines. An initiative on extreme environments will
close the gap between actual and ideal performance of materials
in nuclear environments. And DOE's Exascale Computing
initiative will allow DOE to take the lead in developing the
next generation of scientific tools and to advance scientific
discoveries in solving practical problems.
Pursuing the Passage of HOMESTAR.--Enactment of this program will
create jobs by providing strong short-term incentives for
energy efficiency improvements in residential buildings. The
HOMESTAR program has the potential to accelerate our economic
recovery by boosting demand for energy efficiency products and
installation services. The program will provide rebates of
$1,000 to $3,000 per household to encourage immediate
investment in energy-efficient appliances, building mechanical
systems and insulation, and whole-home energy efficiency
retrofits. This program will help middle-class families save
hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs while improving the
comfort and value of their most important investment--their
homes. In addition, the program would help reduce our economy's
dependence on fossil fuels and support the development of an
energy efficiency services sector in our economy.
Extending Access to Tax Credit and Tax Grant Programs.--Two
provisions of ARRA have been extraordinarily successful in
spurring the deployment of renewable energy projects and
building advanced manufacturing capabilities:
--section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program;
and
--the section 1603 Energy Cash Assistance program.
The administration is pursuing an additional $5 billion in
support for the section 48C program, which, by providing a 30
percent tax credit for energy manufacturing facilities, will
continue to help build a robust high-technology, U.S.
manufacturing capacity to supply clean-energy projects with
U.S.-made parts and equipment. The section 1603 tax grant
program has created tens of thousands of jobs in industries
such as wind and solar by providing upfront incentives to
thousands of projects. The administration is seeking a 1-year
extension of this program.
Promoting Efficient Energy Use in Our Everyday Lives.--Currently,
weatherization of more than 300,000 homes of low-income
families has been achieved, providing energy cost savings and
financial relief to households. The fiscal year 2012 request of
$320 million continues residential weatherization, while
increasing the focus on new innovative approaches to
residential home weatherization.
National Security--Securing Nuclear and Radiological Materials,
Maintaining Nuclear Deterrence, and Advancing Responsible
Legacy Cleanup
A pillar of President Obama's national security agenda for the
United States is to eliminate the global threat posed by nuclear
weapons and prevent weapons-usable nuclear material from falling into
the hands of terrorists. As part of this agenda, the administration and
the Congress worked tirelessly toward the December 2010 bipartisan
ratification of New START with Russia, which cuts the number of
strategic nuclear weapons each country can deploy to 1,550. After
signing this agreement in April 2010, President Obama said, ``In many
ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the cold war,
and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we've taken another
step forward . . . in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century
while building a more secure future for our children. We've turned
words into action. We've made progress that is clear and concrete. And
we've demonstrated the importance of American leadership--and American
partnership--on behalf of our own security, and the world's.''
DOE's NNSA, through work with global partners and efforts to secure
vulnerable nuclear materials, achieved significant milestones during
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 to reduce the risk of
proliferation and leverage science to maintain our Nation's nuclear
deterrence. Additionally, the environmental management program made
progress advancing responsible nuclear cleanup from the cold war. DOE's
fiscal year 2012 request seeks to build upon these successes and
advance the President's nuclear security agenda.
Reduce the Risk of Proliferation
In 2009, President Obama committed the United States to an
international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide in
4 years. To solidify international support for this effort, and to
address the threat of nuclear terrorism, the President convened leaders
from 47 countries at the Washington nuclear security summit in April
2010. The summit resulted in a communique which stated, ``Nuclear
terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international
security, and strong nuclear security measures are the most effective
means to prevent terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors
from acquiring nuclear materials.''
The fiscal year 2012 budget for the NNSA Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program will help advance further work that is needed
to meet the goals of President Obama and the nuclear security summit,
recognizing the urgency of the threat and making the full commitment to
global cooperation on nonproliferation. The budget provides $2.5
billion in fiscal year 2012, and $14.2 billion through fiscal year 2016
to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological
material worldwide. This request is a decrease of 5 percent, or $138
million, from the fiscal year 2011 request, which reflects completion
of accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within
the President's stated timeframe. The decrease also reflects our
decision to await agreement between the United States and Russia on
detailed implementation milestones prior to requesting additional U.S.
pledged funding to support Russian plutonium disposition. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request follows through on securing vulnerable
materials and supports efforts to design new technologies in support of
treaty monitoring and verification, which will contribute to
implementation of New START. The budget also broadens cooperative
nonproliferation initiatives with foreign governments and international
organizations in support of the President's objective of a world
without nuclear weapons. The budget continues the provision of security
upgrades at selected sites, both within the United States and in
foreign countries, to address outsider and insider threats, and
accelerates the pace of research reactor conversions from use of highly
enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel.
Leverage Science To Maintain Nuclear Deterrence
The fiscal year 2012 budget request advances DOE's commitment to
the national security interests of the United States through
stewardship of a safe, secure and effective nuclear weapons stockpile
without the use of underground nuclear testing. The 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review Report calls for the United States to reduce nuclear
force levels. As the United States begins the reduction required by New
START, the science, technology, and engineering capabilities and
intellectual capacity within the nuclear security enterprise become
more critical to sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent. NNSA continues
to emphasize these capabilities, including functioning as a national
science, technology, and engineering resource to other agencies with
national security responsibilities. Through the NNSA, DOE requests $7.6
billion for the weapons activities appropriation, an 8.9 percent, or
$621 million, increase from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
It also is an 18.9 percent, or $1.205 million increase from the fiscal
year 2010 enacted appropriation. This increase reflects an investment
strategy that provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller
yet still safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile without
additional nuclear testing, strengthening the science, technology and
engineering base, modernizing the physical infrastructure, and
streamlining the enterprise's physical and operational footprint. These
investments will further enable the Nuclear Posture Review's
comprehensive nuclear defense strategy, based on current and projected
global threats that rely less on nuclear weapons, while strengthening
the Nation's nuclear deterrent through completing major stockpile
system life extensions, stabilizing the science, technology and
engineering base, and modernizing the infrastructure.
The Naval Reactors program ensures the safe and reliable operation
of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers,
constituting 45 percent of the U.S. Navy's combatants. The fiscal year
2012 request for Naval Reactors of $1.2 billion, is an increase of
$83.2 million or 7.8 percent more than the fiscal year 2011 request and
$209 million or 18.1 percent above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
appropriation. Funding for this program is ramping up for reactor
design and development efforts for the Ohio Class replacement submarine
($121 million), refueling of the Land-Based Prototype ($99.5 million),
and recapitalization of the naval spent nuclear fuel infrastructure for
the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization program ($53.8 million) at the
Naval Reactors Facility located at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Advance Responsible Environmental Cleanup
The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $6.13 billion for the Office
of Environmental Management (EM), to protect public health and safety
by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan
Project and the cold war. This funding will allow the program to
continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing on
activities with the greatest risk reduction. Acceleration of cleaning
up sites where funding would have immediate impact was established as
the overarching objective of the $6 billion in ARRA funding. EM will
use the remaining $309 million of ARRA funding during fiscal year 2012
as it completes footprint reduction and near-term completion clean-up
activities.
As DOE continues to make progress in completing environmental
cleanup, the fiscal year 2012 budget request of $170 million for the
Office of Legacy Management supports DOE's long-term stewardship
responsibilities and payment of pensions and benefits for former
contractor workers after site closure.
department of energy fiscal year 2012 program office highlights
Office of Science--Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation
DOE's Office of Science (SC) delivers scientific discoveries and
major scientific tools to transform our understanding of energy and
matter and advance the energy, economic, and national security of the
United States. SC is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in
the physical sciences, supporting programs in areas such as physics,
chemistry, biology, environmental sciences, applied mathematics, and
computational sciences. In fiscal year 2012, DOE requests $5.4 billion,
an increase of 9.1 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 current
appropriation, to invest in basic research. The fiscal year 2012
request supports the President's Strategy for American Innovation, and
is consistent with the goal of doubling funding at key basic research
agencies, including the SC. The fiscal year 2012 SC budget request
supports the following objectives from the Strategy, including:
--Unleash a clean-energy revolution;
--Strengthen and broaden American leadership in fundamental research;
--Develop an advanced information technology ecosystem; and
--Educate the next generation with 21st century skills and create a
world-class workforce.
In fiscal year 2012, SC continues to support fundamental research
for scientific discovery, but today our country needs to move strongly
to solve our energy problems. Therefore, the central theme of this
year's budget in SC is research in new technologies for a clean-energy
future that address competing demands on our environment. These
efforts, coordinated with DOE applied technology programs and with
input from the scientific community and industry, will emphasize
research underpinning advances in noncarbon-emitting energy sources,
carbon capture and sequestration, transportation and fuel switching,
transmission and energy storage, efficiency, and critical materials for
energy applications.
In the area of advancing noncarbon energy sources, the fiscal year
2012 budget request will provide for new investments in the science of
interfaces and degradation relevant to solar photovoltaics, basic
actinide chemistry research related to advanced nuclear fuel cycles,
and research in materials under extreme environments relevant to
extreme nuclear technology environments, and genomics-based research on
biological design principles and synthetic biology tools to underpin
bio-based energy solutions. Carbon capture and sequestration research
will focus on novel molecular design for materials and multiscale
dynamics of flow and plume migration, respectively. SC will initiate an
energy systems simulation research effort focused on predictive
modeling of combustion in an evolving fuel environment in support of
DOE's efforts in transportation and alternative fuels. Also
underpinning transportation and fuel switching, as well as energy
storage, the fiscal year 2012 request will support an Energy Innovation
Hub for Batteries and Energy Storage. The Fuels from Sunlight Hub,
established in fiscal year 2010, as well as the EFRCs and DOE Bioenergy
Research Centers also continue. Research in enabling materials sciences
will support needs of future electricity transmission systems and novel
building materials to improve building efficiencies.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request also provides for foundational
science in condensed matter and materials physics, chemistry, biology,
climate and environmental sciences, applied mathematics, computational
and computer science, high-energy physics, nuclear physics, plasma
physics, and fusion energy sciences; and provides for research
facilities and capabilities that keep U.S. researchers at the forefront
of science. The fiscal year 2012 request supports targeted increases in
areas such as computational materials and chemistry by design,
nanoelectronics, and advanced scientific applications and integrated
application hardware-software co-design for exascale, which position
the United States to secure a competitive advantage in high-tech
industries and maintain international leadership in scientific
computing. Underlying these investments is the education and training
of thousands of scientists and engineers who contribute to the skilled
scientific workforce needed for the 21st century innovation economy.
The SC supports investigators at about 300 academic institutions
and from all of DOE laboratories. More than 26,000 researchers from
universities, national laboratories, industry, and international
partners are expected to use the SC scientific user facilities in
fiscal year 2012.
ARPA-E--Transformational Research and Development
The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $550 million for the
ARPA-E plus an additional $100 million for the program from the
Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative for a total of $650
million. ARPA-E was launched in fiscal year 2009 to sponsor specific
high-risk and high-payoff transformational R&D projects that overcome
the long-term technological barriers in the development of energy
technologies to meet the Nation's energy challenges, but that industry
will not support at such an early stage. An essential component of
ARPA-E's culture is an overarching focus on accelerating science to
market. Beyond simply funding transformational research creating
revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption
of those new technologies that will fuel the economy, create new jobs,
reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related
emissions, and ensure that the United States maintains a technological
lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Investing in
Breakthrough Technology and a Clean-Energy Future
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
supports research, development, demonstration, and deployment
activities on technologies and practices essential for meeting national
security goals by reducing dependence on oil, meeting environmental
goals by minimizing the emissions associated with energy production and
use, and stimulating economic growth and job creation by minimizing the
cost of energy services. The EERE portfolio emphasizes work areas where
the potential impact is largest, where Federal funds are most critical.
It balances investments in high-risk research with partnerships with
private firms that speed the translation of innovations into practical
business opportunities. The diverse set of technologies supported helps
ensure that the United States has many options for meeting its energy
goals. Program management is designed to identify the best groups in
the country to address these challenges and supports work in
universities, companies, national laboratories, and consortia.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $3.2 billion, the increase
of 44.4 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 current appropriation,
is aimed at accelerating innovation and change in the Nation's energy
economy. The request includes programs associated with meeting the
President's goals of investing in the next generation of clean-energy
technologies, vehicles and fuels, and energy efficiency measures that
reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the industrial and building
sectors.
Clean, Renewable Energy Generation
The fiscal year 2012 budget request continues to work to transform
the Nation's energy infrastructure by investing more than $1,164.9
million in a variety of renewable programs including:
--solar ($457 million);
--wind ($126.9 million);
--water ($38.5 million);
--hydrogen ($100.5 million);
--biomass ($340.5 million); and
--geothermal ($101.5 million).
Research, development, and deployment of these technologies will
reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize an
economy built on the next generation of domestic production. The
request includes the solar SunShot program which will invest in
transformative research focusing on achieving radical cost reductions
in photovoltaic modules, balance of systems, and power electronics.
Energy Efficiency
DOE implements a number of efforts to increase energy efficiency in
homes, transportation, and industry. The fiscal year 2012 budget
requests $1,805.3 million to accelerate deployment of clean, cost-
effective, and rapidly deployable energy efficiency measures in order
to reduce energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings,
and the industrial and Federal sectors. DOE will invest $470.7 million
in the Building Technologies program and $33 million for the Federal
Energy Management program. Federal assistance for State-level programs
such as:
--State energy program ($63.8 million);
--Tribal ($10 million); and
--weatherization assistance program ($320 million) will continue to
help citizens implement energy efficiency measures, lower
energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and build a
technical workforce.
For industry ($319.8 million), DOE will provide a balanced
portfolio of advanced R&D and pursuit of near-term, low-cost
opportunities with the objectives of increasing U.S. competitiveness,
enhancing clean-energy manufacturing, and improving energy
productivity. There will be a focus on next generation manufacturing
processes and materials, activities for clean-energy manufacturing, and
refocused efforts for Industrial Technical Assistance to achieve
greater results with less funding through more effective leveraging of
funding for deployment partnerships. A new Energy Innovation Hub on
critical materials will be competed through the Industrial Technologies
program. The fiscal year 2012 request also includes $588 million to
accelerate research, development and deployment of advanced vehicle
technologies, working in concert with biomass RD&D to reduce the use of
petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions.
Better Buildings Initiative for Commercial Energy Savings.--The
President's Better Buildings Initiative is focused on achieving a 20
percent improvement in commercial buildings' energy use by 2020. The
initiative will include many new components to achieve this goal. The
following are supported in DOE's fiscal year 2012 request: launch of
the Race to Green competitive grant program for States and municipal
governments to encourage higher standards for commercial energy
efficiency, which is funded within the Buildings Technologies program;
a new pilot loan guarantee program to support energy efficiency
retrofits for buildings that serve as community assets; and increased
R&D funding for building technologies. The Department intends to work
with the business and academic communities to make their organizations
leaders in saving energy.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability--Enabling a
Clean-Energy Economy
The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is
responsible for leading national efforts to modernize the electric
grid, enhance the security of energy infrastructure, and facilitate
recovery from disruptions to the energy supply. DOE's fiscal year 2012
budget request for OE of $238 million, a 38 percent increase more than
the fiscal year 2010 appropriation, represents a clear and determined
effort to accelerate the transformation of one of the Nation's key
enablers of a clean-energy economy--the electricity delivery system.
The U.S. electricity delivery system was built on technology that
was developed early in the 20th century and designed for the demands
and challenges of that era. Today, this aging and often congested
system is facing many new and complex challenges that require
considerable improvements in the physical and technological components
of the system. In order to alleviate the stress on the system from
increasing demand for electricity and to enable greater use and
integration of renewable and distributed resources, all while
maintaining the reliability, security, and affordability of electric
power, R&D breakthroughs and new energy management approaches are
critical in the areas of transmission and distribution, energy storage,
and cyber security.
OE's fiscal year 2012 budget request provides $193 million for R&D
in these critical areas to bring the next generation of grid
technologies closer to deployment and commercialization. The increased
investment reflects the President's vision and OE's role in competing
in a worldwide technological race. As such, with $20 million in fiscal
year 2012, OE will establish a new Energy Innovation Hub, or in the
words of President Obama, one of ``the Apollo projects of our time''.
The Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub will bring together a
diverse, multi-disciplinary group to develop an integrated approach to
enhancing smart grid technologies and systems. OE will also expand its
advanced modeling capabilities to include other system layers in order
to provide a more in-depth system understanding. The energy storage
program will expand to aggressively support the deployment of grid-
scale energy storage technologies with new demonstrations, and the
cyber security program will continue to focus on the development and
integration of secure control systems.
The budget request continues to support Permitting, Siting, and
Analysis (PSA) with $8 million to develop and improve policies, State
laws, and programs that facilitate the development of electric
infrastructure needed to bring new clean-energy projects to market, and
to provide technical assistance to States and regions. It also supports
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER) with $6.2 million
to enhance the reliability and resiliency of critical energy
infrastructure and to facilitate recovery from energy supply
disruptions.
Office of Environmental Management--Meeting Commitments and Making
Progress
The mission of EM is to complete the safe cleanup of the
environmental legacy brought about from more than six decades of
nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored
nuclear energy research. This clean-up effort is the largest in the
world, originally involving 2 million acres at 110 sites in 35 States,
dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man.
EM continues to pursue its clean-up objectives within the overall
framework of achieving the greatest comparative risk reduction benefit
and overlaying regulatory compliance commitments and best business
practices to maximize cleanup progress. To support this approach, EM
has prioritized its clean-up activities:
--Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex;
--Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal;
--Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition;
--Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and
disposition;
--High-priority groundwater remediation;
--Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition;
--Soil and groundwater remediation; and
--Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for $6.13 billion will fund
activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex and
make progress against program goals and compliance commitments by
reducing the greatest risks to the environment and public health, using
science and technology to reduce life-cycle costs, and reducing EM's
geographic footprint by 90 percent by 2015. EM continues to move
forward with the development of the capability for dispositioning tank
waste, nuclear materials, and spent (used) nuclear fuel. The budget
request includes the construction and operation of three unique and
complex tank waste processing plants to treat approximately 88 million
gallons of radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. It will also
fund the solid waste disposal infrastructure needed to support disposal
of transuranic and low-level wastes generated by high-risk activities
and the footprint reduction activities.
EM carries out its clean-up activities with the interests of
stakeholders in mind. Most importantly, EM will continue to fulfill its
responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a ``Safety First''
culture that integrates environment, safety, and health requirements
and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the
workers, public, and the environment, and adheres to sound project and
contract management principles. EM is also strengthening its project
and planning analyses to better assess existing priorities and identify
opportunities to accelerate clean-up work. Working collaboratively with
the sites, EM continues to seek aggressive but achievable strategies
for accelerating cleanup of discrete sites or segments of work. In
addition, functional and cross-site activities such as elimination of
specific groundwater contaminants, waste or material processing
campaigns, or achievement of interim or final end-states are being
evaluated.
After the EM program completes cleanup and closure of sites that no
longer have an ongoing DOE mission, postclosure stewardship activities
are transferred to the Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM also
receives sites remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action program) and private licensees (Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, title II sites). Post closure
stewardship includes long-term surveillance and maintenance activities
such as groundwater monitoring, disposal cell maintenance, records
management, and management of natural resources at sites where active
remediation has been completed. At some sites the program includes
management and administration of pension and post-retirement benefits
for contractor retirees.
LPO--Helping Finance Clean-Energy Deployment
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.--To encourage the
early commercial deployment of new or significantly improved
technologies in energy projects, DOE requests up to $36 billion in loan
guarantee authority for nuclear power facilities and $200 million in
appropriated credit subsidy to support an estimated $1 billion to $2
billion in loans for renewable energy system and efficient end-use
energy technology projects under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power
projects will promote deployment of new plants and support an
increasing role for private sector financing. The additional credit
subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative renewable and
efficiency technologies that are critical to meeting the
administration's goals for affordable, clean energy, technical
leadership, and global competitiveness.
The fiscal year 2012 budget also requests $38 million to evaluate
applications received under the eight solicitations released to date
and to ensure efficient and effective management of the Loan Guarantee
program. This request is expected to be offset by collections from
borrowers authorized under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(Public Law 109-8).
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.--DOE requests $6
million to support ongoing loan monitoring activities associated with
the program mission of making loans to automobile and automobile part
manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing
manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced
technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated
engineering integration costs.
Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities,
Schools, and Hospitals.--To spur investment in energy efficiency
retrofits for buildings which serve as assets to our communities, DOE
requests $100 million for loan guarantee subsidy costs to support up to
$2 billion in loan authority for universities, schools, and hospitals.
This pilot program is one component of the President's Better Buildings
Initiative and would fund cost-effective technologies and measures to
assist universities, schools, and hospitals save on energy usage and
associated energy costs. DOE also requests $5 million for
administrative expenses to carry out the program. The request is
subject to the enactment of legislation authorizing this program.
Office of Nuclear Energy--Investing in Energy Innovation and Technical
Leadership
DOE is requesting $852.5 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy
(NE) in fiscal year 2012--a decrease of 0.6 percent from the fiscal
year 2010 current appropriation. NE's funding supports the advancement
of nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy,
environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical,
cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through
research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.
Currently, nuclear energy supplies approximately 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity and more than 70 percent of clean, noncarbon-
producing electricity. More than 100 nuclear power plants are offering
reliable and affordable baseload electricity in the United States, and
they are doing so without air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
NE is working to develop innovative and transformative technologies to
improve the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of
nuclear energy to support its continued use.
The fiscal year 2012 budget supports a balanced set of RD&D
activities. This program is built around exploring, through its R&D:
technology and other solutions that can improve the reliability,
sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors;
improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear
energy to help meet the administration's energy security and climate
change goals; development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and
minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
NE is requesting $125 million for Reactor Concepts Research,
Development and Demonstration. This program seeks to develop new and
advanced reactor designs and technologies. NE is also requesting $67
million for the Light Weight Reactor SMR Licensing Technical Support
program, which will support cost-shared design certification and
licensing activities for two light water reactor-based designs. SMRs
are a technology that DOE believes has the promise to help meet energy
security goals. Work will continue on R&D for the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant to support demonstration of gas-cooled reactor technology
in the United States. The program also supports research on Generation
IV and other advanced designs and efforts to extend the life of
existing light water reactors.
The fiscal year 2012 request includes $155 million for Fuel Cycle
Research and Development to perform long-term, results-oriented
science-based R&D to improve fuel cycle and waste management
technologies to enable a safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The
budget also requests $97.4 million to support the Nuclear Energy
Enabling Technologies program, focused on the development of cross-
cutting and transformative technologies relevant to multiple reactor
and fuel-cycle concepts. The Crosscutting Technology Development
activity will focus on a variety of areas such as reactor materials,
creative approaches to further reduce proliferation risks, and
establishing advanced modeling and simulation capabilities to
complement physical experimentation. The Transformative Nuclear
Concepts R&D activity supports, via an open, competitive solicitation
process, investigator-initiated projects that relate to any aspect of
nuclear energy generation ensuring that good ideas have sufficient
outlet for exploration. Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation Hub,
supported within this program, will apply existing modeling and
simulation capabilities to create a ``virtual'' reactor user
environment to simulate an operating reactor and is a prime example of
the type of crosscutting, transformative activity that will enhance
many research areas within NE. NE will also continue its commitments to
investing in university research, international cooperation, and the
Nation's nuclear research infrastructure--important foundations to
support continued technical advancement.
Office of Fossil Energy--Sustaining American Energy Options Through
U.S. Ingenuity
The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $521 million for the Office
of Fossil Energy (FE) will help ensure that the United States can
continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic
fuel resources. The United States has 25 percent of the world's coal
reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply more than 80 percent of the
Nation's energy.
DOE is committed to developing technologies and providing
technology-based options having public benefits including enhanced
economic, environmental and energy security impacts. In FER&D, the
emphasis, in keeping with Presidential priorities, is in supporting
long-term, high-risk initiatives targeted at carbon capture and storage
as well as advanced energy systems and on cross-cutting research.
In addition, $122 million of FE's $521 million request will be to
provide for national energy security through the continued operations
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The budget proposes to sell
$500 million of SPR oil in order to provide operational flexibility in
managing the SPR.
NNSA--Leading Global Partners on Nonproliferation by Securing
Vulnerable Nuclear Materials; Reaffirming Commitment to
Stockpile Modernization
NNSA continues significant efforts to meet administration and
secretarial priorities, leveraging science to promote U.S. national
security objectives. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request
for NNSA is $11.8 billion; an increase of 5.1 percent from the
President's fiscal year 2011 request. The 5-year fiscal year 2012-2016
President's request for NNSA reflects the President's global nuclear
nonproliferation priorities and his commitment to modernize the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex and sustain a strong nuclear deterrent, as
described in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report, for the
duration of the New START Treaty and beyond. NNSA's defense and
homeland security-related objectives include:
--ensuring that the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and
effective while implementing changes called for by the 2010 NPR
and the New START Treaty;
--broadening and strengthening the NNSA's science, technology, and
engineering mission to meet national security needs;
--transforming the Nation's cold-war era weapons complex into a 21st
century national security enterprise;
--working with global partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world and implement the President's
nuclear security agenda expressed in the May 2010 National
Security Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review report; and
--providing safe and effective nuclear propulsion for U.S. Navy
warships.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $7.6 billion for the weapons
activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of programs.
Requested activities include providing direct support for the nuclear
weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual assessments,
life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement. science,
technology, and engineering programs are focused on long-term vitality
in science and engineering, and on performing R&D to sustain current
and future stockpile stewardship capabilities without the need for
underground nuclear testing. These programs also provide a base
capability to support scientific research needed by other elements of
DOE, the Federal Government national security community, and the
academic and industrial communities. Infrastructure programs support
facilities and operations at Government-owned, contractor-operated
sites, including activities to maintain and steward the health of these
sites for the long term and construct new facilities that will allow
the United States to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. The unique
nuclear security expertise and resources maintained by NNSA are made
available through the National Laboratories to other DOE offices,
agencies and to the Nation for security and counterterrorism
activities.
The weapons activities request is an increase of 8.9 percent more
than the President's fiscal year 2011 request. This level is sustained
and increased in the later out-years. The multi-year increase is
necessary to reflect the President's commitment to maintain the safety,
security, and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without
underground nuclear testing, consistent with the principles of the
Report on the Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons
Complex, and Delivery Platforms (known as the ``1251 Report'') and the
Stockpile Management program as stipulated in sections 1251 and
3113(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. Increases are provided for direct support of the nuclear weapon
stockpile, for scientific, technical, and engineering activities
related to maintenance assessment and certification capabilities, and
for recapitalization of key nuclear facilities. The President's request
provides funding necessary to protect the national resource of human
capital at the national laboratories through a stockpile stewardship
program that exercises and retains these capabilities.
The fiscal year 2012 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(DNN) is $2.5 billion; a decrease of 5.1 percent from the President's
fiscal year 2011 request. This decrease reflects completion of long-
lead procurements for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
(MOX) and Waste Solidification Building (WSB). It also
reflects our decision to await an agreement between the United States
and Russia on detailed implementation milestones prior to requesting
additional United States-pledged funding to support Russian plutonium
disposition. The administration prioritizes U.S. leadership in global
nonproliferation initiatives as directed through the National Security
Strategy and has advanced this agenda through commitments from global
partners during the 2010 nuclear security summit. In addition to the
programs funded solely by the NNSA, DNN programs support interagency
and international efforts to protect national security by preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to terrorist
organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented in part
through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the G8 Global
Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass
Destruction, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.
DNN supports the President's goal to secure vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world within 4 years. The Global Threat Reduction
Initiative's emphasis in fiscal year 2012 is to convert domestic and
international nuclear reactors from weapons-usable highly enriched
uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU); while preserving our
capability to produce the critically needed Molybdenum 99 isotope. The
fiscal year 2012 President's request for International Nuclear
Materials Protection and Cooperation reflects selective new security
upgrades to buildings and sites in accordance with the President's goal
to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 4 years,
as well as enhancements and sustainability support for previous work.
The Fissile Materials Disposition program continues domestic
construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility scheduled
to come online in 2016; and design for the pit disassembly and
conversion capability to provide it with plutonium oxide feedstock.
The President's request of $1.2 billion for Naval Reactors is an
increase of 7.8 percent more than the President's fiscal year 2011
request. The program supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, comprised
of all of the Navy's 72 submarines and 11 aircraft carriers, which
constitute 45 percent of the Navy's combatants. The United States
relies on these ships every day, all over the world, to protect our
national interests. The budget provides funding increases for the Ohio
class replacement submarine to design and develop required submarine
reactor plant technologies. R&D is underway now, and funding during
this Future Years Nuclear Security program is critical to support the
long manufacturing spans for procurement of reactor plant components in
2017, and ship construction in 2019. Resources are also requested in
fiscal year 2012 to support design work for the recapitalization of the
spent nuclear fuel handling infrastructure and refueling of the Land-
based prototype.
The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides for Federal
program direction and support for NNSA's headquarters and field
installations. The fiscal year 2012 request is $450.1 million; a 0.4
percent increase more than the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
This provides for well-managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountable
organization through the strategic management of human capital,
enhanced cost-effective utilization of information technology, and
integration of budget and performance through transparent financial
management practices. The increase reflects additional Federal
oversight for construction of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
project, the Uranium Processing Facility, and the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility.
CONCLUSION
The United States faces a choice today: will we lead in innovation
and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead
the world in clean energy, we must act now. We can't afford not to.
Thank you, and now I am pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Secretary.
I am going to try to get three quick questions in my first
round. One is on hydrogen and one is on the SunShot Initiative,
and the third on the loan guarantee program.
You have proposed to cut hydrogen by $100 million in fiscal
year 2012. That is a cut of $70 million from the 2010 level,
and you zeroed out all funding for fuel cells in the fossil
energy program. We gather your advisory committee was dismayed
by that. But I think it is important that you tell us what your
current view is on hydrogen technology and whether it can be
successful or not.
Secretary Chu. Sure. First, in terms of the fuel cells, we
do have a research program in fuel cells for stationary fuel
cells. There has been very good progress made in fuel cells and
in the longevity in fuel cells and bringing down the costs.
The idea of a hydrogen economy is something that is very
helpful, but the fundamental issue is we need a source of
hydrogen that will make good economic sense. Right now, our
hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas. When you reform
natural gas, you create hydrogen and carbon dioxide, so in
terms of the carbon benefit, there is none unless you sequester
the carbon dioxide.
In order for that to happen, I think we have to develop
more sources of natural gas that can allow you to do those
things. So, the first priority is to develop sources of
hydrogen that will make economic sense, and to sequester the
excess carbon dioxide. There is a hydrogen storage issue in
automobiles. Right now, we are going to continue the research
in the area of high-pressure tanks. And so, there is the
storage part, there is the source of hydrogen, which I think is
the most fundamental issue. You know, it is a transformation of
energy from one form to another. And the fuel cell part is
actually going along well. The stationary fuel cells, because
of the higher efficiency, are something we can see can be
deployed quickly in the next 5 or 10 years. There are a number
of commercial companies doing this, and so we will continue in
research on developing better fuel cells for stationary
sources. And we also are looking at how we can actually develop
the source of hydrogen that will actually lead to a hydrogen
economy.
So, that is why we are----
Senator Feinstein. Quickly, how realistic is all of that?
Secretary Chu. I think the fundamental thing is the source
of hydrogen. Right now it is natural gas, but natural gas will
have to be significantly more abundant and less costly. We are
going in the right direction, but it will have to be
significantly more abundant. Or the gasification of coal,
again, with carbon sequestration, but that is a technology
issue to make it cost effective. But there has to be--it is
turning a hydrocarbon into hydrogen and sequestering the
carbon.
SOLAR TECHNOLOGY PRICES/SUBSIDIES
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, the second question is on the
SunShot Initiative, which seeks to reduce the cost of solar
power to roughly $1 per watt and at that price. The goal is for
solar power generation to become cost effective without
subsidies with other forms of electricity generation.
I am very pleased to see that the SunShot Initiative will
include the photovoltaic manufacturing initiative. As you will
recall, several years ago, you told me that photovoltaic was
not cost effective, but you expected at that time that it would
take 4 to 5 years to become cost effective. So, I would like to
know what progress has been made there as well. Do we need to
focus resources on the SunShot Initiative on domestic
manufacturing?
Secretary Chu. Well, first, the cost of photovoltaic--of
solar energy has gone down by a factor, too. It has been
decreased by 50 percent in the last 5 or 6 years worldwide. The
full cost of 10 megawatt or above--large sale--not rooftop, but
large scale. So it has come down by that much.
In this decade, we have talked to business, not only in the
United States, but abroad, and every manufacturer says that in
their business plan, if the cost does not come down by another
factor or two, we cannot produce them to be a factor or two
less, then we will probably go out of business. So, they are
actually banking on this.
And then taking that as the starting point, we have started
to engage in these companies and in ways to say, can we
accelerate this? Can we do something with these companies and
with research that can actually accelerate this progress? And
so, our ambitious goal is to say, can you reduce the cost by 75
percent instead of 50 percent by the end of this decade? That
is a magical price because at that price, in many parts of the
United States, then without subsidy, it is competitive with any
other form of energy. So, that is a big deal.
When you drop by 50 percent, there are certain areas of
peak demand, I think it will be. And so, our goal in most of
our energy endeavors is to devise a plan so we can get there
without subsidy. You know, I, too, share the belief that you
might need to subsidize for a little while, but you do not want
to subsidize for 100 years. And is there a technology pathway
that can develop these things without subsidies? And so, the
SunShot Initiative is really to say this is within reach. And
there has been remarkable progress.
In terms of your question about manufacturing,
manufacturing innovation is another key part of what we will
need to do in order to be competitive with the rest of the
world. And it is that manufacturing innovation that began with
Henry Ford, that he was willing to invest 5 years of Ford's
money in a beginning company to develop an assembly line. They
started by making handmade cars, but it transformed the
automobile industry.
So, there are things that we are invested in that we are
actually quite excited about--new approaches of either thin
film or even silicone, a totally new approach to manufacturing
sili-composed cells could actually transform the landscape. And
so, we are hoping companies research and develop new
manufacturing things that will give us a competitive edge in
the decades to come. And that is an important part of what we
are doing as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, I see the Republican
leader is here. I would be glad to defer to him and then go
after him.
Senator Feinstein. I was looking on the wrong side for you,
Mitch. Sorry.
Senator Alexander. We hope he is there.
Senator Feinstein. I recognize the Republican leader.
Senator McConnell. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander
and Chairman Feinstein.
ENRICHED URANIUM TAILS AT PADUCAH
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I am here to focus your attention
on the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which is, I believe,
you know, has been enriching uranium for 60 years. It happens
to be the economic engine of far western Kentucky. Many people
think of Kentucky as a coal State, which we are, but we are
also a nuclear State.
The plant has 1,200 employees and it is in the process of
closing down. There are, however, 40,000 cylinders of depleted
uranium at Paducah, which are typically referred to in the
business as tails. If they were re-enriched, it would be a
profitable venture.
These are Government-owned resources, highly valued, stored
in a lot which could be sold to create revenue for the
Government, and in the meantime, happily enough for western
Kentuckians, keep 1,200 people from collecting unemployment.
So, a revenue raiser for the Government and an avoidance of
unemployment for 1,200 people, are you familiar with the tails
issue at the uranium enrichment plant?
Secretary Chu. Yes, I am.
Senator McConnell. It is my understanding that DOE, at
least at the moment, does not have a current plan for re-
enriching those tails at Paducah. Is that correct?
Secretary Chu. That is correct.
Senator McConnell. Kentucky's unemployment rate is right at
10 percent. We cannot afford to lose 1 more job, let alone
1,200. If there is the potential for DOE to save these jobs,
would you not think that would be worth pursuing?
Secretary Chu. We are certainly very concerned about any
job impacts in actions we take, but there are other issues that
I would be happy to talk to you about, having to do with
another commitment for uranium in another uranium enrichment
plant. We cannot release more than 10 percent of the uranium
market because the uranium mining industry in the United States
could be affected. And so, we are bound to only release 10
percent or less of what is ever on the market. We have
commitments in 2011 and 2012 for another uranium enrichment
process going on. And so, we have made that commitment, and so
we have to try to figure out what to do about the Paducah plant
beyond that. But we are certainly very aware and very
sympathetic to this plight.
Senator McConnell. Well, let us assume we do not do that.
Then the question is, do we have the funds in the 2012 budget
to safely and secure idle the plant after it closes and returns
to the control of the Government?
Secretary Chu. Well, what we need to do is work with you on
trying to figure out a path forward for these jobs. I have to
be candid. The gaseous diffusion technology is one which is
very energy intensive. And I would rather us invest in more
forward-leaning technologies such as improved centrifuges. I do
think the United States would like to have an in-house
institute for a technology of our----
Senator McConnell. But that is not the issue at Paducah, is
it? That is going to happen in Portsmouth.
Secretary Chu. No, it is going to happen in Portsmouth.
Senator McConnell. So, in Paducah, the issue is, will we
re-enrich the tails and actually make money for the Government,
or if we are not going to do that, will the Government pay for
a cleanup, because we have been getting the clean-up funding on
an annual basis, but there is apparently no plan in your budget
for cleanups after the operation ceased. So, under this
scenario, it strikes me the Government loses an opportunity for
revenue, we lose 1,200 jobs, and you are not funding the
cleanup, which would cost you money, whereas re-enriching the
tails would actually gain the Government money. Is that--am I
correctly understanding that?
Secretary Chu. Yes and no. I mean, certainly it will be our
obligation to clean up if and when Paducah closes down. But
that depleted uranium will be there. And, again, to go forward
in the most cost effective way, if there is a technology that
they can more effectively enrich those tails, we would be more
biased to just doing that. But certainly we have an obligation
to clean up that plant, once it is closed down.
Senator McConnell. When are we going to see the plan?
Secretary Chu. We will get back to you and your staff on
that.
Senator McConnell. Well, you know, we have got 1,200
employees sitting there wondering if they are going to be
without a job. And I understand it is a tough time for
everyone. Unemployment is high in Kentucky. But here you have
an opportunity to continue 1,200 people working, actually raise
revenue for the Government by re-enriching these tails. And
what I think I hear you saying is you have got no plan for
either contingency at the moment. Is that correct?
Secretary Chu. Right now, we have to make very, very hard
decisions given the budget reality. As Chairman Feinstein said,
we do not expect the Congress to give us our proposed budget.
We need to work----
Senator McConnell. How many of your tough decisions give
you an opportunity to actually raise revenue?
Secretary Chu. Well, we are actually raising revenue on, as
you mentioned, on the United States Enrichment Corporation
(USEC) side for the same reason. And so, it is raising revenue
in the most cost-effective way. And we always like to raise
revenue. But remember, we are at this limit of 10 percent.
Senator McConnell. Well, it is not a very satisfying answer
if you are an employee in western Kentucky. I think I correctly
heard you that you have no plan to re-enrich the tails, and you
have currently not intended to budget, at least according to
our figures, by 2014, you are not even going to meet the annual
cleanup needs that have been met on an annual basis at the
plant, and have no current plan for addressing the shortfall.
Secretary Chu. We can look at the cleanup issue, but,
again, you know, the tails are still there. And it is not as
though we are either going to move on it next year or the year
after.
Senator McConnell. No, I understand that. But you start re-
enriching them now; you still employ 1,200 people----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator McConnell [continuing]. And the Government makes
money. You leave them sitting there and then you have got the
clean-up obligation, which costs you money. I am curious as to
why you think this makes sense.
Secretary Chu. Because if we do this enrichment with this
old and now it is a very energy-consuming technology that was
developed during World War II, and there are better
technologies that we would like to use and develop in house, in
house meaning in the United States. And so, again, it is a
decision with our limited budget.
Senator McConnell. So, you would rather make the money
later than make the money now.
Secretary Chu. Well, I would go back to--we can enrich it
now, but then we cannot make the money because we cannot
release it on the market because of already what is being put
in place with USEC.
Senator McConnell. Well----
Senator Feinstein. Senator----
Senator McConnell. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. I have tried to be as liberal as
possible.
Senator McConnell. No, I appreciate it very much. Thank you
so much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Senator Lautenberg,
early bird, you are next.
GLOBAL ENERGY RACE
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you, Secretary Chu for the wonderful work you do for our
country and for helping us now to try and solve problems that
will directly affect how our economy recovers and how we
protect ourselves from a lack of energy to fuel our needs.
In 2009, China surpassed the United States in private
sector clean-energy investment for the first time. In 2010,
China began to pull away, attracting $54 billion in private
investment. Now, they recently announced that its government
would begin investing the equivalent of $75 billion in clean
energy annually. Now, will your agency's roughly $30 billion
budget invest enough for us to regain the lead in the global
clean-energy race?
Secretary Chu. You are quite right to be concerned about
China's investment, but it is not only China. I would add it is
Korea and it is the European Union, Germany, and Great Britain.
Other countries are also looking at clean-energy development,
both on the efficiency side and on the generation side. These
are going to be the big business opportunities in the world
market going forward in the coming decades. And so, what we
need to do is position the United States so that we can be a
leader in this. We have been a leader in other technologies. It
is, quite frankly, ours to lose because we still have the best
research institutions. We have a national lab system that is
incomparable. And we need to develop the mechanisms to allow
American industry to make the inventions and to manufacture in
the United States.
Now, in terms of what you specifically asked, what China
and others are doing, they are helping companies with, for
example, loans and--or loan guarantees. As you know, we have an
oversubscribed loan program. I think Senator Feinstein was--we
could not get to that part of it, and it is something that we
feel it is a good, highly leveraged way of supporting industry
investment and to--because when we see these companies
beginning to build manufacturing facilities abroad, this is one
of the factors that comes through loud and clear, that they are
getting loan guarantees from countries like China. And I think
so, looking forward, I would love to work with the Congress.
You know, part of our loan guarantee program is dependent upon
if ARRA falls through--it is highly leveraged, and it is a
guarantee. So, those programs I think would be an important
part going forward.
Senator Lautenberg. Right, but does that, Secretary Chu,
suggest that we are going to fall further behind this--back of
these countries with the kind of budget that we are talking
about at this moment?
Secretary Chu. Well, I think, you know, that's why the
President has chosen to increase the energy budget, when other
agencies were going down. And the President said that this is a
very--in order to preserve the future and to win the future, in
order to actually go forward, that investments in the science
and research and the development of these things is going to be
crucial to our economic prosperity going forward. And this is
why there were hard decisions made and why the energy budget
saw the increase that it did.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FRACKING
Senator Lautenberg. Earlier this month, you appointed a
panel to study and make recommendations on the practice of
fracking. Cornell University recently released a study that
says the natural gas extracted using fracking as the technique
to produce--can produce much more global warming pollution than
coal. And given the administration's commitment to reduce
greenhouse gasses, would your panel consider recommending that
the industry capture some of these emissions--can they capture
some of these emissions from natural gas?
Secretary Chu. Well, this advisory board, is actually going
to be meeting for the first time today and tomorrow. I am aware
of that Cornell study. There was, in fact, another paper just
published last week in the ``Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences'', which I read very thoroughly. And it
does raise some questions that will need to be answered
regarding this.
We are very concerned about the environmental impact, but
we also see that if you can do this safely and you can extract
the gas safely, and not have excess emissions or pollution of
water tables, that it is a transition to a clean-energy future,
and it is producing energy in the United States. And so, the
administration wants to do this is an environmentally
responsible way. We need to do it in an environmentally
responsible way. There is no question about that. But there are
these studies that we are very well aware of, and personally
given the charge of the subcommittee, have spent a couple of
weekends reading about this stuff, learning about this, and
there are some concerns. But we want to get all the
perspectives and find out what is really going on.
Senator Lautenberg. We will be anxious to get the panel's
report, and hope that we can establish the fact that this does
not present other environmental problems----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. That it worsens the
situation rather than improve it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Alexander.
ENERGY RESEARCH AND SUBSIDIES
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Governor Haslam recently traveled to visit
with you and Senator Cochran and me about environmental cleanup
at Oak Ridge, urging a focus on the dangers of the mercury
there. And factoring in the large population in the region, I
would be remiss if I did not thank you for the meeting and
underscore the importance of that.
My questions, though, are along the lines of my comments in
the opening statement about energy research. Does it sound
about right that the Department has about $6 billion more or
less for energy research?
Secretary Chu. Roughly speaking, yes.
Senator Alexander. Roughly $6 billion. What should it be?
If you were Professor Chu and were not bound by the office of
budget, I mean, what should--well, let me put it another way.
You talk about hubs; I talk about Manhattan Projects. I think--
are we not both talking about accelerating energy research in a
focused way?
Secretary Chu. Yes, and, I am here in defense of the
President's budget----
Senator Alexander. Right.
Secretary Chu [continuing]. But I would love to see
increases. I think, as I said before, that this is research we
do with a goal of getting the private sector to pick up this
stuff and run with it and to give them, as Chairman Feinstein
said, you know, the research center--Argonne National
Laboratories, using a light source, a facility actually gave a
leading edge and developed a series of patents that allow us to
make better batteries.
Senator Alexander. So, if I may interrupt, we are talking
about 500-mile batteries and $1 a watt solar power and a better
way to recycle, use nuclear fuel----
Secretary Chu. Right, right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. And trying to lead the
country in that. And even crusty, miserly Republicans often
agree that research is an appropriate role of the Federal
Government, while we might worry about some other things.
Given the importance of that--I mean, and as we--given the
budget problems we have with 40 cents of every $1 being
borrowed and we all know that we are going to have a rough 2,
3, or 4 years trying to make up a budget, should we not be
looking hard at such things as long-term subsidies? I think
particularly, you know, my colleagues talk about big oil all
week, you know. I think we ought to talk about big wind. And I
mentioned earlier that we are committed to spending $26
billion--taxpayers are--over the next 10 years on wind
subsidies in a production tax credit that was passed as a
temporary measure in 1992.
Now, you have got in your budget money for research on
offshore wind. It seems to me that is appropriate. It seems to
me that to continue to subsidize over a long term a mature
technology is not appropriate--jump starting electric cars,
jump starting natural gas, research for offshore wind. All
those things might be appropriate, but if we looked at long-
term energy subsidies, whether they're big oil or big wind, it
looks to me like we could find money to take a fairly modest
energy research budget of $6 billion and make it $7, $8, $9, or
$10 billion, and move us much more rapidly toward a low-cost,
clean-energy future rather than a high-cost, clean-energy
future. I mean, we have $1 solar power. That is cheaper. If we
have 500-mile batteries, that is cheaper. That uses a lot less
gas.
So, why shouldn't we be developing a policy that takes
money from these long-term subsidies and putting them into
energy research?
Secretary Chu. I would agree with you absolutely that what
we need to do in designing any energy research program or any
energy development--we are responsible for the entire
innovation chain. And what we need to do is design things and
have a program going forward where we do not want to start
businesses that cannot survive indefinitely without a subsidy.
That is just not the way to do things. So, I think we are in
total agreement with that, whereas--and you spoke about this--
for example, offshore wind has great possibilities. We need to
develop that to get it going. And the SunShot, if we see--it is
going to be an international race, and it is. And batteries, it
is an international race.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Secretary Chu. And, therefore--but it is going to be the
research----
Senator Alexander. But the amount of money to do the
research is relatively modest. I mean, you asked for--in
offshore wind it was $27 million maybe----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. For small nuclear reactors,
$60 million, ARPA-E is $100 million and--well, you have asked
for $500 million, but you got--I mean, you got $180 million.
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Alexander. And these big subsidies, whether it is
big wind or big oil, you know. It seems like the money could be
better spent, and that one of the things we might be able to
help do is reduce the long-term subsidies and focus it more on
energy research where I think there is probably a consensus
about the appropriateness of Federal spending.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND ENERGY SECURITY
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you for chairing
this hearing.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your being here to
help us understand the administration's proposal for spending
in your Department for the next fiscal year.
I am pleased to notice that it is recommended that nuclear
energy continue to have a place in the national strategy for
energy independence and guarantee supplies of energy for our
country. There is an increase in funding for the Office of
Nuclear Energy we noticed in the budget request.
I wonder, what do you think the priorities of that office
should be in terms of reaching our goals and helping maintain
our energy security as a Nation?
Secretary Chu. Sure. I would love to answer that question.
Again, the way we are approaching this is we are looking at
what industry is going to be doing and then saying what can we
do to add value to this? And it is on things like, for example,
using high-performance computing, which is in a very sweet
spot.
Like what is done at Senator Alexander's laboratory in Oak
Ridge. They are the leader of the fastest civilian--fastest.
Actually now it is China that is pushing out ahead. But to use
high-performance computing to design next-generation reactors
and how to deal with these things so you can skip engineering
steps, engineering design things that you can simulate in a
much wider space. So, we think that we can do things of that
nature.
Senator Alexander spoke about how to develop fuel recycling
that makes economical sense and that makes anti-proliferation
sense, so that the amount of electricity you generate from the
nuclear field could be 10, 20 times more than what we do today.
And so, for the same amount, you can do a lot more. I think
that is something that is very much part of what we want to do,
you know.
So, new recycling technologies, there is a long road home,
but we have to continue these new advanced reactor
technologies, things of that nature.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Senator Cochran. One decision that has been made by the
Department relates to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In
our State of Mississippi, that program is dead in the water, as
I understand it. There is a decision that I am advised canceled
the expansion of the SPR in our State. And we have submitted
requests for information, explanation, what plans do you have
for that program, and we have not received a response from DOE.
I wish you could go back and see if you do have a response to
that question. We would like to know about what your plans for
the future are with respect to the SPR. You could ask for that
now, if you would like.
Secretary Chu. Well, we will get back to you on the
details. But right now, the SPR, we are required to have a 90-
day supply in case of a disruption of supply, of which 75 days
comes from the SPR and the rest from civilian stock. And right
now, the--we are repairing one of our caves, but we are
actually at very close to full capacity. And so, but we can get
back to you on the details of what we have planned going
forward.
But the point is, we are at--we are very close to maximum
capacity. We have a cavern or two that needs repair. I do not
quite remember whether this was in Mississippi or not, and we
have to tend to that.
Senator Cochran. Well, we do know that we have been trying
to get answers to questions about that for 2 years now, I'm
told, and have not gotten a satisfactory response. So, I do not
know that there is a response, but I think we are entitled to
hear----
Secretary Chu. Sure, you are right.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. What your plans are.
Last year after the President recommended cancelling that
program, the Congress voted to rescind all the funds that we
had worked for to provide the Department about $70 million for
the expansion of the SPR. So, there is a breakdown in
communication and about whether you need the money. And if you
are not going to use the money, we may help you think up other
ways to do it than what you are planning to do with the money.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN/NUCLEAR WASTE
Well, there was a Blue Ribbon Commission chartered last
year by President Obama to study nuclear waste disposal
options. I wonder if you could give us any information about
this program, whether or not you have a specific plan. We
understand the recently cancelled Yucca Mountain program is in
limbo, unclear about whether funds are going to be used for
that program or not. It gives me the impression that we are
having a hard time finding out what the Department is up to in
some of these areas. Could you tell us about what your plans
are for storage at Yucca Mountain?
Secretary Chu. Sure. First, I believe that there is a first
draft of an outline of some of the recommendations from this
Blue Ribbon Commission. I think rather than comment here on
these draft things that have been put out, I would rather them
give an official report. Well, let me comment on one or two of
them.
What they have said is that, first, that there--one of the
things they said again goes to Senator Alexander's point that
while there is no immediate technology that we can use for
reprocessing, you know, we still should continue to develop
that technology. They have looked at other countries that have
found siting for notably Sweden and Finland, where there was a
process that seemed to have more acceptance of the local people
in those regions of the country. And so, at least in this draft
recommendation they are saying we should look at those
processes. We have examples of low-level waste where things
have gone very successfully, and there has not been opposition.
And so, there are a number of other things.
So, we need to go far in this. It is the responsibility of
DOE. As you know, we are positive on nuclear power in the
future. And whatever occurs is a DOE responsibility to deal
with the waste.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, my time has expired.
Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Tim Johnson. Secretary Chu, welcome.
DEEP UNDERGROUND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT HOMESTAKE
I am pleased to see DOE is continuing support for the Deep
Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at Homestake at
Homestake Mine in Lead, South Dakota. I appreciate that your
agency included $15 million for the project in your fiscal year
2012 budget request.
I understand DOE is nearing conclusion of an internal
review of the project and am interested in its results.
Specifically, could you talk about how DOE is prepared to work
with the project team to ensure that your recommendations are
known and included in future financial and construction
planning?
Secretary Chu. Well, first, I know we are undergoing this
review, and I have not specifically spoken with Bill Brinkman
about this yet. We are working, though, as you well know--the
National Science Foundation (NSF), is having some second
thoughts--this is very discouraging to us--about that,
especially since they started it.
But in any case, I think we are trying to figure out a path
forward on the investments that have been made by South Dakota
and DOE and NSF. So, in the interim we continue to get funds to
pump the water, continue doing this. But if we lose on the long
term this--you know, the support of what was supposed to be
roughly a 50/50 partner, we are trying to understand how we can
go forward in a perhaps reduced program or what our options
are, especially in whatever funding we will be getting in
fiscal year 2012 and going forward.
And so, these, again, are going to be very difficult
choices. There are a few requirements that we would like to
have done, and we still remain committed. We need to get some
of those experiments done. But as I said, I have not seen the
report or--and so I will be waiting for that.
Senator Tim Johnson. On a related note, as you know, a
great deal of activity is already underway at Homestake, and we
had previously hoped NSF would be, at this stage, be providing
more support for these activities. In lieu of significant NSF
construction funding, and in order to preserve the great
progress and investment we have already made, what is DOE
prepared to do to ensure that no jobs are lost while you
evaluate your long-term plans for the project and for high-
energy physics in general?
Secretary Chu. Yes. We are very aware of that and trying
our best to keep the--there is a very dedicated scientific team
that has been assembled on this. And while we try to put this
path forward, again for 2011 and 2012, there is going to be
continued funding, we do not want to lose and dissipate the
scientific teams that have been developed, and just as we do
not want the water to come back into the mine.
And, again, I do not know exactly the timing of when or how
the Office of Science will bring forward a recommendation to
me, you know, and I am sorry. It is disappointing, but that is
all I can say about it. And it is an unbiased--completely
unbiased point of view, I have to say that my old laboratory
was the lead laboratory in this, so I know personally how it is
affecting a lot of people. But, you know, not that I am going
to play favorites, but it is--I know personally--and I know
personally. As you know, I visited the mine in South Dakota,
and I know personally all the investments that South Dakota has
made in this.
HIGH-PRIORITY EXPERIMENTS
Senator Tim Johnson. You referenced high-priority
experiments. Could you list a few?
Secretary Chu. Sure. For high-energy physics, we are
investing in what we call the high-intensity frontier. We are
also investing in the highest-energy machine, CERN, the
highest-energy machine there. So, right now because of what
happened decades ago for the super connecting collider, the
highest-frontier energy machine is turning on the large hadron
collider at CERN. And they had a hiccup, but they have
recovered well from that hiccup. And so, what we have done is
we still want to deal with high-energy physics as a significant
part of our program. We still wanted to go forward. And so, the
good news is American scientists are actively participating in
that machine, and, for the first time, an American scientist is
now the lead in one of the major detectors.
But we also want to make investments here in the United
States. And so, we have going forward, and with the Fermilab
Lab director, Piermaria Oddone, he made and we collectively
made a decision that since the large hadron collider is going
great guns, we need to invest in the future, which is the new
sources for neutrino beams at Fermilab. So, we have every
intention of continuing to invest in Fermilab in those--and,
again, as you know, in one of the experiments in the Fermilab
investments for the neutrinos is the use of the detector in
South Dakota. So, that is why we are especially disappointed in
the events that unfolded last year.
Senator Tim Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Chu.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEL
If the subcommittee will just give me 1 minute of latitude
before we get into Energy, Madam Chair, I wanted to just call
everyone's attention to the fact that the Mississippi River, as
we meet here today, is flowing at an extraordinary historic
level, and this subcommittee has jurisdiction over water and
energy. And I just wanted to put into the record, Madam Chair,
these statistics that are startling.
The river is flowing at 172 billion cubic feet per week,
7.2 billion cubic feet every hour. And as one article today
described it, it said it is a snarling, powerful beast barging
its way south. This subcommittee has jurisdiction, as you know,
and has done, I might say, Madam Chair, a remarkable job in the
course of the last decade with a lot of help to build this
Mississippi River system. But it is going to be up to us to
watch to see how it works in the coming days and weeks and be
prepared to do what we need to do to make sure that people are
protected should this ever happen again. So, I would like to
submit that to the record without objection.
Senator Feinstein. So ordered.
I thank you for the comments, and I thank every member of
this subcommittee. You know, I come from earthquake country,
know what you have gone through constantly, and how hard it has
been.
Senator Landrieu. And it is not just Louisiana; it is
Tennessee and Mississippi. And Senator Cochran full well knows
what the people in north Mississippi are experiencing right now
and the Senator from Tennessee. But this subcommittee has
jurisdiction over that system.
LOAN GUARANTEES FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AUTOMOBILES
But three questions really quickly. One, Mr. Secretary, you
and I have spoken several times about this, a project that is
pending before your Department now. The Department's loan
programs have supported more than $30 billion in loans, loan
guarantees for about 28 clean energy and enhanced automotive
efficiency projects. One of those projects is pending in
Louisiana right now. And the reason I bring this to your
attention is it is very timely. Our legislature is meeting as
we speak. They have reserved basically $68 million to support
this project.
The application has pending before you and your Department
for 2 years. Do you have any update for us at all on Next Auto
Works, what the timeline looks like, when they might know yes
or no, because this application we think is quite strong and
quite competitive, it could create more than 1,000 jobs in this
part of the country. But as importantly as that, it can produce
vehicles that can achieve 40 miles per gallon, which I know the
chair, who has been a leader on CAFE standards, would
appreciate. This is new technology for the combustible engine,
but a new technology that seems to us to meet the goals of what
the President and what you are touting.
Can you give us any update at all about where we would be
with this application?
Secretary Chu. Well, I do not think it would be appropriate
in a Senate hearing. As you know, in policy, we really--the
details of specific loan applications, we have to honor the
relationship we have with the applicant.
Senator Landrieu. I realize that, but generally--and I
realize you cannot give the details. I am not asking. But
generally, does this fit with your goals of creating new
automobile companies that are pressing forward with new
technologies to produce automobiles that can almost double our
efficiency? Does that generally meet with the goals of your
Department?
Secretary Chu. Well, if you are asking--I think what you
are asking is, are we in favor of the advanced technology
automobile program that we have and its loan, and the answer is
yes. We think it played a very important part in actually
helping not only, you know, innovative companies, but also
established companies, in developing a new line of automobiles
with advanced technology that get better mileage and are at
high efficiencies. That means that we can, again, take back a
leadership role in automobiles. I mean to be candid, we had
this for three-quarters of a century, but it is something, you
know, that Europeans and Japanese and the Koreans are now
wrestling with. And so, we are in favor of supporting
innovative technologies like that.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me ask you because I do not
want to lose my time, if you could give to my office some time
by the end of the week just an update on this, because I have
to tell our legislature something. I mean, they have been
holding $68 million to support this in a public/private
partnership, Federal/State partnership. And, you know, we have
got budget constraints like everyone.
FRACKING
My second question is, and Senator Lautenberg alluded to
this, we have had a breakthrough, as you know, in this country
in finding almost 100 years, I understand, of natural gas
reserves. This is terrific. People want to go around saying we
have no reserves of oil, which is not true. We have not looked
for the oil. I think we have a lot more. But we know how much
natural gas we have. The industry has surprised itself at what
it is finding.
So, my question is on this fracking issue, what is the
Department doing and are you being aggressive to find some
conclusions? We think, because we have done this for a while in
Louisiana, that fracking is safe under certain circumstances.
What are you doing to come to some final determination on this
so we can take advantage of 100 years of supply of natural gas,
which can reduce our greenhouse gases, I understand, by 40 to
50 percent?
Secretary Chu. Well----
Senator Landrieu. If you could do it in 30 seconds or less.
Secretary Chu. Thirty seconds or less. First, we have to
establish what is really going on, and it could be different in
different regions of the country. And so, that is why the
President asked DOE to form this subcommittee. And so, we need
to find out what is going on.
Senator Landrieu. When do you expect some results or some
conclusions from that?
Secretary Chu. We are tasked that 90 days after the first,
which is starting today, 90 days from now we will have a
preliminary set of recommendations. And that committee--that
subcommittee then goes--in that 90 days goes before the full
advisory----
Senator Landrieu. Madam Chair, let me just say I think that
is a very important component of our work in this next year
because natural gas is, you know, a 40 percent reduction in
greenhouse gasses. We have a 100-year supply. The technology, I
believe, is there. I think we are going to find that there is a
safe path forward. So, if we could just take a focus on that.
And then my time has run out, but I am going to submit a
question in writing about exporting natural gas and the pending
application you have for southwest Louisiana.
Secretary Chu. All right. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, Senator Graham had to leave and asked that
he be afforded the opportunity to submit questions for the
record.
Senator Feinstein. Absolutely.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
DEEPWATER OFFSHORE WIND TECHNOLOGIES
Secretary Chu, it is great to see you again. Let me begin
by thanking you for visiting the University of Maine last June
to see the very exciting research and development technology
that is under way in the area of deep water offshore wind. I
would say to my friend and colleague from Tennessee that deep
water wind does not face the same challenges as land-based
wind, because it can be located out of sight. And the winds are
much stronger and more persistent offshore, so you have more
energy produced. But there is the need for investment into the
technologies, so that the challenges of siting wind turbines in
deep water offshore can be met. And I am very excited about the
work that is going on at the University of Maine.
To bring the Secretary up to date, a key milestone was
reached just this month in which three scale models of floating
turbines were successfully tested. And that is providing key
data to advance the technology.
But one of my concerns is that our country should not lose
the global race in developing deep water offshore wind
technology. And if you look at this chart, and I believe the
Secretary has it as well, we are losing the race right now.
Consented means permitted, for those who are not into the lingo
here. But as you can see, Europe is making considerable
investments in deep water offshore wind, Asia is as well, while
the United States really lags. And yet, this offers the
potential of providing clean domestic energy to large
population centers in close proximity to wind resources.
I am pleased to see the investment that the DOE is making.
And just for the record, to make sure that I understand the
Department that you have submitted, it is my understanding that
you just delivered the operating plan for the remainder of 2011
to the Appropriations Committee this week. And it includes
funding under the category of Advanced Technology Demonstration
Project-Wind Energy. And just to clarify, it is the intention
of the Department to do a competitive solicitation for deep
water wind energy using some portion or all of that funding?
Secretary Chu. If it is deep water, the answer is yes.
Senator Collins. And that is the answer I was hoping to
hear, so I am pleased that that is the case.
Senator Alexander made a very important point, that we have
these technologies that are not going to be able to move
forward unless we have a partnership with the Federal
Government, with State government, and with the private sector.
And I believe that that investment of $26.3 million will help
jump start the investment.
I would note that the State of Maine has passed a bond
issue and is providing millions of dollars for this as well.
And we have also put together a consortium of private companies
in Maine that are investing. And we are working with a company
that is partially owned by the Netherlands that also is
investing in this technology. But it really is very exciting.
Can you give me some idea of what the time table for
putting out the solicitation for that $26 million is?
Secretary Chu. I would need to get back to you on the
details of it, but we hope it is soon. Again--see? This is
really good. You are on a roll--in a couple of weeks.
Senator Collins. That is also great news because I think it
is important that we move forward.
Secretary Chu. I think the best news is Senator Alexander
actually said a kind word for wind.
Senator Collins. Believe me; that made my day. I sent him a
little note.
Secretary Chu. Because I read his book.
Senator Collins. I mentioned that there is a consortium in
Maine; it is called the Deep Sea Wind Consortium, which is led
by the University of Maine. But it is a broad-base
collaborative effort that involves 35 partners, including the
State of Maine, academic institutions, nonprofits, utilities,
and industry leaders. And what we have found is that kind of
collaborative interdisciplinary approach is absolutely
essential when you are trying to spur innovation further.
When there are a lot of Federal agencies that are involved
in the effort to jump start offshore wind, and I am hoping that
we can see a similar collaboration among the Federal agencies
and departments that are involved so that we can avoid
duplication and maximize efficiency, and stretch those
resources.
Could you share with us how DOE is working, particularly
with the Department of the Interior, which has some permitting
responsibilities, but there are other Federal partners as well,
like NSF, the Fish and Wildlife Services.
Secretary Chu. Yes. I think because these are, you know,
largely going to be in Federal waters that is the Department of
the Interior's jurisdiction, that they are very supportive of
this. But, of course, you know, you have to go through the
necessary requirements because of exactly what you said there,
you know. There could be environmental concerns, and you have
to make sure that you examine them in a thoughtful about them.
But I think there is a general acknowledgment. If you can
get the technology to work and that is an if and so is the
research. The opportunity for offshore wind and deep water wind
is there. It is closer to population centers. It is steadier,
and the siting problems are not as great as long as, you know,
environmentally we make sure that that is okay. So, the
opportunity is great, but it is one of reliability and
technology.
And again--and so that is why we chose to shift the
research. We think onshore wind is a mature technology. And so,
to focus on the more innovative aspects and that is why we
repositioned the program.
Senator Collins. Thank you, thank you for your efforts, and
thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And
Secretary, welcome. Good to see you as always.
I have a whole laundry list of questions, and many of them
are questions that were asked of you at the hearing before the
Energy Committee back in February--February 16. And I did not
have an opportunity to ask all of the questions, and so we
submitted them for the record to be received in writing. We
have not yet----
Secretary Chu. Really?
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Received those responses,
so I wanted to alert you to that because some of the questions
I am going to ask you now are hopefully ones that you have
already asked and they are in the mail. But if I can just let
you know that we are still awaiting some of those.
Secretary Chu. I apologize for that. We were trying to get
our system to be more responsive and quicker, but I will look
into that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will look forward to receiving
them.
GEOTHERMAL FUNDING
I wanted to ask you just a little bit about the budgets
increase for geothermal. Your budget calls for an increase in
funding. It is actually a tripling in funding from $101
million--to $101 million from existing $43 million. Kind of
pleasantly surprised me because I am a big advocate of
geothermal and what we can do with that resource.
But the question to you this morning or this afternoon is
whether or not the Department will be able to spend this out in
a timely way. We have, and you have been updated on this, but
we have been dealing with a project in NecNec, Alaska, an
enhanced geothermal project that we feel has great prospect,
great hope, and we are really encouraged about it. It is
exactly what the Department has supported in the past. But the
sponsors have had just a nightmare of issues in dealing with
your Golden Field Office.
Now, some of the issues have come about because of things
that the sponsor was involved with. But if you are able to
secure money in the budget for the geothermal component, what
assurances can you give us that the Department is able to get
these dollars out into the field in a timely manner so that we
can move these technologies?
Secretary Chu. I think it was remarked already before, we
use--we have an existence proof that within DOE and within the
Federal Government, you can create a funding organization that
is nimble, that is thorough, that has the high standards of
review processes, and that is RP. And we are now focusing very
quietly on getting that way of doing business out to the rest
of DOE. There are pockets where it is very good, and there are
pockets where it is less good. And so, we are very committed in
order to get these processes moving in a much more efficient
way. And, quite frankly, it would improve the way we do things.
And so, I will look into this because what we are finding
is sometimes we have a field office that is almost in
competition with central headquarters, and then all of a
sudden, the Freedom of Information Act, they start to debate
what is going on.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am glad that you recognize that
because that seems to be the sense that we have as we are
working with constituents on this. So, if you can look into
that. But again, from the bigger perspective, we want to make
sure that if these dollars are directed this way that actually
they are being translated out into the field.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Let me ask you about nuclear and section 302 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act that requires the establishment of the Nuclear
Waste Fund, collecting fees from the utilities, and contained
within that--the act, it expressly identifies Yucca Mountain as
the sole permanent repository. And it further directs you as
the Secretary to propose an adjustment to the fee that is
collected from the utilities if the amount collected is
insufficient or in excess of the amount that is needed to meet
the costs of construction.
So, given where we are with the attempted withdrawal of the
Yucca Mountain license application, do you believe that the
fees that are collected and deposited within the fund are in
excess of the amount that is needed? Do you think an adjustment
of the fee is in order? Where do we go with the collection of
fees given the status right now in Yucca?
Secretary Chu. Well, you are right. The status of Yucca is
yet to be determined. It is in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and also in the courts. But regarding the fee,
we still have a responsibility to deal with their spent fuel.
And again, a draft recommendation from the Blue Ribbon
Commission is we do see a need for--they have suggested--again,
it is just a draft, but they have suggested both interim
storage sites and also--but eventually as--again, it is going
to be dependent on the technology going forward at interim
storage sites, but there will be an eventual time if we develop
the technologies--recycling--that after that there would need
to be a permanent waste disposal site, and most likely
underground.
Senator Murkowski. Understanding all that, but insofar as
what is happening right now with the collection of the fees----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Is the Department, are you
as the Secretary, looking at whether or not an adjustment might
be appropriate, given the fact that you have this withdrawal
that is pending?
Secretary Chu. Right. We have looked at it, and I think
your question, if I would rephrase it is, okay, right now it is
in limbo. That does not mean that going into the future we have
this responsibility. We do have this responsibility.
Senator Murkowski. We do, yes.
Secretary Chu. And because of that, if we--I think it would
be unwise to say, okay, for the next 5 or 10 years no fee until
we have a plan going forward, have a slow steady--but we will
need to--but it is, you know, it is a virtual bank, if you
will, as you well know.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I think the frustration has
been that, well, if there is a plan in place, I can understand
why I should be depositing fees. But if there is no plan, you
are just asking for a collection of fees that seemingly is not
going to go anywhere. I understand and I think you and I both
agree we have to deal with the repository issue. But I think
you can also understand some of the frustration that the
utilities have out there.
I am over my time. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murray.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUDGET AND NUCLEAR CLEANUP
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chu, welcome to the subcommittee, and I am sure that
you and everyone else in this room today knows what I am going
to ask you about, obviously Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my
home State of Washington.
As you well know, Hanford is the largest Federal nuclear
clean-up site in the country, and it is part of the larger
complex that is run by the Department's Environmental
Management program.
When you go back through DOE's lineage, the Department
actually was created to manage nuclear activities, and the
Federal Government has a fundamental and legal responsibility
to clean up the contamination that has been left behind by our
Nation's nuclear weapons production activities.
So, I am concerned that that this administration does not
seem to take these legal obligations seriously because I look
at the budgets and see that you continue to increase programs
that do not have any legal obligations associated with them,
but the Office of Environmental Management (EM) remains largely
flat. And I do not think I am the only one of my colleagues on
the subcommittee that is concerned about that.
So, I wanted to ask you today, what is your plan to
increase the EM budget to meet our legal commitments on
cleanup?
Secretary Chu. Well, first, because of ARRA, and as you
well know, with your help and others the clean-up program
received an additional $6 billion in ARRA. Thanks to this
additional funding, we feel that we can meet our legal
commitments in 2011-2012, not only in your State, but in
Tennessee, in South Carolina, and in other States.
Beyond 2011-2012, we will need to look at our budget
requirements. With our current budget request we feel
comfortable through 2012. What is going to happen to our 2012
budget, which is what this hearing is about, is a real
question. And, you know, we put in a request in 2011, and in
2011 we did not get the full amount of that request in the
continuing resolution. And so, we have to make adjustments.
I think all the States that have nuclear waste concerns,
are very concerned about this as well. I think you were not
here, but Senator Alexander said that Tennessee has nuclear
concerns. They have a higher density of population. There are
not only nuclear concerns there are also mercury waste concerns
there as well.
So, what we need to do is try to make the best technical
assessment of the things that have the highest risk and
remediate the risk in the most efficient way possible. That is
where we are.
EM has done a very good job in a number of projects that
are ahead of time and ahead of budget. However the waste
treatment plant is at risk for going over budget, so we have
diverted additional funds to the waste treatment plant so that
we can----
Senator Murray. Well, let me get into that for just a
minute--in just a minute. But overall, the only legal
obligations that your Department has are for nuclear weapons
cleanup and waste storage. And it is disappointing that we have
to fight the administration year after year after year to meet
those legal obligations. I am sorry I missed your testimony; I
had another obligation. But I did read it and it highlights
significant increases in a lot of other program offices,
including those without any legal obligations. And so, it is
troubling to see the EM budget, which is the legal obligation,
continue to struggle, and the Department is asking for funds
for other programs. So, I will ask you about some specifics.
I appreciate the work that the Department has done on the
waste treatment plant and its use of independent reviews, like
the construction project reviews. However, I have to tell you I
am concerned about the singular focus on the waste treatment
plant. I have been very clear with you and everyone in the
Department and in the administration that if the administration
intends to move forward with the proposed modified funding
profile for the waste treatment plant, the only successful way
to achieve that is for the administration to increase funding
for the entire EM program to make sure that we meet the legal
obligations across the complex. And to be very frank with you,
I just do not see that happening in you keeping up your side of
the obligation.
The waste treatment plant is a priority, but we cannot
increase funding for that and decrease funding for other legal
obligations to meet that proposed funding level. So, that is my
question to you, is how are we going to meet all of those legal
obligations? The only way to do it is to increase the entire EM
budget.
Secretary Chu. Well, yes. As I said, because of ARRA
investments, we will be meeting our legal obligations in the
coming couple of years. After that, there is a concern and I
will be honest with you there. But also, the President put in a
large increase in the Energy budget in part because of the
nuclear security issues, but also in large part because we
think that the investments in the R&D and some deployment
activities will position the United States for future
prosperity. Yes, we do not have legal obligations there, but I
think we have to make these calls as to what would be in the--
with whatever funds the Congress gives us, what would be the
best----
Senator Murray. But I do not see how you can say, well, we
cannot meet our legal obligations, but we are going to increase
funding elsewhere in DOE.
Secretary Chu. Well, as I said, because of ARRA and the $6
billion----
Senator Murray. Well, and we are talking about fiscal year
2012 and beyond.
Secretary Chu. No, fiscal year 2012, I think we will be
meeting our legal obligations. And then after that, it again
depends on what the budgets are going to be. The legal
obligations of our waste legacy, our cold war legacy, is
something which is, quite frankly, the third-largest Government
liability. This could be hundreds of billions of dollars. And
we need to develop a plan going forward, not just for me, but
my successors, on how do you meet these liabilities. And,
again, this again goes back to how to best spend that money.
And so, in order to meet these obligations in the limited
budget scenario, there are ways that we can do our business
better in EM.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, it has to start with the
request from DOE stating this is our priority, we have to meet
our legal obligation, and this is what I expect your Department
to do, and that is why I am disappointed.
But I have to say that it is a legal obligation. It is a
moral obligation. It is a real obligation. We have waste at our
nuclear facilities that is leaking toward the Columbia River,
and we expect your Department to let the Congress know what the
obligation is and how we meet it within your budget. And that
is what I am requesting.
Secretary Chu. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Murray. And
I am going to begin a second round, and you might just want to
stay for this first question.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE
I have become very interested in the nuclear fuel cycle,
particularly following Daiichi. We have 104 nuclear power
plants in this country; California has 2. To my understanding,
we have around two dozen plants that are of the same model as
the boiling water reactors at Daiichi. Now, when others have
said, we have better technology, Daiichi comes back and says,
well, we upgraded ours to meet that as well.
In looking at the two nuclear power plants in California,
and particularly the spent fuel part of it, which is what
Senator Murray is really referring to in a sense, the fact that
these spent-fuel pools are really, to some extent, fallible.
They are restacked. They can have large numbers of rods in
them. In our State, they are kept there for as long as 24
years. The ranking member and I had the head of the NRC, Mr.
Jaczko, before us, and he said, well, this is good for 100
years. Candidly, I do not know how anybody knows that this
stuff is good for 100 years.
What I also saw were the dry casts and the transference of
the rods into the casts. When I asked questions, I was told,
well, these casts were specially built for transfer to some
form of repository.
I have really come to my own conclusion that the way we
best protect Americans is by having some regional facilities
where the storage of nuclear waste can be done over the
hundreds of years, supervised by the Government. Otherwise, who
knows what Mother Nature will bring down? I mean, I never
remember funnel clouds in the Pacific. I never remember the
level of hurricanes that we have had. Now, last night, the
television said a tornado may be on the ground in a part of
Virginia, so who knows what might happen?
I am very concerned that we really need to pay attention to
spent fuel and what happens to it. I have caught you unaware, I
am sure. But if you have any comments on this subject, I
certainly would appreciate hearing them.
Secretary Chu. Well, okay, I think regarding the spent
fuels, certainly the accident at Fukushima Daiichi is something
that we are paying and the NRC especially is paying a lot of
attention on. Again, it is in NRC's jurisdiction, but there
is--it is certainly true that when you have a pool of spent
fuel with water that it is a higher risk than dry cast storage
where you have just natural air circulation. You do not have to
worry about something that could breach the pool and things of
that nature. It is just very passive, and it is more robust.
And so, certainly I will transition to that so-called dry
cast storage is something that I anticipate will be happening.
That is, I think, one of the recommendations--the preliminary
draft recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, you know.
I do not want to second guess what the NRC is going to--going
to be doing about this, but certainly it is something that they
are saying, yes, that there will be a number of interim--
interim being these dry cast facilities in the United States,
and I believe that is one of their recommendations, at least in
draft.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Good. I was very impressed with
the testimony of a Dr. Moniz, M-o-n-i-z, from MIT--on the
subject.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM/CREDIT SUBSIDIES
Let me go to one of my favorite issues, your renewable loan
guarantee program. I believe you have just $200 million in the
budget for that and that you have sent letters to 50 renewable
energy developers who had applied for loan guarantees saying
their applications were on hold because DOE believed these
would have difficulty making the September 30 construction
start requirement.
I do not know how we developed wind and solar power without
a very aggressive loan guarantee program. Really, I thought we
had it, and putting these projects on hold with so little in
your budget really concerns me because I do not know anybody
that can do it without a loan guarantee.
Secretary Chu. So, the reason we looked at this has to do
with the fact that if you did not have it at a certain time--a
conditional loan that goes through the approval process, that
you have conditions that would have to be met, and then you
would actually have to start on the project before September
30.
And so, we looked at the portfolio of our projects. We
could, with these conditional loans, see that we could use the
remaining funds. But we did not think it would be fair to those
companies to continue investing in this knowing that as we
approach this September 30 deadline where they still would have
to do other things--they would have to secure the 20 percent
funding, there would be other conditions, and each loan was
different. So, we felt that it would not be fair to say, so it
is put on hold until there is a path going forward and whether
it is going to be continued funding.
We have asked for continued funding. I know that Senators
Bingaman and Murkowski are looking at other mechanisms for
financing these things. And I am supportive of a capital loan
program and want to work with the Congress on that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. We will see
what we might be able to do, and we will certainly consult you.
So, I have to excuse myself. Senator, I am going to speak
on the floor for the nominee that the vote is pending on at
4:30 p.m., so may I turn it over to you, and you can go full
bore.
Senator Alexander. I will go for it.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. I will just have a couple of
questions. I was going to follow up on Senator Feinstein's
about the loan guarantees. Since nuclear power produces 70
percent of our carbon-free electricity, and renewable--and
other renewables produce a few percent, why should nuclear
power have to pay for its loan guarantee subsidy and wind and
solar not be?
Secretary Chu. Well, because there was a--somewhat before
my time, but the reasoning was that nuclear power is a more
mature technology. Also fossil fuel has to also, in the 1703
program, have to pay for their credit subsidies, and that the
nuclear loans actually should get lower credit subsidy scores.
I mean, the first one, the one we did do with Southern and
others had a, you know, a pretty modest grade subsidy. And so,
but it was felt that because it was a more mature technology.
Now, you know, things have changed, and so----
Senator Alexander. Well, did you just testify that wind was
a mature technology?
Secretary Chu. Wind is a mature technology, and if we are
going to fund--well, it is a mature technology in the sense
that if we are going to fund and research and develop it, we
would rather fund research and development it in offshore wind
and, particularly, deep offshore wind.
Senator Alexander. Well, I am all for offshore wind
research and development, but I am just wondering if wind is a
mature technology and it produces a puny amount of intermittent
power, why you give it, in addition to paying for its loan
guarantees, why you pay for its loan guarantees and not pay for
nuclear power's loan guarantees.
Secretary Chu. Again, well, first, you know, we are----
Senator Alexander. It is not as if we are building a lot of
nuclear plants right now. I mean----
Secretary Chu. Right. So, we have put in a request for
research in nuclear energy, which I am very pro for. And so, I
think that to be--but regarding the loans, for example, again,
if you look at the companies that before had been putting
forward loan applications, they have the assets and things that
one could actually say that they--and there is not as much of a
structure for the deployment of wind. And as that goes forward,
I think, you know, we----
Senator Alexander. Well, Mr. Secretary, there is a 2.1 cent
subsidy for all----
Secretary Chu. Right, right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. The wind power produced in
the country, which is costing taxpayers $26-plus-billion just
over the next 10 years. And you do not have anything like that
for nuclear power.
Secretary Chu. Yes and no. I mean, I think there is no
production tax credit, for example.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Secretary Chu. I agree with that completely. But, you know,
the people who are against nuclear feel that there are other
things that the U.S. Government does for nuclear. And so, gosh,
I thought you were pro wind.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
Senator Alexander. I am pro research, including offshore--
the offshore wind. Let me ask you one last question, and then
we will conclude. You have a request in your budget for
research for the small modular----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Reactor, which I know you--
is a priority of yours. My question--and it is of mine, and it
is of many, many people. It looks like it could be an
opportunity for the United States, given our experience with
small reactors with the Navy that these could be reactors that
we could build here, sell here, lead the world in building, and
they would be cheaper. And so, there is a nice scenario ahead
of us for Small Modular Reactors (SMR) perhaps.
So, my question is, is the amount of money that you have
requested for this year, what will that permit you to do, and,
two, are you set up--are you organized to learn anything from
the United States Navy and its experience since the 1950s with
small reactors?
Secretary Chu. Okay. So we preliminarily requested a large
fraction of that would be to help firms complete their
engineering designs for NRC approval so they can go forward.
There is another fraction of, a smaller part, that would be for
essentially research and development that could complement what
is being done in the history books.
We feel that if there are things that--you know, if
industry can invest in the research and do it, you know, we
would like them to do it, but if there are other things----
Senator Alexander. Well, part of your money, if I
understand it, goes to pay for things that the NRC would
normally pay for. I mean, you are helping them pay for some of
their work, is that right or wrong?
Secretary Chu. No. It is actually to help the companies
complete engineering design that NRC would require of them.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
Secretary Chu. Okay. So, it is really to help the companies
complete engineering, just as we help with the AP1000
engineering design. Now, we do have a lot of experience. The
companies, like BMW and others, that have participated in the
nuclear--Navy--certainly have experience in there, certainly
one of the companies that want to go forward and try to get
licensing from the NRC.
It is a very different type of reactor. The Navy reactors
are highly enriched uranium reactors. The newest generation
will be designed so that they last the whole life of the summer
in 40 years, a very high-performance reactor. As Admiral Donald
said, when I first time boarded it at DOE, I asked him, you
know, can we use your experience with nuclear reactors in the
Navy, and particularly the summer E-fleet, because this is an
SMR in the civilian fleet. And he kind of looked at me and
said, you cannot afford my reactors. They are very high-
performance reactors.
But there are things that do leak over, and some of the
companies that build the Navy reactors are--want to go forward
with the licensing. The most critical thing, again, is we are
looking at what can we add value to to help industry move along
in a path that we think is important. But as I think we both
agree, that SMRs are a totally different model for how to drive
up safety, drive up the effectiveness and drive down the costs
and to recapture the nuclear lead. And so, that is why I have
been out in front and pushing SMRs. I think it is an
opportunity--very different because the economy of scale of
building a very large one--you know, 1,000 to a 1,500 megawatt
reactor, because of all of the fixed costs of siting and
licensing and everything else.
Now, you build an assembly line plant that you can ship not
only anywhere in the United States, but anywhere in the world.
And you can--and then you can right size the generation to the
transmission infrastructure at that site. So, it is a very
different model, but it means that you have to be able to
essentially mass produce these reactors with that economy of
number.
You know, it is not proven that we can do this, but we
think that there is an opportunity there, and we were also
trying to engage with industry and the right economic models to
do this so that--the utility companies--and it also, it is bite
sized. If you have to spend $8 billion they think very hard
about that because you are spending a large fraction of the
company assets on this next project. If it were delayed a year
or two, that would have financial consequences. When it is a
factory-generated thing, a lot of those things go away, because
you can stamp them out. And so, the uncertainties and delays in
schedules, there is another real opportunity. It takes away a
lot of the uncertainty people might have about the industry.
NUCLEAR FUEL RODS AND DRY CAST STORAGE
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein mentioned before she
left that the Chairman of the NRC has said that in their
judgment, used nuclear fuel rods could be stored safely for up
to 100 years. Do you have any reason to disagree with that?
Secretary Chu. I think the fuel rods and dry cast storage
is a determination the NRC has, and what I know about it, that
appears to be correct. Different than spent fuels and wet
storage because of things we saw in Fukushima. I do not think
the NRC said that spent-fuel pools were, you know--you want to
go to dry cast storage.
Senator Alexander. No, I think he did.
Secretary Chu. Oh, he really did?
Senator Alexander. Yes. I mean, well, there is nothing
inherently--I mean, the problem is, as long as you have
electricity and water, your spent-fuel pool should be perfectly
safe, should they not?
Secretary Chu. Well, I do not want to contradict Chairman
Jaczko.
Senator Alexander. Well, I do not want to misrepresent him
either, so maybe I----
Secretary Chu. So, I will----
Senator Alexander. Maybe I heard him wrong. But the--in the
first place, you cannot put these rods in the dry cast storage
immediately, is that correct?
Secretary Chu. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. It takes several years before they are
cool enough to put into dry cast storage.
Secretary Chu. That is correct. I think----
Senator Alexander. During that time, you have no reason to
think that they are in a----
Secretary Chu. No.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. In a dangerous condition
when stored under NRC regulations on site.
Secretary Chu. Right. No, I agree with Chairman Jaczko on
that, that, first, you are absolutely right. For the first 5 or
6 years, they are too hot to be air cooled. And the way, as I--
actually, the way these spent fuels--we have backup systems in
case the main water supply is interrupted there. There is
secondary piping and things of that nature.
Senator Alexander. Well, there are second, third, fourth,
and fifth redundancies. Well, I mean, I went to Watts Par with
one of the commissioners recently, and I asked the question, I
mean, if one--if the backup electricity system goes down, there
is another electricity system, and then there is another one.
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Alexander. And then there is finally a way to get
water in even if all of it goes down.
Secretary Chu. I think that is absolutely what we need.
Senator Alexander. So, there is enough water--if there is
enough available water, the fuel rods would be safe, is that
not right?
Secretary Chu. Right, right. And so, you know, can I be 100
percent guaranteed that nothing would--no, but I think there
are these backup systems that I feel safe about, okay? And so,
I would, but without trying to contradict NRC and Chairman
Jaczko, I think dry cast storage, if you do not have water, you
do not have that. It would be more robust, but that does not
mean that the current storage system is endangering Americans.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Chu, for
coming today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
At this time I would like to ask the subcommittee members
to submit any additional questions they have for the Secretary.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your oral testimony you mentioned the
need to find ways to do business better when referring to Environmental
Management. I've been pleased to hear about site wide management for
infrastructure and support services at Hanford.
Please tell me how this new approach is working and whether it
would be beneficial at other sites across the Department of Energy
(DOE) complex.
Answer. The Department's purpose for the creating a Mission Support
Contract (MSC) was three-fold:
--to make it possible for multiple contractors (which is why the MSC
concept is particularly well-suited for the Hanford site) to
focus on performing their different short- and long-term
environmental clean-up mission;
--to create a scalable infrastructure that can shed excess capacity
and its associated costs over time as the clean-up mission
progresses; and
--to provide efficient and effective delivery of infrastructure and
site services in support of the clean-up mission.
DOE developed an aggressive and comprehensive Performance
Measurement Evaluation Plan (PEMP) that assigns all award fee to
specific strategic outcomes of the contract. To date, MSC at Hanford is
achieving the three objectives established for this acquisition. Since
the start of the contract period in August 2009, the MSC has increased
service responsiveness to the clean-up mission by implementing
benchmarked service standards and a broad range of service performance
measures that obtain feedback from the clean-up contracts regarding
costs, effectiveness, and quality of services provided. Thus far in the
contract period of performance, the MSC has greatly increased the
scalability of the IT infrastructure and leads the DOE complex in
innovation and efficiencies in this area. Currently, the MSC is
increasing capacity where required to support the operation of the
Waste Treatment Plant. Award fee was assigned to the development of an
Infrastructure Services Alignment Plan to provide a comprehensive plan
developed in cooperation with other Hanford Site contractors for the
realignment of the existing infrastructure to meet the future needs of
the clean-up mission.
It was anticipated early in the development of the acquisition
strategy that this approach, if successful, would be a strong candidate
for implementation at other Environmental Management (EM) sites.
The primary assumption that a mission support contract would enable
more focus on the part of the site contractors tasked with the clean-up
mission (since time of award in 2009) has been proven valid and it is
felt that with the experience gained, the Department is in a prime
position to leverage this strategy across the EM complex.
Question. Secretary Chu, obviously both you and I would like the
fiscal year 2012 budget request of $6.1 billion to advance through the
appropriations process to ensure that the Department can meet its legal
commitments.
However, in the event that the Congress does not enact an Energy
and Water Development appropriations bill by September 30, can you
please tell me how the Department would determine interim funding
levels for the EM program?
Answer. We are hopeful that the Congress will complete work on the
2012 appropriations bill by September 30, 2011, and do not want to
speculate about hypothetical future scenarios.
Question. If the Department uses the fiscal year 2011 final year-
long continuing resolution as a base number going into fiscal year
2012, what will the impacts be at each site in the EM complex in terms
of work scope, regulatory compliance milestones, and jobs?
Answer. We are still analyzing the effects of the 2011 funding
levels and do not want to speculate about hypothetical future
scenarios.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Chu, I appreciate your leadership in getting
the Loan Guarantee program up and running and commend you on efforts
made thus far, including 28 conditional commitments for loan
guarantees.
I understand that last week, the Loan Programs Office sent letters
to all pending section 1705 loan guarantee applicants, indicating that
DOE was either putting projects ``on hold'' or moving them through the
section 1705 process.
I know that most of these companies have spent significant amounts
of both time and money to prepare their applications and to comply with
due diligence requirements, and I am very concerned that a large number
of companies who have already spent a lot of money are facing a very
uncertain path forward.
Can you please tell me how many applicants were in each category--
``moving forward'' versus ``on hold''?
Answer. The Department notified 17 applicants that their
applications were moving forward and notified 42 applicants that their
applications are on hold.
Question. Of the applicants that were moved forward, did the
Department include any companies, including affiliate companies, with
more than one application pending in the section 1705 program?
Answer. The projects we support are large and complex, and each one
involves multiple parties, including developers, sponsors, EPC
contractors, equity participants, advisors, and--in Financial
Institution Partnership Program transactions--other lenders. Sometimes,
on a given project, the same entity (or its affiliates) may play more
than one of these roles. There are entities that are involved, in some
capacity, in more than one of the projects that were moved forward
under 1705.
Question. If so, how many of those companies or their affiliates
have one or more applications pending? How many applications for each
of those companies are moving forward?
Answer. As discussed above, given the many roles that exist in the
context of each project, it is difficult to provide a precise number in
response to this question.
Question. Have any of the companies in the ``moving forward''
category already been approved for a loan guarantee under the section
1705 program?
Answer. There are entities involved in the ``moving forward''
category that are also involved in other projects that have already
been approved for a loan guarantee under the section 1705 program.
Question. What are the specific criteria the Department used to
determine which letter--again, moving forward or ``on hold''--an
applicant received?
Answer. The Department based its decision on an application's
readiness to proceed. Specifically, we identified those projects most
likely to be in a position to reach financial close and commence
construction by the 1705 program's congressionally mandated September
30, 2011 expiration date. These projects received ``moving forward''
letters. All other 1705-eligible projects in our pipeline received the
``on hold'' letter. It was important to notify these companies that we
do not expect them to receive a loan guarantee under the 1705 program
as soon as possible, so that they could avoid spending further time and
resources unnecessarily.
Question. What is the likelihood that one of the remaining section
1705 applicants is not able to meet the program's equity requirements?
Answer. As is always the case, there can be no guarantee that any
given project will ultimately receive a conditional commitment or, if
it does, that it will meet all conditions precedent to financial close
in a timely manner. That said, DOE's decision to move forward with
certain projects was based on our analysis of the project's ability to
meet our programmatic requirements by the September 30, 2011 sunset
date.
Question. If such a situation occurs, what is the Department's plan
to ensure those funds are made available to otherwise qualified
applicants whose applications were put on hold?
Answer. DOE determined that the projects placed on hold were
unlikely to reach financial closing by the program's September 30, 2011
expiration date.
Question. How will the Department determine those pending
applications (that have been put on hold in the section 1705 program)
which will be eligible to access the $170 million in credit subsidies
appropriated in the fiscal year 2011 year-long continuing resolution
under the section 1703 program?
Answer. We are currently working to develop a process for
implementing this new provision.
Question. What is the Department's plan to quickly and efficiently
move those section 1705 applicants to the section 1703 pool?
Answer. Pursuant to the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution,
some of the projects with active 1705 applications (including those put
on hold) are eligible for the section 1703 program (most of these
projects would have been eligible for 1703 in any event, provided they
satisfy certain restrictions in the applicable budget authority).
Projects eligible for 1703 will not need to submit a new application to
be considered for a guarantee under that program.
Question. Will this information be made available to the Congress
and the applicants?
Answer. The Department will continue to ensure that applicants and
the Congress are appropriately informed of programmatic developments.
Question. How many companies are currently in the application pool
for the section 1703 program?
Answer. DOE currently has approximately 20 active applications from
projects that are eligible for the 1703 program, but not the 1705
program.
Question. How will the transfer of eligible applications from the
section 1705 program affect the current section 1703 program?
Answer. There will be significant competition among qualified
applicants for the appropriated funds under 1703.
Question. What criteria will the Department use to determine how
the $170 million in credit subsidies will be distributed among the new
pool of section 1703 applicants?
Answer. We are currently working to develop a methodology for
implementing the programmatic changes and appropriations included in
the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
Question. What is the Department's commitment to the Loan Guarantee
program for renewable energy projects going forward?
Answer. The Department is committed to the Loan Guarantee program
which aims to accelerate the domestic commercial deployment of
innovative and advanced clean-energy technologies at scale. Under the
1705 program, DOE has issued loan guarantees for 28 projects
representing more than $16 billion in loan guarantees for projects that
will create more than 16,000 direct jobs.
WATER POWER PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Chu, I like what you have said about hydropower
being an ``incredible opportunity'', our ``lowest cost, clean energy
option'' and your comments about adding this resource to our clean-
energy portfolio. And as you know, marine and hydrokinetic power is a
promising source of renewable energy.
Despite your positive comments, you are yet again proposing to cut
the Water Power program, as you have every year. In fact, it is only 1
of 2 programs to be cut in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE), which received an increase of $1.4 billion more than fiscal
year 2011 enacted levels. I do understand that we are facing tough
budget times, but I fail to understand the logic behind your cut of 20
percent to the Water Power program when you have increased the budget
for wind, solar and geothermal.
Why isn't the Water Power program more of a priority for the
Department?
Answer. The Department remains optimistic about the opportunities
to further develop the full range of water power technologies,
including emerging marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) energy technologies.
Given the current state of MHK development, we believe that the $38.5
million requested for water power research in fiscal year 2012 is
sufficient to continue the program's ongoing efforts to advance these
water power technologies and accelerate their greater market adoption.
We are currently completing a comprehensive set of resource
assessments, and undertaking detailed techno-economic assessments of
emerging technologies, which will help us to effectively determine the
opportunities and costs associated with these technologies. These
important analyses will help the Department determine what funding
levels are necessary and appropriate to realize water power's
potential.
Regarding hydropower--as you know, hydropower accounts for about 7
percent of our Nation's total electricity generation. And you and I
have both applauded a recent National Hydropower Association study
showing the potential to double existing hydro capacity and create 1.4
million jobs. There's a lot going on in hydro--from low-impact hydro to
small projects to increasing efficiency and output at existing
projects. And while hydro is a more mature technology than some others,
developing technology innovations is still important. As you know, we
continuously work to develop innovations in other resources--from
automobiles to other renewable energy resources like wind--and I
believe we should be doing so with hydro as well.
Question. Would you agree that doubling our hydro capacity is
doable, and necessary? What is your plan to make this happen?
Answer. DOE agrees that substantial increases in hydropower
capacity, including pumped storage, from a baseline of about 100 GW in
2009 are feasible by 2050. New hydropower development is possible
across several different resource types, including:
--capacity upgrades and efficiency improvements at existing
hydropower facilities;
--adding power plants at existing, nonpowered dams;
--installing new hydropower power capacity on constructed waterways;
and
--new environmentally sustainable hydropower at natural streams.
As most of the traditional concerns over environmental impacts
typically associated with hydropower generation can be effectively
mitigated through technology improvements and sustainable development
practices, these opportunities present a low-cost, renewable energy
resource that can help meet the administration's clean-energy economy
goals.
The Department has a multi-pronged approach to assist industry in
increasing hydropower capacity. We are currently completing a set of
resource assessments, undertaking detailed techno-economic assessments
of existing hydropower plants, and engaging in research, development,
and deployment of emerging technologies. The Department announced a
Conventional Hydropower Funding Opportunity in 2011 that will help spur
the development of conventional hydropower including pumped storage
hydropower. Current Department-funded projects such as the Hydropower
Advancement Project and water use optimization project will help the
hydropower industry implement best practices to increase power
production and assess their plants for capacity and efficiency
upgrades. The Department has also funded an innovative ``fish-
friendly'' turbine project, a turbine design that allows fish to safely
pass through the hydropower turbine. This will allow industry to
install hydropower units at locations where water is otherwise spilled
to allow for fish passage.
Question. Regarding ocean and tidal energy, I believe you are aware
that my home State of Washington has made a strategic decision to be an
international leader in the commercialization of the emerging ocean
renewable energy industry. As you know, the United States has
significant ocean, marine, and tidal energy resources. Development of
the technologies to capture these ocean energy resources can play a
significant role in our Nation's economic recovery and expand our
renewable energy portfolio.
I strongly support the efforts underway in Washington and am proud
of the work being done in my State to capture the jobs that will be
created by the design, construction, and deployment of wave energy
converters. For example, the University of Washington and Snohomish
Public Utility District are working hard to support this new domestic
clean electricity generation industry that has the potential to provide
up to 10 percent of our Nation's power needs.
Unfortunately, the United States is falling behind in the race to
capture the rich energy potential of our oceans, and the jobs that will
come with this new industry. Many countries, particularly in Europe,
have already deployed viable, operating, electricity generating
projects using the emission-free power of ocean waves, currents, and
tidal forces. The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition calculates that more
than $370 million US has been spent by the UK Government on wave energy
research and development (R&D) over the past several years. That total
approaches $500 to $600 million US over the same period if you add in
commitments to ocean energy R&D from France, Portugal, Spain, Norway,
and Denmark.
Given this competitive situation, I am particularly disappointed
with the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Water Power program
While the Congress has provided increased funding for the Water
Power program, I'm disappointed that the Department hasn't been more
aggressive in its efforts to help commercialize this technology. We
need the enthusiastic support of you and your senior leadership team to
help speed the deployment of ocean energy technologies and secure U.S.
leadership in this emerging clean-energy industry.
What is your plan to stop the United States from losing these jobs
to Europe?
Answer. DOE's Water Power program is building a comprehensive
understanding of emerging MHK technologies and facilitating innovation
and technology development that leverages previous advancements,
including those made in Europe. In order to promote the development of
a competitive MHK industry in the United States, DOE's Water Power
program is supporting the establishment of three national test centers.
These centers are planning to build open-water testing infrastructure,
which will allow the developers of MHK devices to efficiently test in a
realistic marine environment.
DOE's Water Power program is also developing state-of-the-art
technology design tools that simulate the behavior and performance of
MHK devices in complex marine environments (covering tidal/ocean
current and wave resources). These models will identify key cost-of-
electricity drivers, facilitate rapid design optimization, and support
detailed techno-economic assessment of MHK technologies as is required
per congressional direction. Ultimately, the analytical results
provided by these design tools will guide the Department's future
investment decisions by identifying not only technology leaders but
also the best opportunities to make these technologies cost competitive
with other energy portfolio options.
The program recently funded three full-scale MHK demonstration
projects, including a $10 million grant to the Snohomish Public Utility
District tidal energy project. In funding these advanced projects, the
program seeks to demonstrate successful MHK operation and testing in
U.S. waters and drive the development of future projects.
Finally, the program is strategically working to remove barriers to
deployment by engaging in research that answers questions regarding the
potential environmental impacts of MHK technologies and by developing
technologies to monitor and mitigate these potential impacts.
Collectively, these efforts are strategically aimed at advancing a
domestic MHK industry that can contribute to our Nation's clean-energy
future.
Given the early stage of MHK development, the Department is taking
a very deliberate and comprehensive approach to our investments in MHK
technologies. Future investments (Federal and private sector) will spur
economic development only if the technologies can be proven to be
competitive in the market place. Our efforts to spur such economic
development are focused therefore on proving marketplace
competitiveness of the technologies, and ultimately supporting the
development of a competitive U.S.-based MHK industry that will create
green jobs in the United States.
Question. I am concerned that your budget request does not support
development of a testing infrastructure in the United States, something
that is vital to ensure this industry can move forward. For example,
Europe currently has several wave and tidal energy test facilities,
including its main facility in Scotland. We clearly have a need for
this infrastructure here in the United States, and I know that the
Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NMREC) has a strong
desire to compete for funding to establish a testing center in the
Pacific Northwest.
Can you please comment on why your budget request does not support
development of such testing infrastructure and can you tell me your
plan to build it?
Answer. The development of an MHK technology testing infrastructure
in the United States is considered vital to helping ensure that the
industry can continue to progress toward commercialization. To advance
the MHK industry, the Department continues to invest in, and support,
three NMRECs. The Northwest NMREC, the Hawaii NMREC, and the Southeast
NMREC are important partners in the ongoing development of a viable MHK
industry in the United States.
The Department is currently undertaking quantitative assessments of
the energy that can be extracted from wave, tidal and ocean current,
and ocean thermal energy resources, and is preparing a comprehensive
techno-economic assessment of MHK technologies and resources. This
information will serve to identify the potential contribution that MHK
resources can provide to our Nation's energy mix, and will also point
to promising technologies that merit further investment. This
information will inform the Department's future investment decisions,
including testing facilities.
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES
Question. I understand that the primary goal of the DOE Fuel Cell
Technologies program is to advance fuel cells, including those that
provide backup power, to be competitive in the marketplace. The market
transformation program has been successful in meeting this goal by
introducing fuel cells to larger markets and competing effectively in
terms of life-cycle costs, performance, durability, reliability, and
significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Given the program's success, why does your budget request zero out
the market transformation program, right when it's gaining traction?
Answer. The Department's strategy is to sustain a balanced R&D
portfolio, with an emphasis on nearer-term priorities, such as
batteries, advanced vehicle technologies, and technologies for
renewable power and energy efficiency. Fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs) are still part of the portfolio of options under development.
In fact, DOE's increased funding for battery R&D will also be
beneficial for FCEVs which rely on batteries in addition to fuel cells.
The Department will continue its critical efforts in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D, which have already reduced the cost of fuel cells by
more than 30 percent since 2008 and 80 percent since 2002.\1\ In fact,
DOE's hydrogen and fuel cell program has been extremely successful,
resulting in approximately 200 patents, 30 products being put on the
market, and industry currently pursuing development of more than 50
emerging technologies.\2\ The fiscal year 2012 budget sustains DOE's
core R&D efforts which will continue to advance the technologies and
improve the likelihood of a successful rollout by automobile
manufacturers in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10004_fuel_cell_cost.pdf.
\2\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
pathways.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Chu, your fiscal year 2012 budget request for
the Solar Energy Technology program represents an increase of nearly 50
percent more than the fiscal year 2011 budget request, and an increase
of 87 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. However,
your budget request includes only $50 million for the Concentrated
Solar Power (CSP) program, and as I understand it, you are proposing an
approximately 8 to 1 ratio of funding in favor of Photovoltaics (PV)
over CSP.
Given that the United States still co-leads both technologically
and commercially in the CSP field, do you believe that the Department
should maintain a more balanced funding ratio between PV and CSP?
Answer. The administration's 2011 budget request for CSP included
$50 million for a Solar Demonstration Zone which would help validate
cutting-edge CSP and other concentrating solar technologies. This was
in addition to a base CSP R&D program of approximately $50 million. The
administration did not seek additional funding for the Solar
Demonstration Zone project in 2012 as it is unlikely that these funds
could be fully utilized in 2012 if funds were also provided through the
2011 budget. The request for base CSP R&D for 2012 is consistent with
the request in 2011. As part of the 2012 budget request, the
administration also announced its SunShot initiative which seeks to
reduce the cost of electricity from solar technologies by 75 percent by
the end of the decade to be competitive with conventional generation
sources of electricity without subsidy. The administration believes
this is an ambitious but achievable goal. For 2012, the
administration's funding request for the SunShot initiative has been
largely designated through the Photovoltaic Research and Development
subprogram. We believe, however, that CSP technologies also have the
potential to reach the SunShot Initiative goals and are assessing this
potential as part of our future portfolio balance.
ADVANCED CABLE AND CONDUCTORS PROGRAM (FORMERLY HIGH TEMPERATURE
SUPERCONDUCTING PROGRAM)
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request proposes to zero out
the High Temperature Superconducting program (recently renamed the
Advanced Cable and Conductors program). I understand that your
justification is that the program has met its technical milestones.
However, as you may be aware, other countries--namely China, Japan, and
Korea--are aggressively demonstrating and deploying high-temperature
superconducting systems and the United States is not.
Given this, I believe it doesn't make sense for the Department to
eliminate this program prior to the demonstration and deployment of
high-temperature superconducting (HTS) systems, including advanced
cryogenic and cryocooler systems.
Do you agree?
Answer. HTS is an integral part of Smart Grid technologies that can
provide for a more reliable, secured and efficient electricity delivery
infrastructure. After investing more than $600 million over the past 20
years, second-generation HTS wires in sufficient lengths with good
performance can now be produced by U.S. manufacturers. These wires are
beginning to be sold around the world, and are the primary components
in many international demonstration projects.
With the availability of these commercial wires, the Department's
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) believes
that HTS wire research has reached a point that second-generation HTS
wire technology can be successfully transitioned to the U.S.
manufacturing base. While OE is winding down its involvement in HTS
wire research, it continues to support several innovative HTS system
demonstration projects funded through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. These power systems include a grid-scale HTS fault
current limiter, HTS power cable, and HTS fault current limiting
transformer.
In addition, DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-
E) is supporting a project to develop an advanced HTS superconducting
magnetic energy storage system that will store significantly more
energy than current designs at a fraction of the cost. Moreover, I am
aware of HTS system demonstration projects that are being performed by
other agencies. For example, the Department of Homeland Security is
investigating the feasibility of a HTS fault current limiting power
cable that can enable connectivity between electrical substations to
share power in case of emergencies. And at the Department of Defense,
the Navy is developing innovative HTS applications and advanced
cryogenic systems for military usage.
To summarize, while OE is winding down its second-generation HTS
wire research activities, DOE and other agencies are continuing to
support the development and deployment of innovative HTS system
applications. By studying the fundamental science of superconductivity,
engaging in HTS systems development, and keeping up-to-date on
worldwide progress in HTS wires and systems research, DOE will be in a
position to take advantage of any significant HTS discovery and
innovation.
Question. If the United States eliminates programs that will
encourage the demonstration and deployment of high-temperature
superconducting technologies, I am seriously concerned that this will
be another example of our Nation inventing and developing a promising
advanced energy technology, only to lose commercial leadership to other
countries, as happened with wind turbines and photovoltaic systems.
Given your focus, and the President's focus, on innovation, can you
please tell me your plan to ensure this situation does not happen with
high-temperature superconducting technologies?
Answer. Superconductivity is a crosscutting technology that can
benefit energy applications in many fields of use. For the past 20
years, the Department has focused its wires research and applications
development activities in power delivery systems. With the Department's
support, second-generation HTS wires manufactured in the United States
are now available commercially and prototype HTS power systems have
been demonstrated.
To maintain U.S. leadership in superconductivity, however,
fundamental understanding of HTS needs to be obtained and more novel
superconductors need to be discovered. In addition, HTS applications
other than power delivery systems should be developed to broaden the
market and sustain the U.S. manufacturing base. Moreover, a more
strategic approach to developing advanced HTS materials and conductors
and means to integrate them into a nonsuperconducting Smart Grid
infrastructure need to be established.
In the area of basic superconductivity research, DOE's Office of
Science Energy Frontier Research Center for Emergent Superconductivity
is performing work to discover new superconductors. Furthermore, the
Office of Science supports basic research on synthesis, advanced
characterization, and theory to understand fundamental phenomena
related to superconductivity. To broaden the HTS market, a number of
DOE offices are considering the benefits of various applications
ranging from light weight superconducting generator for offshore wind
turbines to very high field superconducting magnet systems suitable for
scientific and medical applications. Moreover, the fiscal year 2012
request for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
includes a Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub, which can leverage
crosscutting technologies and capabilities developed under the
superconductivity program to impact this and other energy applications.
The Department believes that the United States will maintain its
leadership position in superconductivity by fully implementing the plan
to understand and discover novel superconductors, demonstrate
innovative and diverse HTS applications to broaden the market base, and
develop advanced materials and systems that will integrate seamlessly
into a reliable, secured, and efficient Smart Grid infrastructure.
CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS
Question. Secretary Chu, the fiscal year 2012 budget request
proposes another 1-year extension of the 1603 Treasury grant program to
incentivize renewable energy. As you know, 1603 only applies to private
developers and utilities; it is not available to consumer-owned
utilities like many of those in Washington State. The Clean Renewable
Energy Bond (CREBs) program is available to those municipal and rural
cooperative utilities to incentivize renewable resources.
Given that increasing the CREBs bonding level would help the
administration achieve its 80 percent clean-energy goal, would the
administration support an increase in the CREBs program?
Answer. The administration recognizes the instrumental role that
CREBs have played in catalyzing investment in renewable energy by
nontaxable entities as a complement to other incentives such as Federal
tax credits. Raising the cap on CREBs is one among several policy
measures that can encourage investment in renewable energy, which is
consistent with administration policy objectives for a clean-energy
economy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. I appreciate the administration's commitment to the
research and development necessary to advance renewable energy.
Cellulosic biomass has a promising future for both transportation fuel
and power production, and it is important that we understand how much
biomass can be produced sustainably and economically for bioenergy. To
this end, the Department of Energy (DOE) has supported the development
of the Regional Feedstock Partnership, a collaborative effort of
Federal agencies, national laboratories, and universities that is now
into its third and fourth year of field work.
The DOE budget justification suggests that the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) will take a lead in sustainable
feedstock production beginning in fiscal year 2012. That may be a
reasonable approach; however, I have several questions regarding the
impacts to the Regional Feedstock Partnership and ongoing research
within DOE Office of Biomass programs.
My understanding is that the development of the Regional Feedstock
Partnership was reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. The program has enjoyed bipartisan support and has been
included in the administration budget requests for the last several
years. In fiscal year 2012, however, the administration proposed to
greatly reduce the Sustainable Feedstocks funding account that supports
the Partnership.
Is the reason for reducing the Sustainable Feedstocks account due
to the intent to shift the lead on biomass feedstocks to USDA?
Answer. On February 3, 2010, The White House issued Growing
America's Fuels: An Innovative Approach to Achieving the President's
Biofuels Target.\3\ This document established lead agency
responsibility for each biofuel area supply chain segment. USDA was
identified as the lead for both Feedstock Development and Feedstock
Production Systems, and was directed to coordinate with DOE to enhance
the work being conducted by the Regional Feedstock Partnership. In an
effort to help align feedstock activities with each agency's expertise
and minimize redundant focus areas, the emphasis for DOE feedstock-
related funding was shifted to focus primarily on feedstock logistics
systems in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
rss_viewer/growing_americas_ fuels.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. From your point of view, has the DOE Regional Feedstock
Partnership been a success?
Answer. The DOE Regional Feedstock Partnership has successfully
established more than 100 biomass energy crop field trials in 39 States
through the work of more than 96 university, USDA Agricultural Research
Service, and industry scientists. DOE considers the information
collected from the field trials to date, as well as the extensive
relationships that have been established under the Partnership, to be
highly valuable to the Nation's biomass feedstock production efforts.
The March 2011 progress report ``Regional Biomass Feedstock Partnership
Executive Summary'' details other Partnership successes to date.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Progress report available at http://www.sungrant.org/NR/
rdonlyres/F374DEB6-810C-4B05-9A21-2 6D6B0576E78/2834/
ExecutiveSummary33111.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. After funding the Partnership for several years, is it an
effective use of taxpayer dollars to terminate the program just as the
field research results are beginning to come in?
Answer. DOE plans to support the Regional Feedstock Partnership
through fiscal year 2013. It was the original intention of DOE to
support the Regional Feedstock Partnership for at least 6 years (fiscal
years 2008-2013) in recognition of the need for longer-term studies
associated with perennial biomass energy crops. These systems often
take multiple years to establish, and the full potential of their
productivity, as well as potential environmental services provided by
perennial systems, cannot always be realized within just a few years.
Conversely, field trials for annual biomass energy crops and residues,
such as energy sorghum or corn stover, have provided valuable data from
the first year they were established.
Question. Would it not make more sense to complete the program for
at least the remaining 2 years of this OMB-approved process, in order
to get the benefit of the work that has already been done rather than
start over and duplicate these efforts through another Department?
Answer. USDA has been designated lead agency under Growing
America's Fuels: An Innovative Approach to Achieving the President's
Biofuels Target for Feedstock Development and Feedstock Production
Systems. The difficult aspects of establishing this type of research
program have already been addressed, including:
--development of a nationwide network of more than 90 scientists to
participate in the Partnership;
--development of comparable field management and data collection
protocols for nine different biomass energy feedstocks across
five different geographical regions; and
--establishment of difficult and costly perennial energy-cropping
systems.
These successes will be leveraged by USDA as it takes the lead on
feedstock development and production systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. The United States leads the world in fuel cell patents.
Fuel cells can help reduce our dependence on oil and air pollution
while at the same time creating jobs. In New Jersey, companies like
BASF employ hundreds in their fuel cell divisions. How will the
reductions in funding for fuel cell technology in this budget affect
our ability to win the clean-energy race?
Answer. The Department's strategy is to sustain a balanced research
and development (R&D) portfolio, with an emphasis on nearer-term
priorities, such as batteries, advanced vehicle technologies, and
technologies for renewable power and energy efficiency. Fuel cell
electric vehicles (FCEVs) are still part of the portfolio of options
under development. In fact, the Department of Energy's (DOE) increased
funding for battery R&D will also be beneficial for FCEVs which rely on
batteries in addition to fuel cells.
The Department will continue its critical efforts in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D, which have already reduced the cost of fuel cells by
more than 30 percent since 2008 and 80 percent since 2002.\5\ In fact,
DOE's hydrogen and fuel cell program has been extremely successful,
resulting in approximately 200 patents, 30 products being put on the
market, and industry currently pursuing development of more than 50
emerging technologies.\6\ The fiscal year 2012 budget sustains DOE's
core R&D efforts which will continue to advance the technologies and
improve the likelihood of a successful rollout by automobile
manufacturers in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10004_fuel_cell_cost.pdf.
\6\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
pathways.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In response to high gas prices, some have suggested we
need more offshore drilling with fewer safeguards. The Energy
Information Administration found that opening all of the offshore areas
in the lower 48 States would lower gas prices by just 3 cents per
gallon--decades from now. How will the President's budget invest in
real solutions to high gas prices?
Answer. Even while committed to safe and responsible domestic oil
and gas production, the administration has taken steps to improve
efficiency across the entire transportation sector and to develop and
expand alternative fuels, including advanced biofuels. Energy
innovation will increase the potential for the replacement of
petroleum. Therefore, the administration's budget provides increases
for programs, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E), that support energy innovation. The budget helps advance the
goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 including
through a shift from the existing tax credit incentive to a rebate that
would be available to consumers at the point of sale and a $588 million
investment in research, development and deployment programs for
advanced vehicle technologies. It also proposes $341 million for
biofuels and biomass R&D within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, including a new reverse auction to promote advanced
biofuels across the country.
Question. The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey
carries out research that could lead to major innovations in energy
technology and help make the United States a world leader in clean-
energy technology. One area of research is developing energy from
fusion. A breakthrough in fusion energy could be the solution to the
world's energy problems by providing the planet with a safe, clean, and
limitless supply of energy.
I support a significant increase in funding for the Plasma Physics
Lab. Would an increase in funding help accelerate progress toward game-
changing clean-energy breakthroughs?
Answer. DOE believes that the funding levels proposed for the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory are appropriate and in balance with
other priorities within DOE and throughout the Federal Government.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
BIOFUELS
Question. Secretary Chu, as you know, biofuels are a remarkable
success. They displace close to 10 percent of our gasoline demand.
While we can and should also be promoting other oil displacement
alternatives, such as electric vehicles, continued expansion of
biofuels seems to be the best option we have for displacing another 10
percent of our gasoline demand. The Congress recognized that in passing
the renewable fuel standard (RFS) in the 2007 Energy bill.
Biofuels also face a major marketplace problem. Most biofuel usage
today is in the form of E10, a 10 percent blend of ethanol with
gasoline. As we continue to expand the contribution from biofuels, we
need to remember that a large share of that will continue to be in the
form of ethanol. Thus, we need to be able to use higher ethanol blends.
We need filling stations that offer higher blends, and we need vehicles
that can use those higher blends.
What is the Department of Energy (DOE) doing to promote the
availability and use of higher blends of ethanol, beyond E10 and E15?
What more could the Department do, and what support from the Congress
would be most useful to that end?
Answer. In addition to sponsoring the E15 and E20 test program,
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) supports
several activities to promote higher ethanol blend usage. Specifically,
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires that Federal, State, and utility
fleets acquire alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) annually at determined
percentages. These vehicles largely include flex-fuel vehicles that are
capable of operating on E85 fuel. EERE's Vehicle Technologies Program
(VTP) and Federal Energy Management program manage and monitor AFV
acquisitions and alternative fuel usage in those fleets. Additionally,
VTP and the Biomass Program are sponsoring fuel dispensing research
with Original Equipment Manufacturers and Underwriter's Laboratory to
develop and list E15 dispenser retrofit kits that can be installed in
retail stations throughout the country. Through the State Energy
program and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program,
EERE has encouraged recipients to use money for installing renewable
energy infrastructure. Last, DOE is actively working with Federal
agencies to install alternative fuel pumps at fueling stations, in
accordance with Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
requirements. DOE also supports ongoing research to ensure that fuel
dispensed by blender pumps meets American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specifications.
Question. One program that could help expand markets for higher
ethanol blends is the Clean Cities program. How much funding in the
Clean Cities program will be devoted to expanding markets for E85 and
other higher blends in fiscal year 2012, and what will that accomplish?
Answer. The Department agrees that the Clean Cities initiative is
an excellent way to expand alternative fuel markets. The President's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for Vehicle Technologies Deployment
includes $29 million for Clean Cities activities to facilitate the
deployment of renewable and alternative fuels and advanced
technologies, as well as the infrastructure to support their widespread
use. Clean Cities funds would support competitively awarded vehicle
infrastructure deployment projects, including E85 and other renewable
biofuel vehicle projects; the funding opportunity would require a
minimum 50 percent cost share. Clean Cities funds also would be used to
provide technical assistance, tools, and consumer information related
to renewable and alternative fuels and advanced technologies that
reduce petroleum consumption. Examples include safety information
related to renewable fuels for permitting officials and first
responders, GPS data and mapping tools for locating renewable fuel
stations (the current public database includes more than 3,000 sites
for E85 and B20 biodiesel), and the Federal Fuel Economy Guide and
FuelEconomy.gov, which include vehicle information on E85 flex-fuel
vehicles available in the United States.
Question. When we met with your Deputy Secretary Dan Poneman and
with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last August, we learned that DOE
was testing E20 in a fleet of autos in parallel with your testing of
E15. What are the results of those tests, please? Would those tests
support authorizing use of E20 in all vehicles of model year 2001 and
newer?
Answer. DOE is in the process of testing the final four vehicle
models on E20 fuel. The test results are expected to be ready by
December 2011. As you know the E15 testing was completed in December
2010 and the waiver request was ruled upon by EPA in January 2011
largely based on DOE data. The EPA determination allows up to E15
blends to be used in all model year 2001 and newer vehicles. Any
decision to allow E20 use for the same model year vehicles would have
to be determined by EPA. DOE will continue to share the data with EPA
as it becomes available.
Question. We share a belief in the importance of accelerating the
development and commercialization of advanced biofuels, and I am
pleased that you are proposing to conduct a reverse auction for
advanced biofuels in fiscal year 2012. I believe conducting an earlier
reverse auction, in this fiscal year 2011, would be a good way to get
some experience with this process for both DOE and the industry.
Will you conduct an initial reverse auction for advanced biofuels
in fiscal year 2011? Please tell me when the fiscal year 2012 auction
will take place.
Answer. The Department had originally planned to conduct an initial
reverse auction in fiscal year 2011; however, because many of the
companies planning to build biorefineries to produce cellulosic
biofuels have been delayed due to economic conditions, it was decided
to postpone the proposed auction until fiscal year 2012. It was felt
that a larger auction would validate the concept and result in a more
meaningful effect on the marketplace. The timing of the fiscal year
2012 auction will depend on several factors including industry
conditions and the budget process.
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS
Question. Secretary Chu, in the early 1990s, I was one of the first
in the Congress to call for research and development (R&D) of hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies in the DOE's energy programs. I was pleased
when these technologies were given legitimate program status in the
DOE's energy R&D portfolio along with reasonable funding within that
portfolio. I'm told that this program has been quite successful in
meeting its goals and milestones. However, your budget proposal for
fiscal year 2012 proposes a very significant cut to this program area.
Why are you proposing to cut the hydrogen and fuel cells program
budget by 41 percent in fiscal year 2012 in the context of a proposal
for an overall budget increase of 46 percent across all of the EERE
programs?
Answer. The Department of Energy's (DOE) strategy is to sustain a
balanced R&D portfolio, with an emphasis on nearer-term priorities,
such as batteries, advanced vehicle technologies, and technologies for
renewable power and energy efficiency. Fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs) are still part of the portfolio of options under development.
In fact, DOE's increased funding for battery R&D will also be
beneficial for FCEVs which rely on batteries in addition to fuel cells.
The Department will continue its critical efforts in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D, which have already reduced the cost of fuel cells by
more than 30 percent since 2008 and 80 percent since 2002.\7\ In fact,
DOE's hydrogen and fuel cell program has been extremely successful,
resulting in approximately 200 patents, 30 products being put on the
market, and industry currently pursuing development of more than 50
emerging technologies.\8\ The fiscal year 2012 budget sustains DOE's
core R&D efforts which will continue to advance the technologies and
improve the likelihood of a successful rollout by automobile
manufacturers in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10004_fuel _cell_cost.pdf.
\8\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
pathways.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRIBUTED WIND
Question. Secretary Chu, we're all aware of the benefits of large-
scale wind projects in the United States, and I'm especially proud of
the leadership role Iowa is playing in windpower manufacturing and
power generation. However, there also is great potential for smaller-
scale ``distributed wind'' projects. In fact, smaller wind turbine
systems can often result in outsized benefits to rural communities,
farmers, ranchers and other citizens. Small wind systems also offer a
domestic manufacturing development opportunity given that 95 percent of
the small wind systems installed in the United States in 2009 were
manufactured domestically. Moreover, much of that manufacturing
activity is occurring in economically challenged rural areas.
In fiscal year 2010, DOE spent approximately $80 million on
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for wind energy, but
only about 2 percent of that total, about $1.6 million was for small-
and medium-sized wind.
Given the significant contributions that distributed wind can make
to our rural economy and our clean-energy future, do you think that the
Department ought to place more emphasis on this important renewable
energy technology?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, roughly $5.9 million, approximately
7.4 percent, of the total DOE budget for wind energy RD&D went to
distributed wind energy technology, including small (greater than 1
kilowatt and less than or equal to 100 kilowatts) and midsize (greater
than 100 kilowatts and less than or equal to 1 megawatt) technologies.
While distributed wind technology remains a part of the portfolio, the
Department has recently increased its emphasis on less mature offshore
wind technologies, as indicated by the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request. DOE nevertheless plans to continue to support
activities related to product testing, standards development, and the
establishment of an accredited third-party certification body for small
wind turbine technology. The Department also plans to fund the
remaining $3.2 million of a $5.1 million funding opportunity to support
midsize turbine prototype development by the close of fiscal year 2011.
The Department plans to consider research and development efforts
that build on this funding opportunity to ensure that a range of
domestically manufactured midsize turbines is commercially available.
Other planned future program activities include risk mitigation through
demonstration projects, testing, and standards development to support
the development of the midsize turbine technology. The Department also
plans research and development on high-throughput manufacturing
techniques for wind technologies in order to remain cost-competitive in
the export market while supporting domestic jobs.
Question. Will you agree to take a close look at DOE's wind power
program very soon and take steps to increase DOE's focus and support
for distributed wind power?
Answer. The DOE Wind and Water Power program is supporting the
development of a distributed wind industry roadmap to be completed in
2012. This roadmap will be a reference document to help the wind
industry prioritize strategic activities required to overcome barriers
hindering widespread development and deployment of distributed wind
technology. Currently, the program supports activities related to
product testing, standards development, and the establishment of an
accredited third-party certification body for small wind turbine
technology. The program also plans to fund the remaining $3.2 million
of a $5.1 million funding opportunity to support midsize turbine
prototype development by the close of fiscal year 2011.
The Department plans to consider research and development efforts
that build on this funding opportunity to ensure that a range of
domestically manufactured midsize turbines is commercially available.
Other planned future program activities include risk mitigation through
demonstration projects, testing, and standards development to support
the development of the midsize turbine technology. The Department also
plans R&D on high-throughput manufacturing techniques for wind
technologies in order to remain cost-competitive in the export market
while supporting domestic jobs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
FUEL CELLS
Question. Fuel cells are manufactured in America from American raw
materials, and produce clean energy that uses American resources
efficiently. Montana is home to the only platinum mine in the country,
which provides the catalysts for stationary and vehicle fuel cells.
Montana also has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the United
States and though fuel cells are viable now, they also offer a
potential future for coal, as they are the most efficient way to use
any fuel, including fossil fuels. I feel very good about the progress
fuel cell manufacturers have made and will continue to make in reducing
the amount of platinum used in these catalysts, to bend down the cost
curve.
The industry believes that the best way to continue those
reductions is through commercialization, but that your fuel cell and
hydrogen budget misplaces priorities with an over-emphasis on research
and development R&D, while eliminating commercialization support for
solid oxide fuel cells and fuel cell forklifts, just as they are
beginning to achieve market success. Is the industry wrong?
Answer. The Department's strategy is to sustain a balanced (R&D)
portfolio, with an emphasis on nearer-term priorities, such as
batteries, advanced vehicle technologies, and technologies for
renewable power and energy efficiency. Fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs) are still part of the portfolio of options under development.
In fact, DOE's increased funding for battery R&D will also be
beneficial for FCEVs which rely on batteries in addition to fuel cells.
The Department will continue its critical efforts in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D, which have already reduced the cost of fuel cells by
more than 30 percent since 2008 and 80 percent since 2002.\9\ In fact,
the Department of Energy's (DOE) hydrogen and fuel cell program has
been extremely successful, resulting in approximately 200 patents, 30
products being put on the market, and industry currently pursuing
development of more than 50 emerging technologies.\10\ The fiscal year
2012 budget sustains DOE's core R&D efforts which will continue to
advance the technologies and improve the likelihood of a successful
rollout by automobile manufacturers in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10004_fuel _cell_cost.pdf.
\10\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/ pdfs/
pathways.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Both fuel cell and hydrogen researchers and the industry
believe that if your fiscal year 2012 budget is enacted, its structure
and dollar amount will cause the United States to lose its competitive
edge in fuel cells for stationary power and transportation
applications. Is the industry wrong? If not, are you comfortable losing
this industry to Germany, Japan, South Korea, China, and South Africa?
Answer. To the contrary, the Department's basic R&D work is
absolutely essential to ensuring American automakers have the best
technology available to be competitive in the global marketplace.
DISTRIBUTED WIND
Question. Secretary Chu, while we're all aware of the myriad
benefits of large, industrial-scale wind projects in the United States,
there is great potential for smaller-scale ``distributed wind''
projects as well. In Montana, we have second-best wind potential in the
United States. In fact, smaller wind turbines or projects can often
result in outsized benefits to rural communities, farmers, ranchers and
other citizens. And buy-in for smaller wind translates into social
acceptance of larger-scale projects.
It can also help to reinvigorate our Nation's manufacturing base
given that 95 percent of the small wind systems installed in the United
States in 2009 was manufactured domestically and much of that
manufacturing activity occurred in economically challenged rural areas.
In fiscal year 2010, DOE spent approximately $80 million on
research, development and demonstration (RD&D) for wind energy, but
only about 2 percent of that total, about $1.6 million was for small-
and medium-sized wind. By contrast, your agency spent roughly $250
million on solar RD&D in that same time period.
Given the significant contributions that distributed wind can make
to our rural economy and our clean-energy future; do you think that the
Department ought to place more emphasis on this important renewable
energy technology?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, roughly $5.9 million, approximately
7.4 percent, of the total DOE budget for wind energy RD&D went to
distributed wind energy technology, including small (greater than 1
kilowatt and less than or equal to 100 kilowatts) and midsize (greater
than 100 kilowatts and less than or equal to 1 megawatt) technologies.
While distributed wind technology remains a priority for DOE, the
Department has recently increased its emphasis on less mature offshore
wind technologies, as indicated by the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request. DOE nevertheless plans to continue to support
activities related to product testing, standards development, and the
establishment of an accredited third-party certification body for small
wind turbine technology. The Department also plans to award the
remaining $3.2 million of a $5.1 million funding opportunity to support
midsize turbine prototype development by the close of fiscal year 2011.
The Department plans to consider research and development efforts
that build on this funding opportunity to ensure that a range of
domestically manufactured midsize turbines is commercially available.
Other planned future program activities include risk mitigation through
demonstration projects, testing, and standards development to support
the development of the midsize turbine technology. The Department also
plans research and development on high-throughput manufacturing
techniques for distributed wind technologies in order to remain cost-
competitive in the export market while supporting domestic jobs.
Question. Will you agree to take a close look at DOE's wind power
program very soon and assess steps to increase focus and support for
distributed wind power?
Answer. The DOE Wind and Water Power program is supporting the
development of a distributed wind industry roadmap to be completed in
2012. This roadmap will be a reference document to help the wind
industry prioritize strategic activities required to overcome barriers
hindering widespread development and deployment of distributed wind
technology. Currently, the program supports activities related to
product testing, standards development, and the establishment of an
accredited third-party certification body for small wind turbine
technology. The program also plans to fund the remaining $3.2 million
of a $5.1 million funding opportunity to support midsize turbine
prototype development by the close of fiscal year 2011.
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION TRANSMISSION
Question. As you know, in February 2009 (in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]), the Congress provided Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) with ample and broad borrowing authority to plan,
finance, build, study, and operate new and upgraded electric power
transmission lines that deliver or facilitate the delivery of power
generated by new renewable energy resources. Last year in this same
hearing, we discussed how little of that $3.25 billion in borrowing
authority had been exercised. Unfortunately, nothing has changed and
still less than 5 percent of that money is obligated.
The legislation is pretty clear. The Administrator of WAPA is
supposed to use that borrowing authority to go forth and build. That's
not completely autonomous authority, but the Congress intended WAPA to
be fairly independent when using it. WAPA can't run a program like the
Congress intended if they have to renegotiate each deal with each level
of DOE then Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The developers will
lose interest and quit. That's just a recipe for inaction laid on top
of all the other permitting challenges for new transmission and
renewable energy projects.
Mr. Secretary, what's going on? Could you describe the review and
approval process for this borrowing authority and who is the
transmission expert in charge at the Department for guiding this
important program?
Answer. When a project proposal is presented to WAPA, WAPA reviews
the proposal and works with the project developer to address any
deficiencies. Once this is complete, WAPA begins an analysis of the
project, including an in-depth review by subject matter experts and
independent examiners such as Deloitte Corporate Finance, LLC. The
proposal is evaluated against the criteria specified for the
Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP) in a Federal Register notice
published on May 14, 2009. Specific terms and conditions may have to be
negotiated with the project developer in order to ensure there is
reasonable expectation the Treasury borrowing will be repaid.
When WAPA is satisfied the project has merit and is appropriate for
borrowing authority funding, WAPA presents the project to the DOE and
the Office of Management and Budget for their approval.
In June, 2011, Secretary Chu appointed Lauren Azar as the
Secretary's Senior Policy Advisor for Transmission. Ms. Azar is an
expert on electric power transmission, and played a critical role in
the Department's review and approval of TIP projects since her arrival.
Question. Could you, Director Lew and Secretary Geithner lay down
some simple guidance for WAPA that will let them get to work?
Answer. Yes. In April 2009, WAPA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Treasury Department that established the
terms and conditions for loans made by the U.S. Treasury to WAPA
pursuant to borrowing authority provided WAPA in ARRA (Public Law 111-
5). This MOU has been reviewed and revised periodically, and the
arrangement is working well.
Question. Could you tell us, for the record, how many miles of new
transmission lines have been built thus far under WAPA TIP)?
Answer. To date, to WAPA's TIP has funded the construction of 33
miles of new transmission line. This construction is for the Montana-
Alberta Tie Ltd. Transmission Project.
Question. How many miles for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)?
And, what has BPA done with the increase in their already massive
borrowing authority provided by ARRA?
Answer. BPA finances its operations with a business-type budget and
on the basis of self-financing authority. Authority to borrow from the
U.S. Treasury is available to BPA on a permanent, indefinite basis. The
amount of Treasury borrowing outstanding at any time cannot exceed $7.7
billion and must be repaid at interest rates comparable to borrowings
at open market rates for similar issues. BPA's Treasury borrowing
authority is used to finance projects that sustain and enhance the
Federal Columbia River Power System, including transmission, hydropower
modernization, fish and wildlife mitigation, and conservation.
Transmission investments and enhancement use the greatest amount of
U.S. Treasury borrowing.
BPA's transmission system now includes more than 15,000 circuit
miles of line and 263 substations. The capital financing required to
sustain this system and meet new demands is significant. Before
receiving the additional $3.25 billion of borrowing authority as part
of ARRA, BPA estimated it would reach its Treasury borrowing authority
limit between 2013 and 2016. The new increment of borrowing authority
gave BPA the certainty of sufficient access to capital to proceed with
new-start projects and ensured that existing capital projects could
proceed as planned. With this financing certainty, BPA commenced
construction work on two major network reinforcement projects and
another two are in planning and environmental review stages. If all
four lines are constructed, these lines will add more than 220 miles of
lines to the Northwest transmission grid, improve reliability, and
allow BPA to provide transmission service to about 5,853 megawatts of
requests for BPA transmission; including 4,891 megawatts of additional
wind integration and green energy. BPA has completed construction on a
total of 75 transmission towers and 58 miles of transmission on the
McNary-John Day line, the first project that was ready to begin at the
time the ARRA was enacted.
Additional upgrades, additions and replacements also have
modernized the transmission grid assets, more than 50 percent of which
were built prior to 1960.
In addition to investments in the TIP system, BPA's Treasury
borrowing authority is used for investments in hydro modernization,
fish and wildlife, and energy efficiency. For example, with the
additional access to capital, BPA was able to fund a major
rehabilitation of the Grand Coulee Third Powerhouse that will improve
hydro efficiency and is critical to the Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) for power production, water management, system
stability, and ancillary services to the main transmission grid.
Because of increased access to capital, BPA is investing $203 million
through 2017 in upgrades and replacements at Federal dams. Also, the
additional borrowing authority has enabled BPA to fund three major fish
hatchery projects and will help BPA meet its portion of the aggressive
targets for energy efficiency in the Northwest Power Planning and
Conservation Council's Sixth Power Plan. Conservation is the region's
resource of choice for meeting load growth for the next 5 years and
beyond.
While BPA's total borrowing authority, including the new increment,
is one single funding authority, as of this time, BPA has identified up
to $2 billion in major capital projects attributed to ARRA through
2017. Of this total, $583 million has been expended to date. The
capital projects attributed to ARRA include several of the
transmission, hydropower modernization, fish and wildlife mitigation,
and conservation projects mentioned earlier.
The additional $3.25 billion in borrowing authority has been
instrumental in providing BPA with assurance that it can proceed with
essential investment in the region's aging infrastructure and meet the
increasing demands of its entire capital program. Without available
borrowing authority, BPA would have to defer or reduce valuable capital
work needed to keep the FCRPS delivering the clean, renewable
electricity that is the backbone of the region's economy. Even with the
ARRA providing a sizable increase in BPA's authority to borrow from the
Treasury, the agency will continue to face capital funding challenges
as the pace of capital spending increases to meet the infrastructure
and energy efficiency needs of the region. BPA continues to seek
opportunities for alternative funding sources with third parties.
COORDINATION OF POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY POLICY
Question. The Power Marketing Administrations and Tennessee Valley
Authority are all somewhat different animals, due to their enabling
legislation. But, presumably, they and their Senate-confirmed board
members are all working together with you and the administration to
further the goals of the President--energy efficiency, renewable and
clean energy, a more reliable and smarter grid and so on. How does all
that work, because it's not obvious from out here that it's all hanging
together with any specific goals in mind?
Specifically you released a proposal to promote development of Pump
Storage Hydro, while at the same time one of the Power Marketing
Administrations was turning away companies interested in working with
the Agency to develop permitted projects in their service territory.
Where does it all get knitted together at the Department?
Answer. DOE briefed Senator Tester's staff on this issue.
Question. Do the heads of the PMAs meet regularly with you and your
team?
Answer. DOE briefed Senator Tester's staff on this issue.
RURAL IMPLEMENTATION
Question. While DOE is certainly the premier Federal agency dealing
with research, development, and demonstration for energy, many other
agencies--the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of
Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department
of the Interior--also have authority and resources to support Energy
development. Along those lines you've teamed up with USDA to work on
the development of biofuels. That is a good first step.
But how are you coordinating with these agencies to expand
information about your solicitations, projects and commercialization
opportunities, especially in rural America where they develop and
harness this energy? How about with development of distributed
technologies? Are you willing to commit to working with your sister
agencies to identify opportunities to expand opportunities for
distributed wind and other technologies?
Answer. The Department is committed to regularly engaging with
other agencies about program activities in order to maximize
coordination and prevent interagency overlaps. For example, regarding
biomass-related activities, DOE regularly coordinates through the
Biomass Research and Development Board,\11\ which is an interagency
collaborative composed of senior decisionmakers from Federal agencies
and the White House--including DOE and USDA (cochairs); the Departments
of the Interior, Transportation, and Defense, EPA; the National Science
Foundation; and the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The Board is charged with maximizing the benefits of Federal
programs and bringing coherence to Federal strategic planning in
biomass research and development, including minimizing unnecessary
duplication of activities. Several other interagency formal and
informal collaborations function to leverage existing expertise across
agencies with similar missions and goals, such as Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU), regular working group meetings, joint
solicitations, and other mechanisms. Examples of MOUs signed over the
last 2 years include one on hydrogen with the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Interior Department, one on off-shore wind, marine and
hydrokinetic devices with the Interior Department, and an updated MOU
with EPA on ENERGY STAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Board, as well as the Technical Advisory Committee and the
annual solicitation, were established by the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000, and later amended by section 9001 of the Food
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MECHANICAL INSULATION PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, Montana was part of a very successful
pilot program, the Mechanical Insulation Education and Awareness
Campaign, which initially received $500,000 in fiscal year 2010 through
the DOE's Industrial Technologies Program (ITP).
Montana performed an energy assessment in partnership with DOE and
the mechanical insulation industry. The program looked at 25 buildings
in the capitol complex and found that installing or replacing
mechanical insulation in those buildings would save 6 billion Btus per
year, representing roughly 8 percent of the total natural gas
consumption of the facilities analyzed, with an overall payback period
of 4.1 years.
This is such low-hanging fruit to replace damaged mechanical
insulation puts people to work immediately and cuts our energy
consumption.
How to plan to expand and invest in this successful program,
promoting it to other States and locations?
Answer. Through the activities conducted under the Mechanical
Insulation program, ITP has developed five calculation tools that allow
users to find cost-effective insulation opportunities such as those
identified in Montana and to calculate ROI and paybacks. These tools,
once broadly distributed the summer of 2011, will carry forward the
results of the Montana pilot program and encourage similar assessments
in all States across the United States. In addition, the Campaign has
developed seven online training modules that will be completed by
September 2011 that educate industrial facilities, building owners,
property managers, and the construction industry on how to find and
implement energy efficiency opportunities through greater and more
effective use of mechanical insulation. Because of these self-paced
tools and training modules, ITP believes that thousands of users can be
educated on the benefits of mechanical insulation at little additional
cost to DOE and the taxpayer. Success stories will be developed on
Mechanical Insulation and promoted on the ITP Web site and disseminated
through organizations such as equipment suppliers, the National
Association of State Energy Officials and the National Insulation
Association.
Question. How does your budget efficiently invest in more energy
efficiency programs we can implement today?
Answer. ITP is collaborating with approximately 100 companies,
helping them measure and manage their energy usage so as to demonstrate
that significant energy savings are possible. For example, after
receiving three energy savings audits from ITP, an automotive
manufacturer reduced its energy intensity 29 percent in 1 year at a
U.S.-based facility.
Now that ITP has demonstrated that significant energy intensity
reductions are possible, the program is developing a set of standard
tools and protocols to increase its leverage and reach. By investing in
these standard tools and protocols that help private sector companies
measure and manage their energy usage, ITP is fostering the energy
management industry. ITP is also developing Professional Certification
programs for energy management professionals and auditors who will be
employed in the emerging energy management industry, as part of its
development of a broader industrial energy efficiency certification
program.
ITP is also investing in the training of next-generation energy
management engineers. Since 2002, 650 graduate and undergraduate
students have been successfully trained in energy management through
university-based Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs). ITP plans to
continue to train additional students through these IACs over the
coming years.
All of these activities are being implemented in the near term,
will result in energy efficiency gains, and will help create jobs and
improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
OAK RIDGE CLEANUP
Question. Department of Energy (DOE) is requesting about $400
million in fiscal year 2012 for clean-up activities at the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR). Can you assure me the highest-risk safety concerns
are being addressed at Oak Ridge Reservation? DOE is bartering its
uranium inventory to help pay for costs of cleanup at the Portsmouth
gaseous diffusion plant. Oak Ridge (East Tennessee Technology Park) is
home to 1 of the 3 original uranium gaseous diffusion plants. Why
shouldn't this facility (K-25) be cleaned up with funds gained in
barter of uranium?
Answer. The highest-risk safety concerns are being addressed at the
ORR. The K-25 Building at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) is
the highest-risk safety concern on the Reservation due to its age and
deterioration, as well as the presence of special nuclear material and
radiological and hazardous contaminants. The $400 million in fiscal
year 2012 addresses this highest risk. For some of the other high risks
on the ORR, such as mercury at Y-12 and nuclear materials in the
Central Campus at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
(specifically, legacy materials at two of the former isotope production
facilities, Buildings 3026 and 3038; and those found in the Tank W-1A
area soils, the most significant source of groundwater contamination in
that area), funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) are being used to address these risks. As for the use of
bartering of the uranium inventory to provide additional funding, DOE
has established priorities for the transfer of uranium through 2013.
The total proposed Department transfers through calendar 2013,
including scheduled transfers by National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), are approximately 2,000 metric tons of uranium
per year, or about 10 percent of U.S. reactor demand, which is a level
consistent with the principles and policies set forth in the
Department's Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan.
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR WASTE
Question. Among the draft recommendations of the Blue Ribbon
Commission is increased Federal investment to reduce nuclear waste with
advanced materials. Please describe how your budget for nuclear energy
would fund research in this area.
Answer. The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Commission)
presented draft recommendations to the full Commission. These
recommendations of the subcommittee are draft, and subject to further
consideration by the full Commission. The Department will carefully
consider the Commission's recommendations and advice contained in their
final report--due in January 2012--and determine a path forward at that
time.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Question. DOE has roughly $2 billion in unspent American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for weatherization grants, and
another $2 billion from the State Energy Grant program. Why do these
balances exist, and why are additional funds being requested for fiscal
year 2012 given the unspent balances?
Answer. DOE set an aggressive 3-year performance period in the
original grant contracts to maximize the timely job creation potential
of the funds delivered to State and local communities under ARRA. This
timeline has supported thousands of jobs, delivered energy-saving
technologies that will save money for families, businesses, and State
and local governments across the Nation for many years, and spurred
American competitiveness in the global market for energy efficiency and
renewable energy.
As of December 19, 2011, grantees of the Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) have spent $4 billion of their total $4.8 billion ARRA
allocation. This leaves less than $850 million remaining to be spent in
the final 4 months of the original grant period. It is anticipated that
some grantees will have balances remaining on March 31, 2012 and will
request performance period modifications so funds can continue to be
used for their original purpose of weatherizing the homes of low-income
families. WAP has already exceeded its original ARRA production goal of
593,000 homes weatherized with 4 months remaining and could eclipse
700,000 homes using the balances on existing grants.
Grantees of the State Energy Program (SEP) have spent $2.1 billion,
or more than two-thirds of their $3.1 billion ARRA allocation. DOE is
working with each grantee to assess opportunities to responsibly deploy
additional ARRA funds to fully use each grant and create jobs in their
State and local communities. The vast majority--about 90 percent--of
ARRA grant funds by DOE's SEP will be spent within the current
performance period on projects that have supported thousands of jobs,
saved energy, deployed clean-energy solutions, and strengthened the
economic foundation of communities across the country. It is
anticipated that some grantees will have relatively small balances
remaining on April 30, 2012, and will request performance period
modifications that will be considered on a case-by-case basis. SEP ARRA
investments have supported energy-efficiency upgrades of more than
60,000 buildings and building roofs, totaling approximately 361,000,000
square feet, upgraded and repurposed more than 625,000 square feet of
manufacturing space to produce clean-energy products, and contributed
to the installation of 350,000 kW of renewable energy systems. These
projects have supported high-paying jobs in the fields of construction
and design/engineering, manufacturing and transportation while saving
energy and money over the long term.
Additional funds are included in the fiscal year 2012 budget
request to support the efforts of WAP and SEP in their proven ability
to drive economic development and job creation and to leverage Federal
dollars using the lessons learned under ARRA. The majority of the
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (WIP) ARRA grants have a
performance period ending in early 2012. Even with the performance-
period modifications, the majority of ARRA funds will be expended by
then or shortly thereafter. The need for 2012 funding is vital to
cushion the ramp down of production and employment in the
weatherization network and to provide State and local governments with
support in the continued administration of more than $530 million in
revolving loan funds initiated in 35 States and 100 communities with
ARRA funds. ARRA funding for WAP helped fund as high as 15,600 full-
time positions in the network and still is listed as seventh in the
ARRA portfolio with 14,200 jobs supported last quarter. In addition,
WAP has leveraged more than $800 million each year of ARRA in Federal
and non-Federal funding to support the weatherization work at the local
level. This leveraging has contributed significantly to the number of
homes weatherized and jobs supported, and has assisted in expanding the
array of services provided in each home. SEP will also continue to
expand and replicate the many best practices developed with ARRA grant
funds throughout the country, leveraged by the innovative financing
programs they have started. These types of activities continue with any
annual appropriations provided by the Congress.
CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT
Question. DOE has been on Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
high-risk list for potential fraud, waste, and abuse for contractor
oversight since 1990. According to GAO, ``GAO designated DOE's contract
management as a high-risk area in 1990 because of DOE's record of
inadequate management and oversight of its contractors.'' While the
Office of Science (SC) was removed from the ``high risk'' status,
Environmental Management and NNSA remain. What steps is DOE taking to
improve contracts management within the Office of Environmental
Management (EM)?
Answer. Over the last 2 years, EM has continued to implement
corrective actions and been recognized by GAO as having met 3 of the 5
criteria for removal from the high-risk list. EM leadership remains
fully committed to continuing this improvement journey. GAO also
acknowledged positive actions for the two criteria not yet achieved.
These actions include the establishment of clear project and contract
management policies and guidance, use of a certified earned value
management system by our contractors as well as ensuring our Federal
oversight staff was certified at the appropriate level. GAO has noted
``the steps illustrate DOE's commitment to improving its contract and
project management, but the results of these efforts must ultimately be
demonstrated through improved project performance.'' Toward that end,
the current project performance data show that EM will meet or exceed
the success criteria of completing 90 percent of capital asset projects
within 10 percent of original cost and schedule baselines.
The two remaining criteria which GAO has judged EM as having not
achieved are providing the capacity, both people and resources, to
address problems, and independent validation that corrective measures
are effective and sustainable.
EM has taken the following actions to address capacity:
--EM has assigned senior, experienced project managers as
Headquarters Project Sponsors for three large capital projects,
Sodium Bearing Waste Project in Idaho, Salt Waste Processing
Facility at Savannah River, and U-233 Facility at Oak Ridge.
--EM has hired a Chief Scientist to serve as a direct advisor to the
Assistant Secretary of EM for complex technical and design
issues.
--EM has arranged for high-caliber technical expertise through use of
a Technical Expert Group which has access to multiple DOE
national laboratories.
--EM has continued review of project staffing adequacy during
recurring independent project reviews.
EM has taken the following actions to address validation:
--Conducting monthly project reviews incorporating lessons learned
from transparent reporting on ARRA projects.
--Completing Independent Project Reviews, modeled after the SC
approach, on a semi-annual schedule for the larger capital
projects.
--Actively participating in recent Department-wide initiatives for
improvement in contract and project management.
EM is committed to continuous improvement in its performance of its
mission and in the achievement of all the GAO criteria.
SCIENCE LABS
Question. SC is currently operating 10 DOE labs across the country.
Can we afford to continue to operate all of these facilities? Should we
start looking at reducing the number of national labs?
Answer. We believe that continued operation of DOE's national
laboratories, at the levels proposed in the fiscal year 2012
President's budget, is a national priority. The 10 Office of Science
laboratories play a critical role in the Nation's research and
development (R&D) enterprise. The Department's national laboratories
are home to the world's largest collection of scientific user
facilities, supporting more than 26,000 unique users from universities,
national labs, other Federal agencies and businesses large and small
each year. Functioning as an interdependent system with an exceptional
set of world-leading facilities and distinctive capabilities, they
deliver clear benefits to the Nation's research community and help
solve problems of national importance. They work in partnership with
universities and industry, transfer the results of their R&D to the
marketplace, and support the training of the future science and
engineering workforce.
It is increasingly clear that transformational science and
breakthrough technologies will be needed to overcome the complex
challenges that we face as a Nation in the 21st century:
--increasing the availability of clean, reliable, and affordable
energy;
--ensuring our national security in a changing world; and
--enhancing U.S. competitiveness by encouraging innovation.
DOE national laboratories are uniquely equipped and positioned to
make substantial contributions to the U.S. research enterprise.
More than 80 Nobel prizes have resulted from research affiliated
with DOE, much of which was made possible by the unique instrumentation
and equipment available to the scientific community through the
national laboratories.
Some recent results of research conducted by the laboratories
operated by the SC include:
--development of the world's smallest battery;
--development of software that searches databases 10 to 100 times
faster than large commercial database software;
--development of a technology to use complementary strands of
synthetic DNA to build functional materials from the smallest
building blocks--future applications include biosensors,
optical nano-devices, and new kinds of solar cells;
--development of the first microbe that can produce an advanced
biofuel (an alternative to petroleum) directly from fatty acids
in biomass;
--development of nanoscale catalysts and multifunctional membranes
that may greatly enhance the practicality of fuel-cell powered
vehicles; and
--development of a technique to create thin diamond films that are
helping industry create energy-saving, ultra-low friction and
wear coatings for mechanical pump seals and tools.
Each of these accomplishments was made possible by a consistent and
sustained investment in DOE's national laboratories, which provide
unique capabilities for maintaining U.S. leadership in science and
technology. These national laboratories also contain the world's
largest suite of synchrotron radiation light source facilities, neutron
scattering facilities, electron-beam microcharacterization centers, and
nanoscale science research centers, which provide open access to
specialized instrumentation and expertise that enable scientific users
from universities, national laboratories, and industry to carry out
experiments and develop theories that could not be done at their home
institutions.
During these tough economic times, DOE recognizes the need to
identify savings throughout its budget. In the fiscal year 2012 budget
request to the Congress, SC funded its national laboratories at a level
consistent with the needs of the Department and the scientific
community. Savings will be realized in fiscal year 2012 with the
termination of operations at the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam
Facility national user facility at ORNL. In addition, by the end of
fiscal year 2011, we are completing operation of the world's largest
proton-antiproton collider, the Tevatron, at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory. The planned closure of the Tevatron coincides
with the full start of operations of the Large Hadron Collider in
Europe.
Question. Should we start looking at reducing the number of
national labs?
Answer. SC regularly reviews the status of the projects and
programs underway at the laboratories to ensure that they are focused,
unique, and producing the significant scientific results required and
expected from the investment of taxpayer dollars. Science's
laboratories are not static. SC actively engages its labs to assure
continued relevance and renewed infrastructure. No lab demonstrates
that better than SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. A few years ago,
it was single-purpose particle physics lab. Through prudent
investments, such as the Linac Coherent Light Source, SLAC is now a
vibrant, multi-program laboratory making significant contributions in
photon science, astrophysics, particle physics, and accelerator
research. ORNL in your home State has similarly been revitalized and
renewed over the past decade. The programs and projects at the national
laboratories are designed, executed, and monitored to leverage, not
duplicate, the activities conducted by other participants in the global
scientific and academic communities. It is critical to our national
security, as well as our economic, technical, and scientific standing
in the world that these national laboratories continue to foster the
future technological innovations and scientific discoveries that will
continue to lead the United States on a path of prosperity.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Question. If one of the goals of this administration is to reduce
emissions, then why reduce funding for fossil energy? If we want
cleaner coal or carbon sequestration, how do you accomplish this
without continued investment is fossil fuels research?
Answer. The Fossil Energy (FE) fiscal year 2012 budget request
upholds the President's goals to develop America's innovative
competitive edge through strategic investments in our Nation's clean-
energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities. FE's
budget request takes into consideration the need for budget restraint,
which requires making tough choices across all DOE R&D program areas.
We are investing in only the key enabling technologies that are on
critical paths and that show the highest-potential impacts on achieving
the program goals and benefits in the timeframe needed for deployment.
In addition, ARRA funding provided substantial investments in carbon
capture and storage R&D and demonstrations ($3.4 billion from ARRA
funds).
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Question. DOE proposes to sell some crude oil reserves to generate
$500 million in budgetary savings. Please describe in detail the
rationale for reducing the inventory? If the proposal is driven based
on the need to free up space for inspection and maintenance purposes,
why isn't DOE proposing a specific number of barrels, rather than a
dollar amount? What type grade do you propose to sell (light, heavy,
sweet or sour), and what is the basis for that plan?
Answer. The sale is proposed to provide operational flexibility in
managing the reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve seeks to reduce
its inventory by 5-6 million barrels in order to alleviate unplanned
overcapacity at some SPR caverns. The overfilling occurred due to the
relocation of crude oil from Bayou Choctaw Cavern 20 to other caverns
and the need to free up cavern space throughout the SPR complex. Spare
capacity and operational flexibility is needed for example to perform
casing inspections and workovers, to allow on-site oil movements that
may be required from time to time, and to comply with a recent Texas
Railroad Commission requirement for more stringent inspections. No
decisions have been made about what grade of crude oil would be sold.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. Does the Department have a timeline for considering an
unsolicited proposal on tails re-enrichment or releasing an updated
uranium inventory management plan? Given that there are more than 1,200
jobs on the line, is there no sense of urgency at the Department to
accelerate the consideration of re-enriching uranium tails?
Answer. Upon receipt of any unsolicited proposal, the Department of
Energy (DOE) conducts a review consistent with applicable statutes,
regulations, and guidelines. While there is no set period of time for
review of an unsolicited proposal, the Department conducts its review
as expeditiously as possible. The Department is currently working on
updating its Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan. The Department's
2008 Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan provided guidelines for
the management of the Department's excess uranium inventory and
described planned and future projects under consideration, as
envisioned in 2008. The Plan was a 10-year estimate of future sales and
transfers and it contained the caveat that situations could arise where
DOE's actions could change in response to unforeseen developments.
Depending on programmatic and policy goals and needs, the Department is
evaluating the impacts of changes and decisions made since 2008 and
will revise the Plan accordingly.
Any decision by the Department regarding the possible enrichment of
its higher assay tails would have to include careful consideration of
several factors, among them an appropriate contracting approach, the
economic benefits to the taxpayer, and the potential market impacts of
processing and selling the higher assay tails. A decision should not be
made prior to our full evaluation of all the factors.
Question. A decade's worth of clean-up efforts have been ongoing at
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), which have included the
removal of 30,000 tons of scrap metal, stored hazardous waste,
contaminated soil, and facilities. DOE annually submits a budget
request to continue these clean-up efforts. However, there is the
potential for a budget shortfall in the coming years. What is DOE's
proposal to ensure that future budgets meet the needs of clean-up work
at the PGDP?
Answer. The Department believes meeting its compliance milestones
is essential and continues to prioritize actions to stay on course to
meet these enforceable agreements. The Department continues to work
with its regulators to ensure projects are appropriately sequenced to
optimize resources while utilizing a risk-based approach to cleanup.
Question. If the Department does not anticipate issuing a plan, has
the Department included funds in its fiscal year 2012 budget to safely
and securely idle the plant once it returns to DOE control? How much
does DOE estimate it needs to idle the plant each year?
Answer. The timing of the return of the PGDP to DOE is a business
decision solely within United States Enrichment Corporation's (USEC)
purview. There are provisions of the USEC lease that we would expect
USEC to comply with, in the event USEC decides to cease operations at
the Paducah plant. USEC has an obligation under the lease to provide
DOE with a 2-year notification of USEC's intent to return the PGDP. The
2 years notice was intended to allow DOE to seek congressional
appropriations as part of our annual budget process. DOE will develop
estimates for decontamination and decommissioning activities after
receiving the 2-year notice from USEC.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
H-CANYON
Question. H-Canyon is a remarkable asset that can play a key role
in the future of the complex. It has the capability to handle some of
the most complicated materials on Earth. It also has the ability to
produce fuel for NASA's space missions and could be the place where the
breakthroughs are made for the next generation of spent-fuel recycling.
However, your budget does not allow for any of these activities. In
fact, the Defense Nuclear Safety Board has warned that the canyon could
be lost forever under current Department of Energy (DOE) plans. How do
you justify this? How much would it cost to construct a new canyon? How
long would that take? What is the future of H-Canyon?
Answer. For approximately the past 3 years, H-Canyon has been
operating to complete the blend down of enriched uranium recovered from
the processing of surplus unirradiated highly enriched uranium (HEU)
materials. The Department intends to complete the current HEU blend
down work in 2011. The Department is planning to transition H-Canyon
and HB-Line facilities to modified operations in fiscal year 2012. H-
Canyon will continue to receive sample returns from the Savannah River
National Laboratory and F Area Laboratory and disposition the samples
to the liquid waste system. H-Canyon will also remediate large boxes of
legacy transuranic waste. The Department will retain critical staff and
perform proficiency runs which maintain the operator qualifications and
exercise the processing equipment.
Much of the remaining material that could be processed in H-Canyon
in the future is used nuclear fuel (UNF). The Secretary of Energy has
determined that no processing of aluminum-clad UNF will occur until the
recommendations of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on
America's Nuclear Future are issued and evaluated by the Department.
The proposed operational condition of H-Canyon will allow the
flexibility to process aluminum-clad UNF or any other appropriate
nuclear materials, in the future, should that decision be made.
Question. The core mission of DOE's Environmental Management
program is to reduce the amount of waste currently sitting in our
weapons complex. As such, any decision that would result in the
stranding of material should run counter to DOE's mission. This is why
DOE's decision not to process 14 metric tons of aluminum clad defense
spent nuclear fuel through H-Canyon is so problematic. Under DOE's
current vision, this fuel has no disposition path. Will you work with
me to ensure that this material does not remain in South Carolina if it
is not to be processed through the canyon?
Answer. The Department does not intend to indefinitely store used
nuclear fuel (UNF) at the Savannah River Site. However, I have
determined that no further processing of aluminum-clad UNF will occur
until the recommendations of the President's BRC on America's Nuclear
Future are issued and evaluated by the Department. This will allow the
Department to make sure these recommendations are factored into
decisions on how best to process and disposition this material. By
retaining critical staff and performing proficiency runs to maintain
operator qualifications and exercise processing equipment, the
capability to process spent fuel in the future is being preserved.
Should a decision be made to not use the H-Canyon to process the spent
fuel, I will work with you to determine an alternative that ensure
unprocessed UNF does not remain at the Site.
Question. Trimming unnecessary costs is one way to get our overall
budget house in order. Spending money to expand L-basin, where the
aluminum clad fuel is stored, instead of processing it through the
canyon makes little sense to me. Wouldn't it save DOE money over the
long term to process the aluminum clad fuel and ultimately close L-
basin?
Answer. Per my previous response, no processing of aluminum-clad
UNF will occur until the recommendations of the President's BRC on
America's Nuclear Future are issued and evaluated by the Department.
HYDROGEN
Question. Just recently 13 of my colleagues sent you a letter about
our support for the fuel cell and hydrogen energy technology programs
in your portfolio. Do you share our concern that further cuts to these
programs would inhibit the long-term diversification of our Nation's
energy portfolio and stunt the development of American-engineered and
domestically produced energy systems powered by hydrogen and fuel
cells?
Answer. The Department's strategy is to sustain a balanced research
and development (R&D) portfolio, with an emphasis on nearer-term
priorities, such as batteries, advanced vehicle technologies, and
technologies for renewable power and energy efficiency. Fuel cell
electric vehicles (FCEVs) are still part of the portfolio of options
under development. In fact, DOE's increased funding for battery R&D
will also be beneficial for FCEVs which rely on batteries in addition
to fuel cells.
The Department will continue its critical efforts in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D, which have already reduced the cost of fuel cells by
more than 30 percent since 2008 and 80 percent since 2002.\12\ In fact,
DOE's hydrogen and fuel cell program has been extremely successful,
resulting in approximately 200 patents, 30 products being put on the
market, and industry currently pursuing development of more than 50
emerging technologies.\13\ The fiscal year 2012 budget sustains DOE's
core R&D efforts which will continue to advance the technologies and
improve the likelihood of a successful rollout by automobile
manufacturers in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10004_fuel _cell_cost.pdf.
\13\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/ pdfs/
pathways.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I understand there are studies out there, including one
done by the Savannah River National Laboratory in SC, that show that
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) are not going to be cheaper than FCEVs nor is their needed
infrastructure going to be cheaper. Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. We are not aware of the Savannah River National Laboratory
study you reference, so we cannot comment specifically on its
assessment. In general, however, it is very difficult to compare
vehicle and infrastructure costs across technologies. There are a
number of variables affecting infrastructure cost--such as location and
site preparation requirements, public accessibility (versus home-access
only), production technology (for hydrogen), and size of station/volume
of fuel required or type of electric charging. In addition, although
R&D is needed to further reduce cost and improve performance of all
advanced vehicle technologies, each is in a different stage of
development with different early market requirements, cost-reduction
targets, and timelines.
A variety of vehicle technologies and fuels will be required to
meet the Nation's short-term and longer-term goals of reducing
petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies are
developing along different timelines: PHEVs, for example, are
commercially available today and do not necessarily require any
additional infrastructure--drivers can charge at home using a standard
outlet or fuel with gasoline at an existing station, if needed for
traveling longer distances. BEVs are also commercially available today
but have different infrastructure requirements. Drivers can charge at
home overnight using equipment that ranges from $800 to $2,000
installed; cost estimates for public electric charging equipment and
installation can vary from $5,000 to $50,000 per charging point,
depending on the type of charging (Level 2 vs. DC fast charging) and
other factors (noted above). While FCEVs are not yet commercially
available, a number of the world's major auto manufacturers have
announced initial rollouts in the 2015 timeframe. FCEVs will have
different infrastructure requirements than PHEVs and BEVs.
Question. Two weeks ago, at your agency's Quadrennial Technology
Review (QTR) Workshop in Knoxville, Tennessee, representatives from
hydrogen, fuel cell vehicle, and stationary source fuel cell companies
heard Under Secretary for Science Koonin say, in front of 100 people,
that fuel cells and hydrogen were left out of the QTR Framing Document
to ``see what the reaction would be.'' Do you agree with Under
Secretary Koonin's approach to the QTR?
Answer. Under Secretary Koonin has a proven track record of
bringing diverse groups together and facilitating vigorous technical
discussions, which is why I asked him to lead our first ever QTR.
As you are aware, we released the QTR Framing Document in March,
where we provided a first pass at those technologies that are likely to
scale up in time to materially impact the President's energy security
and environmental goals--and to do so affordably. In view of the
multitude of technologies that could be developed and demonstrated, we
must set clear priorities within the existing policy framework and
establish principles that will enable us to coordinate our research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) efforts with those of the private
sector to facilitate timely and material deployment of clean-energy
technologies. Consequently, in the initial framing document we left out
a number of technologies that are at the experimental stage or face
significant technical or multiple infrastructure hurdles. Hydrogen and
fuel cells were not the only technologies in that category.
The QTR Framing Document was intended to stimulate discussion and
facilitate stakeholder engagement as crucial elements of the QTR
process. In response to comments submitted by representatives from
hydrogen, fuel cell vehicle, and stationary source fuel cell companies,
Dr. Koonin invited a number of them to the vehicle efficiency and
electrification workshop in Knoxville, Tennessee on May 4, 2011 and to
a clean electricity supply workshop held in Boulder, Colorado on June
7, 2011. The discussion among technical experts across a spectrum of
technologies has been invaluable in shaping the QTR team's thinking
about the highest and best uses of fuel cells and hydrogen in the
Nation's energy future.
Fuel cells for distributed generation were already included as 1 of
the 19 technology assessments that form the foundational analysis of
the QTR, and hydrogen is considered in our vehicle electrification
technology assessment. These technology assessments, which were not
released as part of the Framing Document, are expected to be important
components of the final report on the QTR.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE PENSIONS
Question. I have long been concerned about the cost of DOE
pensions. The growing costs could very well impact programmatic work
throughout the weapons complex. In fiscal year 2012, what is the
projected pension obligation across the weapons complex?
Answer. The table below includes the estimated fiscal year 2012
contributions for each National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
contractor based on updated information submitted by the contractors
during fiscal year 2011.
[Updated estimates as of September 30, 2011]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 NNSA
portion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California Retirement Plan--Lawrence 178
Berkeley National Laboratory...........................
Pension Plan for Eligible Bettis Employees and Retirees 59,500
\1\....................................................
Pension Plan for Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 10,380
Battelle Memorial Institute............................
BW Y-12 Pension Plan.................................... 79,580
Idaho National Laboratory Employee Retirement Plan...... 7,546
Salaried Employee Pension for KAPL Employees and 65,000
Retirees \1\...........................................
Pension Plan for KAPL Employees in Participating 7,100
Bargaining Units \1\...................................
Kansas City Division (Honeywell International, Inc.) 9,110
Hourly Employees Pension Plan..........................
Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan for Aerospace 26,910
Employees at the Kansas City Division..................
LANS Defined Benefit Pension Plan....................... 71,940
University of California Retirement Plan Livermore...... 153,900
University of California Retirement Plan--Los Alamos.... 70,100
National Security Technologies, LLC [NSTec] Employee 14,490
Retirement Plan........................................
B&W Pantex Guards Union................................. 3,000
B&W Pantex Metal Trades Council......................... 8,800
B&W Pantex, Non Bargaining.............................. 17,800
Sandia Corporation Retirement Income Plan............... 108,430
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Multiple Employer Plan. 48,747
Pension Plan for Employees at ORNL...................... 5,787
WSI Las Vegas........................................... 1,600
WSI Independent Guard Association of Nevada............. 1,332
WSI Pension Plan for Employees at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.. 1,159
Battelle Memorial Institute SERP Non-Qualified Plan..... 2
Bechtel Marine Propulsion Non-Qualified Plan \1\........ 1,138
KAPL Non-Qualified Plan \1\............................. 229
LANS 401(a)(17) Restoration Plan........................ 4
LANS Restoration Plan................................... 2
LLNS 401(a)(17) Restoration Plan........................ 41
LLNS Restoration Plan................................... 19
Sandia Corporation Non-Qualified Pension Plan........... 824
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Non-Qualified Plan..... 95
---------------
Total............................................. 774,743
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NNSA pension contributions for the five Naval Reactors plans include
contributions reimbursed by the Department of the Navy and work for
others.
Question. I previously proposed language in the Defense
Authorization Act that would require DOE and NNSA to report their
pension obligations as a line item in the budget. This would give the
Congress a better sense of the cost of pensions on the complex. Do you
support this effort? Why not?
Answer. Increased visibility of pension liabilities is a goal the
Department supports. However, reporting them as a line item in the
budget is not viable due to budget formulation, execution, and
accounting concerns. To enhance visibility of pension liabilities, the
Department included a separate section on pensions in its congressional
budget request for both fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. This
section of the budget provides projected contractor defined-benefit
(DB) pension plan contributions for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year
2012 by plan and by Program Office. For the NNSA, the projected
contractor DB pension plan contributions are provided for fiscal year
2010 through fiscal year 2016 by plan.
At the time the Department's budget request is submitted, the
Department provides the latest pension contribution estimates available
from its contractors. However, the actual amount of the contractors'
annual defined benefit pension contributions is not typically known
until the third quarter of the year of budget execution. Projections of
future pension contributions are highly sensitive to underlying data,
economic conditions, and actuarial methods and assumptions. Thus, the
final annual actuarial valuation likely will yield different
contribution amounts than the amounts estimated at the time of budget
submission. For instance, we are currently preparing the budget
submission for fiscal year 2013. At the same time, the contractors are
waiting on the actuaries to complete the various analyses to determine
the actual payments required for calendar year 2012. Because the budget
formulation cycle occurs so far in advance of the pension plan
execution year, directly funding pension obligations through a line
item is not desirable.
Further, the current methodology of having the pension liabilities
collected through indirect cost pools allows the Department to charge
all customers doing business at a site for a portion of the pension
liability. If pension liabilities were fully ``direct funded'', the
Department would bear the full costs of the liabilities whereas with
the current budget and accounting system permits the Department to
recover pension costs through overall indirect costs charged to non-DOE
customers.
Another disadvantage of ``direct funding'' the pension liabilities
would be a reduction in the contractors' and the Department's ability
to quantify the true cost of the work at the site, inclusive of costs
for contractor employees' pension benefits. The result would be the
loss of a key self-policing aspect of the current approach to funding
pensions. In particular, when the true indirect cost of work, including
pension costs, is proportionally shared with each site customer, it
creates an incentive for contractors to minimize their overall indirect
costs insofar as the contractors must keep indirect costs low to
attract work from other agencies or entities. If pensions were ``direct
funded'', this market pressure would be largely absent because a large
component of total indirect cost pool would be removed from the
indirect costs.
One area where the Department does submit a direct request for
pension liabilities is for legacy pension benefits. NNSA has a
continuing obligation to reimburse the University of California
Retirement Plan to fund retirement benefits for University of
California (UC) retirees from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories. NNSA is unable to recover the costs associated
with the liability to the UC through indirect cost pools as NNSA does
for pension costs associated with benefit plans sponsored by current
NNSA contractors. The difference between the two payment methods is a
critical and significant difference that requires the disparate
treatment in the budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. I wish to thank you and the Department for maintaining
the Hawaii office to manage the energy programs and to coordinate with
the military, the Department of Energy (DOE), and State endeavors. The
office has been invaluable and continues to support the development and
implementation of alternative energy policy including those important
to State and local efforts, partnerships between military and civilian
efforts in the field and new partnership opportunities involving other
nations, including Japan. It is my sincere hope that this office will
continue in fiscal year 2012 and beyond.
Does the Department have any plans to make meaningful commercial
investments in ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)? If so, how would
the Department mitigate any environmental concerns? What would be the
Department's timeframe for such investments?
Answer. As part of the Department's investments in water power
technologies, we are currently evaluating the life-cycle costs of OTEC
power generation and undertaking a rigorous OTEC resource assessment.
The results of these studies will provide important baseline
information regarding the potential contribution that OTEC could make
to our Nation's renewable energy portfolio, as well as the cost of
energy from OTEC. These reports, which will be completed this fiscal
year, will serve to inform the Department's investment strategy going
forward, and allow us to make appropriate investments across all
renewable energy technologies. While OTEC development and production
costs are currently estimated to be significantly higher than some
other energy technologies, the Department has been pursuing a small
number of targeted technology development projects that aim to advance
technology readiness, establish a baseline for cost estimates, and
improve the cost-competitiveness of OTEC generation.
The Department has been working closely with the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Navy in the assessment
of OTEC technologies, with a particular focus on the environmental
concerns associated with OTEC power generation. In partnership with
NOAA, DOE is developing guidelines that consider the full realm of
potential environmental impacts, while also considering potential
mitigation strategies. This effort includes a series of workshops with
technical, scientific, and environmental experts from within the
Federal Government as well as key stakeholder groups. This information
will serve to inform our future investment strategy so that any future
commercial development is undertaken in an environmentally sustainable
manner.
In order to fully evaluate the technical, environmental, and
economic performance of a fully integrated, open-ocean OTEC system, it
is envisioned that a demonstration project in the range of 10 MW to 100
MW would likely be required. Initial cost estimates for plants of this
size are $350 million to $1.1 billion. Given the magnitude of such an
investment and the early stage of OTEC technology development, the
Department does not envision making any investments in OTEC at this
scale in the near future.
Question. Does the Department plan any follow-on competitions to
follow-up on the successes from the stimulus investment?
Answer. DOE intends to continue supporting the Pacific Office
established in 2010 in Honolulu, Hawaii, and we are pleased with your
perception of our accomplishments and progress. In August 2011, the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, with financial
support from the Department of Defense (DOD), will be stationing a
staff member in the J-9 office of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) to
support Command interests in energy and security issues. That staff
member and the DOE Pacific Office staff will coordinate efforts with
DOD while continuing the 3 years of effort with the State of Hawaii and
other U.S. Pacific activities.
Regarding future competitive funding opportunities, the citizens
and government of Hawaii will be informed of future announcements. It
is our normal practice to competitively award research and deployment
projects. We are aware that both the Governor's office and several
Hawaii government agencies are routinely exploring and applying for new
project grants from DOE.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Alexander. The hearing is concluded.
Secretary Chu. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., Wednesday, May 18, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING
[Clerk's Note.--The following testimony was received by the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for inclusion in
the record.]
Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
state environmental agency directors support fiscal year 2012 funding
appropriation for u.s. department of energy's nuclear cleanup work
Dear Madam Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: We
are writing to you on behalf of ECOS, the national nonprofit
nonpartisan association of State environmental agency directors.
As you consider appropriation levels for the fiscal year 2012
Federal budget, we urge you to consider the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE) nuclear clean-up work a funding priority.
DOE has requested that $6.13 billion be appropriated to fund its
Office of Environmental Management (EM) for fiscal year 2012 so the
agency can remediate hazardous and radiological contamination at sites
within the nuclear weapons complex. This figure represents the amount
of funding DOE needs to successfully perform cleanup work to levels
necessary for meeting its obligations to State governments outlined in
cleanup agreements.
On March 24, 2010, the State environmental agency directors passed
a resolution urging the Congress to ``appropriate the levels of funding
necessary to ensure EM annual budgets are fully funded and fully
compliant'' noting that ``stable funding leads to greater efficiencies
in cleanup cost and schedule'' (see addendum).
Therefore we believe that the Congress should fully fund DOE's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the EM program. DOE has told States
that if a lower level of funding is appropriated for fiscal year 2012,
cleanup of contaminated soils and groundwater will be delayed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Presentation to the National Governors Association from Ines R.
Triay, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S.
Department of Energy. May 6, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex represents a large liability
to the Federal Government, but this is a liability that continues to
shrink as cleanup is achieved at various sites within the complex. As
States, we understand what it is like to make tough funding decisions.
For this one, we urge you to allow DOE to continue the cleanup work to
its conclusion.
Thank you for considering our position as you work toward passing a
Federal budget. Please contact R. Steven Brown, executive director of
ECOS if you have any questions about this letter.
CLEANUP BUDGETS FOR THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX
WHEREAS, the Nation's nuclear weapons production and research and
development activities, conducted largely between the 1940s and 1980s,
have left a legacy of hazardous, radiological, and mixed wastes
scattered across sites widely referred to as the ``nuclear weapons
complex'' (the ``complex''); and
WHEREAS, proper cleanup of the complex is critical for protecting
human health and to ensure that damages to natural resources are
mitigated and/or compensated for; and
WHEREAS, the complex consists of over 100 sites in 33 States,
thereby comprising one of the largest environmental cleanup operations
being undertaken in the United States; and
WHEREAS, at least 14 States currently host active cleanup
operations spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)
Office of Environmental Management (EM); and
WHEREAS, State environmental agencies are regulators with U.S. EPA
and U.S. DOE, and may oversee cleanup operations within the complex as
established by Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), permits, and consent
orders under FFCA, CERCLA, RCRA, and other laws; and
WHEREAS, some sites within the complex, including the Ohio Fernald
and Colorado Rocky Flats sites, have benefited from accelerated
cleanups that have generated cost savings from reduced future
maintenance costs that were not redirected toward other site cleanups
within the complex; and
WHEREAS, the influx of funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has provided for further acceleration
of nuclear and hazardous waste cleanups as well as decontamination and
demolition of obsolete facilities within the complex; and
WHEREAS, recently completed cleanups have shrunk the footprint and
overall size and presence of nuclear weapons complex sites within the
States; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding these recent successes, continued cleanup
of the complex remains a priority issue for the States; and
WHEREAS, stable funding leads to greater efficiencies in cleanup
cost and schedule for both U.S. DOE and the States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
ECOS strongly supports continued environmental cleanup of the
nuclear weapons complex.
ECOS recommends that U.S. DOE continue cleaning up the nuclear
weapons complex and maintain a strong forum for communication and
planning with State oversight officials via ECOS.
ECOS urges U.S. DOE officials to request fully funded, fully
compliant annual budgets for the EM program to ensure enough funds are
provided to all sites to achieve cleanup milestones on schedule as
required by FFAs, permits, and consent orders.
ECOS urges the U.S. Congress to appropriate the levels of funding
necessary to ensure EM annual budgets are fully funded and fully
compliant as just described.
ECOS urges U.S. DOE to establish mechanisms whereby any cost
savings that result from accelerated cleanups are recouped and
redirected toward funding other site cleanups within the nuclear
weapons complex, and
This resolution will be transmitted to the U.S. Congress, the
Secretary of Energy, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Environmental Management, the National Governors Association, and other
stakeholder groups.
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the Board of Commissioners, Fifth Louisiana Levee
District
The Board of Commissioners for the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
respectfully requests that construction funding for Mississippi River
levees be increased from the $24,180,000 contained in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2012, to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' (COE)
capability of $59,980,000.
Reduced funding, combined with the inability to let construction
contracts under a continuing contract clause, has left thousands of
people in Louisiana vulnerable to the adverse effects of a deficient
levee system. Construction of levee enlargements is essential if the
levee is to contain the ``Project Flood'' which is estimated to be 20
percent greater than the record Flood of 1927.
The effect of fully funded contracts for levee construction, now
required under Public Law 109-103, (sections 106 and 108), adopted by
the 109th Congress in 2005, as opposed to the previous system of
continuing contract clauses, has virtually halted enlargement of the
Mississippi River levee system in Louisiana. Year after year, as the
cost of projects and maintenance has increased, funding for levee
systems and flood control has been reduced. The current proposed budget
is no exception, with only $210 million allocated for the entire
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. We request that be
increased to COE's capabilities of $335 million.
Since the MR&T project was established, less than $11 billion has
been invested. This investment provides benefits far beyond their
actual cost to the taxpayer by offering protection to the 4 million
citizens, 1.5 million homes, 33,000 farms, and countless vital
transportation routes from destructive floods.
With the help of the Congress, great progress has been made in the
Mississippi River Valley over the years, but there is still much to be
done, and because of that, we urge the Congress to increase funding to
COE in fiscal year 2012, to ensure that COE is not forced to halt or
delay contracts for levee construction essential to the well-being of
this Nation. It is vital that the MR&T project(s) be completed at the
earliest possible date. This can only be accomplished through adequate
funding and repeal of the mandate for contracts to be fully funded
prior to the beginning of construction.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
Is this Nation's heartland worth preserving? Will the richest and
most fertile farmland in the world be allowed to simply wash away? Are
the lives and livelihoods of America's bread basket somehow now less
important?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves even in this time of
great economic uncertainty, with opinions and counter-opinions churning
and Americans seemingly divided as surely as this continent's greatest
river bisects it.
And after asking them, then we must remember that some truths
really are self-evident.
As we move forward with what we realize necessarily must be a new
approach to flood control and its funding in the years ahead, we urge
you not to lose sight of what has been the enormous success of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project, a project which has
made life as we know it in middle America possible. The land in and
around the Mississippi River Valley has proved to be the most bountiful
on Earth. Not only is it home to the salt-of-the-Earth men and women
who populate it, but it is also the producer of an increasingly
important slice of the U.S. export pie--the food and fiber that clothe
this country and the rest of the world.
We understand the political and economic reality which dictates
that now, more than perhaps ever before, every Federal dollar is
critical and every expenditure must be prioritized. But then what
priority of government is more critical than the protection of its
people and the wealth that they produce?
The administration proposes fiscal year 2012 funding for the MR&T
project, one of our great continuing successes, with an almost
unprecedented benefit-to-cost ratio, at $210 million, once again less
than the Congress appropriated last year and substantially less than
the Corps of Engineers' (COE) capability. But in such matters the
founding fathers saw fit to give the Congress the last word, and so we
urge you to fund the MR&T umbrella of needed public works at COE's
capability level of $335 million.
Honorable Members of Congress, there is a simple truth in our
region of this country: The Mainline Mississippi River Levee makes life
and development possible within the Mississippi Delta. Therefore it is
nothing less than our duty to ask you to fund Mississippi River levees
construction at $77.73 million and their maintenance at $15.781
million. A paramount priority to our levee board is the Upper Yazoo
Projects which we sponsor, not only a much needed endeavor, but a rare
one, as well, in that it faces no environmental opposition. We urge you
to advance its completion in the amount of $14.2 million.
Mississippi's four flood control reservoirs have marked another
MR&T project success, but it concerns us that they are aging, and we
request the appropriation of $34.759 million for their continued
maintenance.
Also critical to us is the Delta Headwater Project, which helps to
prevent our Delta streams from filling with eroded soils from the
hills. We ask that it be funded at $23.2 million.
We would also request that these other pieces of the flood control
puzzle in our area be funded as follows:
Channel Improvements.--$73.270 million;
Big Sunflower River.--$2.5 million;
Main Stem.--$25,000;
Yazoo Basin Reformulation.--$1.2 million;
Channel Maintenance.--$89.936 million;
Channel Improvement Dredging.--$18.029 million;
Channel Improvement Dredging--Memphis.--$12.430 million;
Channel Improvement Dredging--Vicksburg.--$5.023 million;
Revetments and Dikes.--$71.907 million;
Big Sunflower Maintenance.--$985,000;
Main Stem Maintenance.--$6.248 million;
Tributaries.--$1.286 million; and
Whittington Auxiliary Channel.--$494,000.
And finally, Members of Congress, we have all been shocked and
sickened by the death and devastation resultant from the recent
earthquake in Japan. And so we would remind that the strongest recorded
earthquake on the North American continent, occurred exactly 200 years
ago--not in California, but along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri. Any
such event today would make the amount of this needed funding request
look like child's play, so we urge you to also allocate necessary
attention and funding to earthquake research and preparedness.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: This statement is
prepared by Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi
Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi, and submitted on behalf
of the Board and the citizens of the Mississippi Levee District. The
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of seven elected
commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey,
Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren counties in the Lower
Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of providing
protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the Mississippi
River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing the flood
waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out by
providing the local sponsor requirements for the congressionally
authorized projects in the Mississippi Levee District. The Mississippi
Levee Board and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
support an appropriation of $335 million for fiscal year 2012 for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. This is the minimum
amount that we consider necessary to allow for an orderly completion of
the remaining work in the Valley and to provide for the operation and
maintenance, as required, to prevent further deterioration of the
completed flood control and navigation work.
It is apparent that the administration loses sight of the fact that
the MR&T project provides protection to the lower Mississippi valley
from waters generated across 41 percent of the continental United
States. These waters flow from 31 States and 2 provinces of Canada and
must pass through the Lower Mississippi Valley on its way to the Gulf
of Mexico. We will remind you that the MR&T project is one of, if not
the most cost-effective project ever undertaken by the U.S. Government.
The foresight of the Congress in their authorization of the many
features of this project is exemplary.
The many projects that are part of the MR&T project not only
provide protection from flooding in the area, but the award of
construction contracts throughout the Valley provides assistance to the
overall economy of this area. The employment of the local workforce and
purchases from local vendors by the contractors help stabilize the
economy in one of the most impoverished areas of our country.
We are concerned about the ``earmark moratorium'' that the Congress
has adopted for the next 2 years. Basically the Congress has
essentially given up their right to appropriate money. They have
relinquished this right to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
OMB always provides a budget that undercuts our projects in the MR&T
project because they know that the Congress will provide
``congressional adds''. Unfortunately people think that the
``congressional adds'' for the MR&T project are ``earmarks''.
``Earmarks'' account for less than 1 percent of the entire Federal
budget, but it is these ``earmarks'' that provide money for much-needed
and essential projects and provide jobs for the economy. The stimulus
money spent the past 2 years created jobs, built projects and
stimulated the economy. This ban on ``earmarks'' will cause many
projects to be stopped, jobs will be lost and the economy will fall
right back into a recession. The Congress needs to define what an
``earmark'' is and they need to be able to do ``congressional adds''
for our projects.
Thanks to the additional funding provided by the Congress over the
last several years over and above the administration's budget, work on
the Mainline Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project is continuing.
Of the original 69 miles of deficient levees in the Mississippi Levee
District, 32 miles of work have been completed and 8.1 miles are
currently under contract. We are requesting $77.73 million for
construction on the mainline Mississippi river levees in the Lower
Mississippi Valley Division which will allow the Vicksburg and Memphis
districts to keep existing contracts on schedule and award contracts to
avoid any future unnecessary delays in completing this vital project.
We are all well aware that the Valley some day will have to endure a
Project Flood, we just don't know when. We must be prepared.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget did not include funding for
any construction projects within the Yazoo Basin. This action is
especially difficult to understand during a time when our Nation needs
an economic boost. These are all projects authorized and funded so
wisely by the Congress. All of these projects are encompassed in the
footprint of the Delta Regional Authority, an area recognized by the
Congress as requiring special economic assistance to keep pace with the
rest of our great Nation. We can not lose sight of the fact that all of
these projects are required to return more than a $1 in benefits for
each $1 spent.
The recommended plan for the Yazoo Backwater Project includes a
pump that will lower the 100-year-flood event by 4.5 feet thereby
reducing urban and rural structural damages, providing benefits to the
remaining agricultural lands, and reducing the frequency and duration
of floods. The plan also includes reforestation easements to be
purchased on up to 55,600 of existing agricultural land which will
provide benefits in every environmental category--wetlands,
terrestrial, aquatics, and waterfowl resources as well as vastly
improving water quality. This is a model project that should be the
standard for future public works projects in the United States. On
August 31, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrongly used
its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to veto
the Yazoo Backwater Project even though it is exempt by section 404(r)
of the CWA. The Mississippi Levee Board is currently engaged in a
lawsuit against EPA asking the Federal court to determine if this
project is indeed exempt from an EPA 404(c) veto by the exemption in
section 404(r) of the CWA. The administration has ordered the
cancellation of $57 million in reserves for the Yazoo Backwater
Project. If we lose this money, we will have to start from scratch with
the appropriations cycle. Please do everything you can to keep the $57
million for the Yazoo Backwater Project and prevent this cancellation
from happening. These funds will allow COE to begin acquisition of the
reforestation easements and initiate the award of the pump supply
contract. These funds were appropriated to solve flooding in the South
Mississippi Delta, therefore, they should be used to alleviate flooding
in the Mississippi South Delta.
We are requesting $4.575 million for the Yazoo Backwater less Rocky
Bayou Project. This money will be used to start the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Yazoo Backwater Levee Enlargement Project.
This levee is designed to overtop during a project design flood, but it
needs to be raised 7 feet to get to the required elevation. Today, this
levee will not be sufficient if we get a flood on the Mississippi River
greater than the 100-year event.
Work on the Big Sunflower (Upper Steele Bayou) Project has proved
to be very beneficial. The Steele Bayou Sedimentation Reduction Project
has installed drop-pipe structures at headcut locations all along
Steele Bayou. These control structures stop the movement of sediment
into Steele Bayou. Sediment is bad for flood control and water quality.
We are requesting $2.5 million to keep this project moving forward.
Work on the Delta Headwaters Project has proven effective in
reducing sediments to downstream channels. To discontinue this project
will only diminish water quality by increasing sediment, reducing the
level of flood protection to the citizens of the Delta and increasing
required maintenance. We are requesting $23.2 million to continue this
project.
Maintenance of completed works can not be overlooked. The four
flood control reservoirs overlooking the Delta have been in place for
50 years and have functioned as designed. Required maintenance must be
performed to avoid any possibility of failure during a flood event. We
are asking for $6.841 million for Arkabutla Lake; $7.174 million for
Enid Lake; $8.051 million for Grenada Lake; and $12.693 million for
Sardis Lake.
We are requesting $15.781 million for maintenance of the mainline
Mississippi river levees in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division which
will provide for repair of levee slides, slope repair, and repair of
the gravel maintenance roadway which is so vital to access during high
water.
The Mississippi River and our ports and harbors need money for
maintenance dredging. The Mississippi River carries tons of sediment
every second. This sediment falls out in slack water areas such as
entrances to our ports and harbors. The Greenville Port needs $1
million and the Vicksburg Port needs $750,000 to perform annual
maintenance dredging. This dredging is vital to keep these ports open
during the low-water season when much of the farm harvest is ready to
be transported.
We are requesting $3.03 million for the Lower Mississippi Valley
Division for Collection of basic data under general investigations.
This money is used to monitor and collect water-quality samples at
gaging stations located throughout the Mississippi Delta. With the
emphasis on water quality, water quantity, and Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs), we must be able to continue to collect good data on
water quality so we can get a baseline established to be able to
monitor and improve water quality in the Mississippi Delta.
Improvements in water quality in the Mississippi Delta will translate
into improved water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and help the gulf
hypoxia issue.
EPA has been given too much power under section 404(c) of the CWA
which allows EPA to veto congressionally authorized projects. During
the early 1990s, due to abuse of the 404(c) power by EPA, the Congress
considered removing this authority from EPA. EPA has again invoked this
veto power on the Yazoo Backwater Project. EPA is saying that you
cannot lower the water level with a flood control project. By killing
this project with 404(c) veto authority, EPA is drawing a line in the
sand over the future of flood control in our great Nation. EPA has
vetoed the Yazoo Backwater Project even though it was approved,
authorized and funded by the Congress and exempt from a 404(c) veto by
404(r). It is now time to again take up this issue and remove the
404(c) veto power from EPA before they kill another flood control
project that has been authorized by the Congress.
The Council of Environmental Quality draft proposal of changes to
the Principals and Guidelines for Federal agencies fails to establish a
clear, concise, and workable framework to guide development of water
resources projects. It is incoherent and inconsistent--and thus not
implementable in a practical sense. It substantially fails to comply
with the explicit directions in section 2031 of WRDA of 2007 as well as
the large body of previous law and policy related to water resources.
It is written so as to not require or even encourage use of proven
analytical tools to distinguish among alternatives. It elevates
environment considerations over economic benefits, social well-being
and public safety. Because of these critical and extensive failings, we
recommend that this effort be put aside and restarted from the
beginning.
As Members of Congress representing the citizens of our Nation who
live with the Mississippi River everyday, you clearly understand both
the benefits provided by this resource and the destructive force that
must be controlled during a flood. On behalf of the Mississippi Levee
Board, I can not express enough, our appreciation for your efforts in
providing adequate funding over the last several years that has allowed
construction to continue on our much needed projects and thank you in
advance for your kind consideration of our requests for fiscal year
2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Morro Bay, California
The city of Morro Bay is providing testimony to the Senate
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to respectfully request
that funding of $2.5 million be included in the fiscal year 2012 budget
for the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to dredge the Entrance/Transition
channels in Morro Bay Harbor and to fund a condition survey of the
North Breakwater.
During World War II COE designed and constructed a new harbor
entrance at Morro Bay with two rock breakwaters. Since the initial
construction, more than 60 years ago, the Federal Government has
maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters, and navigational channels.
In fiscal year 1995, COE completed the Morro Bay Harbor Entrance
Improvement Project to improve safety for commercial fishing and
coastal navigation. The city of Morro Bay contributed almost $1 million
in local cost share to this project.
Since 1995 the Federal Government has funded maintenance dredging
of Morro Bay Harbor entrance area every year and schedules a larger
project to maintain the Morro and Navy Navigation channels every 3 to 5
years, as those channels accumulate sediment at a slower rate than the
entrance area.
Below is a summary of dredging history for the federally designated
navigation channels in Morro Bay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Area dredged Cubic yardage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.............................. Outer entrance...... 63,009
1998.............................. Entrance, main, 695,080
Navy, Morro, and
sand trap.
1999.............................. Entrance and 134,234
transitional
channel.
2000.............................. Entrance and 236,883
transitional
channel.
2001.............................. Entrance and 180,467
transitional
channel.
2002.............................. Entrance, Navy, 868,483
Morro, and sand
trap.
2003.............................. Entrance and 170,817
transitional
channel.
2004.............................. Entrance and 155,708
transitional
channel.
2005.............................. Entrance and 133,989
transitional
channel.
2006.............................. Entrance and 196,237
transitional
channel.
2007.............................. Entrance and 150,581
transitional
channel.
2008.............................. Entrance and 140,789
transitional
channel.
2009.............................. Entrance and 151,067
transitional
channel.
2010.............................. Entrance, main, 823,749
Navy, Morro, and
sand trap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A condition survey of the North Breakwater has not been completed
since 1986. Since that time Morro Bay Harbor was subject to effects
from the San Simeon Earthquake of 2003, the Chilean Tsunami of 2010,
and the recent Japanese Tsunami of 2011. In March 2011, the Morro Bay
Harbor saw 9-foot surges and large waves at the entrance area during
the Tsunami generated by a 9.0 earthquake centered in Japan. Due to the
long period of time since the last condition survey and to the unusual
stresses the breakwater has been subject to, we feel it is critical to
complete this condition survey of the North Breakwater in fiscal year
2012.
Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between
Santa Barbara and Monterey along the rough waters of California's
central coast. Our Harbor directly supports almost 250 home-ported
fishing vessels and marine dependent businesses. We provide critical
maritime facilities for both recreational and commercial interests.
Businesses that depend on the harbor generate $50,000,000 annually and
employ more than 700 people. In addition to the home-ported commercial
fishing vessels, Morro Bay Harbor serves as port for 15-25 additional
fishing vessels either transiting the coast, or here to fish during
certain seasons. More than 400 recreational vessels come through Morro
Bay Harbor while transiting the California coast.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 27-person National
Security Base and Search and Rescue Station at Morro Bay Harbor, which
provides Coast Guard services for the entire central California coast,
including port safety coverage for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant and Vandenberg Air Force Base.
The California State Department of Fish and Game home ports their
65-foot enforcement vessel Blue Fin in Morro Bay. The Blue Fin enforces
Federal and State Fish and Game regulations from Monterey to the
Channel Islands and out 200 miles. The Fish and Game Department has an
agreement with USCG to assist them with homeland security within this
area as well. The Blue Fin is also made available through mutual aid
agreements to all other law enforcement agencies, for enforcement
assistance and search and rescue operations. It is vital that these
vessels be able to safely transit the Morro Bay Harbor entrance and
navigate within the Harbor to perform their missions.
The Morro Bay Harbor Patrol provides routine and emergency response
to boaters within Morro Bay Harbor and responds to incidents as far as
Montana de Oro to the south and Cambria to the north. The Morro Bay
Harbor Patrol provides assistance to USCG, the Morro Bay National
Estuary Program, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
California Department of Parks and Recreation and San Luis Obispo
County.
In 2000 the California legislature designated Morro Bay and several
other small ports along the California coast as ``Harbors of Safe
Refuge''. This legislation recognizes the critical role many small
harbors play in affording a safety zone for commercial and recreational
vessels transiting the California coast.
Morro Bay Harbor's configuration exposes the entrance to the open
ocean and strong winter storms, creating swells and currents that
constantly carry sand and sediment into the navigation channels. The
Morro Bay National Estuary Program recognizes the need to maintain the
navigational channels in the harbor not only for the safe access of
emergency and fishing vessels, but also to maintain adequate tidal
exchange for the health of the Morro Bay Estuary.
Morro Bay is a city of 10,000 people, with a total annual operating
budget of approximately $25 million. We are almost entirely reliant on
tourism and a small fishing fleet for our revenue. The city simply
cannot afford to maintain the harbor without continued Federal
assistance. If the channels are not dredged, all of the past local and
Federal investment will be lost. It is imperative that the federally
constructed navigation channels, entrance area, and protective jetties
be maintained on a consistent schedule.
COE has the capability to execute $2.5 million in maintenance
dredging operations and a North Breakwater condition survey for fiscal
year 2012. We respectfully request that your distinguished subcommittee
include $2.5 million in funds for Morro Bay to keep our harbor open and
safe in all conditions, to provide a safe base of operations for USCG,
California Department of Fish and Game, and the Morro Bay Harbor
Patrol, and to protect the health of the Morro Bay National Estuary.
Thank you for your actions and support, and for the opportunity to
present these requests to your subcommittee on behalf of the citizens
of the city of Morro Bay.
______
Prepared Statement of EnviroScience, Inc.
To the honorable members of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development: I am writing in support of continued, and indeed,
expanded appropriations for the Corps of Engineers (COE) Aquatic Plant
Control and Research Program (APCRP). My company EnviroScience, Inc. is
a small environmental consulting firm engaged in the practical control
of aquatic invasive plant species throughout the United States. For
more than a decade, EnviroScience, its clients and the entire aquatic
plant industry has benefitted from the research and technology transfer
functions carried out by this COE program.
Although I understand you are faced with complex and difficult
decisions with regard to our Nation's budget, continued funding of this
program and the research activities of the APCRP is critical to the
fight against aquatic invasive species which I believe is one of the
most important environmental issues our country faces over the next
several decades. I see first-hand the tremendous impact these aquatic
invasive plants have on recreational, public health, and property
values. Every day I deal with lake communities whose property has been
devalued by aquatic invasive plants like Eurasian watermilfoil, an
invasive nuisance species that now infests countless thousands of
waterbodies in every continental State.
Exotic invasive aquatic plants like water chestnut, Eurasian
watermilfoil, and hydrilla, are continuing to expand their ranges
virtually unchecked. There is a critical need for more and better
information on these species and appropriate control methods. In my
opinion, the APCRP has been the best single source of this information
over the years. APCRP also plays a critically important role in
researching basic ecology, biological control, and native plant
restoration. Unlike herbicide research, these are research areas that
won't be supported by private industry, but are nonetheless very
important in the ongoing struggle to understand and control these
species.
In all honesty, we haven't done a very good job of keeping these
species out of our Nation's waterways, nor are State or Federal
agencies able to fund the actual control of these species. At the very
least, I believe the Federal Government should be a repository for
current information on these invasive pests, and continue to sponsor
and conduct research into environmentally sound control methods.
In conclusion, I urge you to support funding for the APCRP program
at a minimum level of $4 million per year and thereby help ensure that
COE remains a frontline defense in our Nation's fight against these
unwanted invaders.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for
programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. The League is a
national, nonprofit organization founded in 1922. We have approximately
38,000 members and more than 250 local chapters nationwide. Our members
are committed to advancing common sense policies that safeguard
wildlife and habitat, support community-based conservation, and address
pressing environmental issues. The following pertains to programs
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, MISSOURI
RIVER
The League joins the Missouri River Association of States and
Tribes (MoRAST), among other groups, in urging the subcommittee to
appropriate $72.89 million in fiscal year 2012, as requested by the
President, for the Missouri River Recovery Program. With this funding,
COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), States, and other partners
can continue important ecosystem restoration efforts that are producing
long-term ecological and economic benefits.
The Missouri River basin encompasses land in 10 States covering
one-sixth of the continental United States. The Missouri, America's
longest river, is one of the most altered ecosystems on Earth. Although
recovery and restoration efforts are on-going, much more needs to be
done. League members, especially those in Iowa, Nebraska, and South
Dakota, want to see the recovery efforts continue and expand.
COE, FWS, and many State agencies have been working to restore
habitat for fish and wildlife along the river. This work is critical
for the Interior Least Tern and Pallid Sturgeon, listed as endangered,
and the Piping Plover, listed as threatened, under the Endangered
Species Act. The restoration efforts also benefit many other species of
fish and wildlife throughout the region.
Studies conducted by the FWS show that over twice as many fish
species are utilizing the created shallow water habitat areas compared
with the section of the river with a dredged channel. COE's study also
shows that the emergent sandbar habitat projects have had tremendous
response from nesting terns and plovers. These habitat restoration
projects are working with the river--not against it.
These projects also generate additional economic activity in
communities along the river. Anglers, hunters, boaters, birdwatchers,
and others have been using these areas proving the old adage ``if you
build it, they will come.'' In a recent report, the Missouri Department
of Conservation and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission found
recreational spending provides $68 million in annual economic impact to
communities along the Missouri River from Yankton, South Dakota to St.
Louis, Missouri. A South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks study shows that
recreational benefits from angling on the Missouri River account for
more than $107 million in annual economic activity in the Dakotas and
Montana. These projects are bringing more people to the river
throughout the Missouri basin.
In addition to the economic boost from tourism, restoration
projects, including building sandbars, support job creation throughout
the entire region. To perform this work, COE contracts with local
construction companies, creating or maintaining jobs, and injecting
dollars into local economies through purchases of materials, fuel,
food, and lodging. With the funding requested, COE could readily
implement more of these important economic and river restoration
projects.
Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study.--The League also urges
the subcommittee to continue to provide $5 million for the Missouri
River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS), and to oppose extraneous
policy ``riders'' that would curtail or cancel this critical
assessment. The MRAPS will, for the first time, review the eight
authorized Missouri River project purposes established by the Flood
Control Act (FCA) of 1944. This study will analyze the purposes in
terms of what is best for the American taxpayer, the people within the
entire basin, fish and wildlife, and today's economic values and
priorities, rather than those of nearly 70 years ago.
COE is working collaboratively with tribes, Federal and State
agencies, and other stakeholders within the Missouri River Basin and
along the Mississippi River on this historic study--this has never
happened before.
The eight authorized purposes--flood control, hydropower,
recreation, fish and wildlife, irrigation, water supply, water quality,
and navigation--have not been reviewed since the Congress passed the
FCA in 1944. In essence, the Missouri is operating on a 67-year-old
business plan. This review is urgently needed and long overdue for the
American taxpayer.
The Missouri River basin is very different today than what was
envisioned in 1944. Some of the authorized purposes meet or greatly
surpass expectations from decades ago. Currently, recreational uses of
the river dramatically exceed original expectations while other
purposes, particularly navigation, have fallen far short. In spite of
these changes, river management mostly favors navigation. This outdated
and unbalanced approach is especially in need of review when one
considers that navigation is being maintained largely to accommodate
one commodity. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), sand
and gravel accounted for 84 percent of total tonnage shipped by barge
on the Missouri between 1994 and 2006. Moreover, GAO found that 54
percent of all sand and gravel was transported for 1 mile or less.
Today, in part because the purposes in the 1944 Flood Control Act have
not been modernized, the river is being managed to move sand less than
a mile rather than for more diverse and beneficial purposes.
Continued full funding of MRAPS is a smart investment. A
comprehensive review and accompanying changes will streamline future
COE operational expenses. This will save tax dollars and bring Missouri
River management into the 21st century.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
The League is an active and long-time proponent of restoring the
Upper Mississippi River (UMR) ecosystem. We have supported the
Environmental Management Program (EMP) since its inception and continue
to support this vital restoration program. We urge the subcommittee to
provide $33.2 million for EMP in fiscal year 2012 as authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Although we are encouraged by
the President's request for fiscal year 2012, pressing restoration
needs on-the-ground require at least the full amount authorized for
EMP.
The League has also strongly expressed its opinion that the large-
scale navigation modifications included in the recommended plan for the
Upper Mississippi Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program
(NESP), as authorized by the WRDA of 2007, have not been justified by
COE and should not be pursued. Previous reviews by the National Academy
of Sciences and the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works found
that the navigation construction component of NESP was not economically
justifiable. A report released last year by the Nicollet Island
Coalition, of which the League is a member, provides additional
evidence that proposed locks and dams in this region are not a good
investment for American taxpayers. With this in mind, the League
supports the administration's decision not to request funding for NESP
in fiscal year 2012.
The League has strong roots in the Upper Mississippi River region.
Protecting the basin has been a key issue for our members since we led
the fight to create the Upper Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife
Refuge in 1924. The League has spearheaded efforts to reform the lock
and dam navigation system to ensure that flows and habitat remain as
natural as possible. We also work to promote sustainable agriculture
practices and implement farm conservation programs to reduce polluted
runoff. Our testimony reflects many decades of experience on the Upper
Mississippi River and our direct 15-year involvement with the Upper
Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) navigation study.
The Upper Mississippi River is one of the most complex ecosystems
on Earth. It provides habitat for 50 species of mammals, 45 species of
reptiles and amphibians, 37 species of mussels, and 241 species of
fish. The need for ecosystem restoration is unquestionable. As COE
correctly stated in its study of navigation expansion, this ecosystem
is ``significantly altered, is currently degraded, and is expected to
get worse.'' Researchers from the National Academy of Sciences have
determined that river habitat is disappearing faster than it can be
replaced through existing programs such as EMP, which was authorized at
$33.2 million annually by the Congress in 1999, but has never received
full appropriations. As habitat vanishes, scientists warn that many
species will decline and some will disappear.
Our Nation relies on a healthy Mississippi River for commerce,
recreation, drinking water, food, and power. More than 12 million
people annually recreate on and along the Upper Mississippi River
spending $1.2 billion and supporting 18,000 jobs. More people recreate
on the Upper Mississippi than visit Yellowstone National Park. Notably,
barge traffic has remained static on the river for more than two
decades with real declines in recent years.
In assembling the UMR-IWW navigation study, COE recognized the
critical need for ecosystem restoration and encouraged the Congress to
invest approximately $130 million annually in Upper Mississippi River
habitat restoration efforts. With this demonstrated need in mind, the
League strongly encourages the subcommittee to prioritize investment in
ecosystem restoration by appropriating $33.2 million for the EMP in
fiscal year 2012. Appropriating additional funding for restoration will
support economic development and job creation in communities along the
UMR and provide long-term conservation and economic benefits for the
region and the Nation.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony and look
forward to working with the subcommittee to strengthen the investment
in ecosystem restoration and recovery along the Upper Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association respectfully
requests that the sum of $335 million be appropriated in fiscal year
2012 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
The Flood Control Association was first organized in 1922 by a
group of interested citizens from the States of Arkansas, Mississippi,
and Louisiana. From that first meeting, held in Memphis, Tennessee, a
delegation was selected to come to Washington in an attempt to convince
both the Congress and the executive branch that the prevention of
catastrophic floods in the lower Mississippi River valley was beyond
the capabilities of the local people and was in fact too large for any
group other than the Federal Government. This group of dedicated
citizens was without success until the record flooding of 1927 swept
through the Mississippi River valley with a fury of devastation not
seen before. An unknown number of people perished, along with thousands
of head of livestock and large numbers of many species of wildlife.
Some 7 percent of all the productive land on this planet was under
water for a period of almost 6 months. The Congress, after extensive
hearings, passed the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, which was then
signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge.
The Flood Control Association then disbanded, acting under the
erroneous assumption that the United States Government would provide
whatever was needed to prevent flooding in the valley. In 1935 it
became apparent that additional legislation was required and the
Association, under the leadership of Senator John Overton from
Louisiana, was reorganized. It has been in continuous and active
existence since, some 76 years.
We have been fortunate since 1935 to have as our president and two
vice presidents Members of the United States Congress with Congressman
Mike Ross from the State of Arkansas serving as our president and
Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi and Congressman Blaine
Luetkemeyer from Missouri serving as our vice presidents.
We are a nonprofit agency made up of levee boards, drainage
districts, harbor and port commissions, States, cities and towns,
including many other agencies and individuals that have an interest in
the protection and betterment of the people and property in the
Mississippi River Watershed, the third largest in the world. But we
feel it is the greatest, because of its size coupled with its essential
usefulness to the well-being of our Nation. In a few words we are an
agency through which the local people may speak and act jointly on all
flood control, bank stabilization, navigation, and major drainage
problems.
Never before have we seen our Nation faced with such huge public
debts and budget deficits as we do today. In our daily life we are made
aware of the gut-wrenching sadness of seeing homes foreclosed and jobs
disappear. We know all those things but we also know that the country
that is and has been for generations the bright light of freedom and
prosperity, must not and cannot let its infrastructure deteriorate and
fall into ruin; neither can we allow one of our vital forms of
transportation to become underutilized or useless due to the lack of
proper and necessary maintenance.
Unfortunately today, as usual, you are considering a budget request
from the executive department that has insufficient funding to prevent
either of the cases just outlined. The only recourse we have is to
request the Congress do as you have always done, add the necessary
supplemental funds to protect the lives, property, and livelihoods of
the citizens of this great river basin.
Earlier in this statement it was said that the Mississippi River
Watershed that provides drainage for 41 percent of the Nation, moves
almost 1 billion tons of commodities--60 percent of our grain, 25
percent of our petroleum products and 20 percent of the coal to fire
our powerplants, was the greatest watershed on the planet because of
its size coupled with its usefulness. Useful because the river has been
controlled and improved beginning with the first levee for flood
protection built in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1717. Levees came early
because ``Without flood control, nothing else matters.'' Over the years
the Congress, the Corps of Engineers and the local people have worked
together to make the Mississippi River Watershed, stretching from New
York in the east to Montana in the west and from the Canadian border to
the Gulf of Mexico, the greatest and the envy of the developed world.
Our great country has always been a maritime nation, almost totally
dependent during the earliest years on the oceans and unimproved
waterways to move our commerce including, at that time in history, our
people. Westward expansion used the rivers whenever possible, and many
of the earliest construction projects in the new country were the
building of canals connecting commercial waterways. Our national
security and economic well-being has always, now more than ever,
depended on the seas, lakes, and inland waterways that give us
accessibility to every corner of our great Nation.
All improvements, great or small, sooner or later require
maintenance. We have been too lax in this great country with
maintaining and improving our basic forms of transportation. We have
not built new airports to keep up with the demand of our growing
population nor have we improved and properly maintained those that we
have. Our system of railroads is in such bad shape that we no longer
even attempt to move human cargo by train except for a very few small,
densely populated areas of the country. The interstate highway system
that we constructed more than 50 years ago was a great source of pride,
but we failed again to properly maintain it, and now we are paying a
tremendous price to keep it functioning. A great majority of our
waterway improvements, including our locks and dams and flood control
facilities, are well past their design life. Soon we will find
ourselves in emergency mode, repairing and replacing failures. This
will be very expensive and an economic disaster. Farmers will be
especially hard hit, with no efficient and economical way to transport
their crops to international markets.
Our principal, but certainly not our only concern, is with the
funding of the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. This
is a very unique project that was conceived and developed with
consideration for the functional relation between all its parts and the
whole. It is a project that covers all aspects of development in the
Mississippi River valley below the vicinity of Cape Girardeau,
Missouri, from flood control to navigation to environmental protection
and enhancement. The MR&T project was well-planned, well-organized,
well-engineered, well-constructed and, until recently, well-maintained.
Unfortunately it is not yet completed, and adequate funding from the
Congress is imperative if it is to be completed and properly
maintained. If, because of inadequate funding and uncalled for delays
due to countless and repetitive studies and misguided lawsuits by the
misnamed and misled environmentalists, the lower reaches of the
Mississippi River are not usable by commercial boats and barges and
sea-going ships, then no amount of improvement on the upper reaches of
the Mississippi River can have any favorable effect. ``Without flood
control nothing else matters.''
One of the major opportunities that we have to increase the wealth
of our Nation is to continue the improvement and development of our
major river systems. As noted, the major system is the Mississippi
River Watershed. For that reason we are here today to request that the
Congress do what it has done since 1928. That is, to appropriate
sufficient supplemental funds, allowing COE to continue what the
Congress has directed them to do. We are not talking about ``earmarks''
or pork barrel politics. We are talking about funds to keep our
navigation channels open and to provide necessary dredging in order
that our smaller but no less critical ports may continue to function;
funds to continue the ongoing work to bring miles of levee sections
that are deficient in either grade or section up to the design required
to protect our citizens against the ``greatest possible flood''; and
funds to bring our bank stabilization program to completion in the most
efficient manner, both economically and environmentally.
The Executive Committee of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association has carefully studied the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2012. We have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the
required appropriation for the MR&T project is $335 million, just to be
reasonably assured that the goals of navigation, flood control, levee
improvement and bank stabilization are met; nothing more, nothing less.
In a special message to the Congress on flood control in the
Mississippi Basin, dated July 16, 1947, President Harry S Truman began
with the following in his opening sentence, ``the major opportunity of
our generation to increase the wealth of the Nation lies in the
development of our great river systems.'' Later on in his message
President Truman used these words, ``we must never forget that the
conservation of our natural resources and their wise use are essential
to our very existence as a Nation. The choice is ours. We can sit idly
by--or almost as bad, resort to the false economy of feeble and
inadequate measures--while these precious assets waste away. On the
other hand, we can, if we act in time, put into effect a realistic and
practical plan which will preserve these basic essentials of our
national economy and make this a better and a richer land.'' President
Truman was speaking about the MR&T project in this last quote. And
these words are still true today. On July 31, 1947, President Truman
approved appropriations bills, including supplemental provisions for
flood control on the MR&T project in fiscal year 1948 of $250 million.
And that was in 1948 dollars.
We have attached a detailed breakdown of the requested funds of
$355 million for the MR&T project for fiscal year 2012.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2012 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project/study 2012 request:
$335 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR&T INVESTIGATIONS
Collection and study of basic data...................... 500
Memphis Metro Storm Water Management, TN [FEAS]......... 100
---------------
TOTAL INVESTIGATIONS.............................. 600
===============
MR&T CONSTRUCTION
Atchafalaya Basin, LA................................... 6,300
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA................... 1,900
Channel Improvement, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN..... 111,570
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN 58,980
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects....................... 5,000
---------------
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION................................ 183,750
===============
MR&T MAINTENANCE
Atchafalaya Basin, LA................................... 1,468
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA................... 42
Baton Rouge Harbor, Devils Swamp, LA.................... 48
Bayou Cocodrie & Tributaries, LA........................ 2,145
Bonnet Carre, LA........................................ 61,230
Channel improvement, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN-- 32,032
TOTAL..................................................
Channel Improvement--Dredging........................... 21,141
Channel Improvement--Revetments and Dikes............... 48,398
Greenville Harbor, MS................................... 18
Helena Harbor, AR....................................... 122
Inspection of completed works........................... 1,350
Lower Arkansas River, North Bank, AR.................... 223
Lower Arkansas River, South Bank, AR.................... 150
Lower Red River--South Bank Levees...................... 377
Mapping................................................. 1,202
Memphis Harbor McKellar Lake, TN........................ 1,394
Mississippi Delta Region--Caernarvon, LA................ 438
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN 7,951
Old River control structure, LA......................... 6,954
Red-Ouachita Basin Levees, AR and LA.................... ..............
St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR AND OR............ 4,174
Tensas Basin, Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, AR AND LA........ 1,884
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, LA................... 2,473
Vicksburg Harbor, MS.................................... 32
Wappapello Lake, MO..................................... 4,167
White River Backwater, AR............................... 896
Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS......................... 4,606
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower (Bogue Phalia), MS........... 185
Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, MS.............................. 4,386
Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, MS.............................. 807
Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, MOS.......................... 4,511
Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, MO.............................. 1,019
Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, MS............................ 5,687
Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, MS............................ 967
Yazoo Basin, Will M. Whittington Auxiliary Channel, MS.. 378
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, MS........................ 517
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, MS............................. 731
---------------
TOTAL, MAINTENANCE................................ 150,650
===============
TOTAL, MR&T....................................... 335,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Association of States and
Tribes
We are requesting your support for three items in the fiscal year
2012 budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), related to the
Missouri River Basin. These include:
--$5 million to continue funding for the Missouri River Authorized
Purposes Study;
--$72.888 million to continue implementation of the Missouri River
Recovery Program; and
--$7 million to increase the operations and maintenance budget for
the Northwestern Division, Omaha District, for protection of
cultural and historical sites impacted by the operation of the
Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System.
The Missouri River Association of States and Tribes (MoRAST) is an
association of representatives of the Governors of the States of
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and
Kansas and many of the American Indian tribes in the Missouri River
Basin. MoRAST is interested in the proper management and protection of
natural resources, including water resources, fish and wildlife, and
other related issues of interest to the States and tribes in the basin,
including cultural resources. The programs and operations of COE are
very important to our members, especially due to the legal
responsibilities of the States and tribes related to water and the fish
and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as the trust
responsibilities of COE to the tribes. The following paragraphs provide
detailed information regarding the bases for our support of the three
items referred to above for fiscal year 2012 budget of COE, as outlined
below:
Funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study
(MRAPS).--MoRAST strongly supports the appropriation of $5
million to continue funding for MRAPS in fiscal year 2012.\1\
The Congress appropriated $4.483 million in fiscal year 2010.
MRAPS was authorized to study the Missouri River Projects under
the 1944 Flood Control Act (FCA) to determine whether changes
to the purposes and existing Federal infrastructure may be
warranted. The study was authorized for a total cost of $25
million at Federal expense. This study does not duplicate any
previous study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of Iowa does not support the continued funding of the
MRAPS study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri River Basin Project (Pick-Sloan Program) envisioned
a comprehensive system of projects and facilities in the
Missouri River basin constructed by both the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) and COE. The plan was only partially
completed and there continue to be water needs and related
issues in the basin, many of which are different than they were
in 1944. This study is important for many reasons. It has been
more than 66 years since the 1944 FCA was enacted and many
changes have occurred. The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir
System continues to be operated in accordance with the 1944 FCA
for various authorized purposes including flood control, water
supply, water quality, irrigation, hydropower, navigation,
recreation, and fish and wildlife. However, while the
construction of the reservoir system and other works have
resulted in large project benefits from some of the authorized
purposes and much less for others, it has also created
substantial negative impacts on the economies and resources of
Indian tribes and others, as well as large environmental
losses, such as wetlands and habitat for a number of native
species, including three that are threatened or endangered.
In summary, there have been many changes in the physical,
economic and environmental conditions that affect the Missouri
River and Tributaries (MR&T) projects and the basin since 1944.
COE needs $5 million for the study in fiscal year 2012.
However, COE has made significant progress with the
implementation of the study with the assistance of BOR and
other Federal agencies, as well as extensive input from States,
tribes, stakeholders, and the general public. COE held more
than 40 public meetings and tribal focus events throughout the
Basin and other areas to engage the public and collect
information. It has recently released a draft scoping summary
report and is currently holding feedback meetings to receive
comments on the draft report until April 30. Additional work is
needed to complete this process and the additional data
collection, analysis, and public engagement needed to complete
the study. Funds should be provided so the study can
objectively determine whether changes are needed to the 1944
FCA in order to best meet the contemporary needs of the
Missouri River Basin. Once the study is complete, the Congress
can decide whether or not the law should be amended, additional
project purposes added, and/or other changes made.
Funding for Missouri River Recovery Program.--We strongly support
the $72.888 million recommended in the President's budget. It
is the minimum necessary for current year compliance with the
Biological Opinion (BiOP). The Missouri River Recovery Program
(MRRP) was established by COE as a collaborative program to
protect, recover and restore the Missouri River ecosystem and
its native species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon,
least tern, and piping plover. This program is authorized by
sections 3109, 3176, and 5018 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) 2007. Support for this program is
critical to ensure at least enough funding is available for
compliance with the BiOP, as amended in 2003. Compliance with
the BiOP also protects economic uses as failure to comply with
the BiOP could require changes to reservoir operations and
negatively impact other purposes.
COE, various tribal, State, and Federal Cooperating Agencies and
the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC),
that includes these entities and various stakeholders, are in
the process of developing a collaborative study and plan known
as the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP) to
identify and guide long-term actions required to restore
ecosystem functions, mitigate habitat losses, and recover
native fish and wildlife on the Missouri River, while seeking
to balance social, economic, and cultural values for future
generations.
In addition to recovery and mitigation projects on the Missouri
River Mainstem, a project to provide for fish passage through a
diversion dam on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana, is
especially important to the recovery of the endangered Pallid
Sturgeon, as it will open up a large segment of free-flowing
river for the pallid to spawn in. Work on this important
tributary project is underway and is being implemented through
a cooperative effort of BOR, COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and the State of Montana.
On a related matter, we also support removal of the prohibition
on Federal reimbursement of travel expenses for non-Federal
members of the MRRIC to attend its meetings. No new funds are
required for this action as it can be funded through the MRRP,
but this action is needed to improve the functionality and
chances for success of the MRRIC. The basin covers one-sixth of
the continental United States and travel to meetings in various
parts of the basin is expensive.
Section 5018 of WRDA 2007 authorized the creation of MRRIC, but
prohibited Federal reimbursement of travel expenses for non-
Federal members of the committee. The same section of WRDA 2007
also authorized the development of a MRERP, which is a part of
the MRRP. The failure to reimburse travel expenses hinders
participation, prevents balanced representation by tribal,
State, and nongovernmental members on the committee and is a
hardship for some MRRIC members. Lack of travel reimbursement
also makes participation by States and tribes difficult as
cooperating agencies for the MRERP study, especially during
these trying economic times and budget shortfalls for States,
tribes, and others.
This issue could be resolved by either the inclusion of a
provision in the fiscal year 2012 budget bill to allow travel
reimbursement for attendance at MRRIC meetings or by amending
section 5018 of WRDA 2007 in a new WRDA bill to remove the
prohibition on Federal travel reimbursement. In any event, this
issue needs to be resolved soon so that all members can
participate, receive the background information, interact with
other participants, and provide meaningful recommendations to
COE and other agencies regarding MRRP as may be appropriate
through the MRRIC process.
COE has a unique trust responsibility to the 28 Missouri River
Basin tribes and their participation in both MRRIC and MRERP
activities is vital to the success of efforts to restore the
ecosystem of the Missouri River consistent with the social,
cultural and economic needs in the Basin. The failure to fund
travel for the tribes to attend these meetings will not save
money and may result in delay or the need for more extensive
government-to-Government consultations if the tribes are not
able to participate adequately during the course of efforts by
MRRIC to make recommendations to COE regarding recovery
programs and the development MRERP.
In summary, funding MRRP at a minimum of $72.888 million for
fiscal year 2012 is essential to ensure compliance with the
amended BiOP on the Missouri River and to implement the project
on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana, both of which
are of critical importance to the recovery of endangered
species and the restoration of the ecosystem. We also support
removal of the prohibition on Federal reimbursement of travel
for members of MRRIC to meetings of the committee to allow for
full participation of tribal, State and stakeholder members to
the committee.
Funding To Protect Tribal Cultural Resources.--It is requested
that the Congress appropriate an additional $7 million for
fiscal year 2012 for the Omaha District, Northwestern Division,
COE for the stabilization of cultural and historic sites that
continue to be negatively impacted by the operation of the
Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. Funding for the
protection of cultural and historic sites within the Omaha
District has remained at $3 million for the past several years.
Past funding through COE operation and maintenance budget has
been woefully inadequate to address the ongoing damage to sites
from operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System.
COE has identified more than 400 historic and cultural sites
protected by Federal law that will be potentially damaged by
the current Annual Operating Plan, and the tribal nations in
the Missouri River Basin have identified many more sites that
could be impacted. However, there have only been funds to
mitigate damage to a few sites each year. COE has a unique
trust responsibility to the 28 Missouri River Basin Tribes
arising from the government-to-Government relationship between
the tribes and the U.S. Government, as well as an obligation
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
applicable Executive orders, and other Federal laws, which
require COE to either halt any Federal undertaking that will
damage or destroy sites protected, or to mitigate the potential
damage.
SUMMARY
We believe each of these programs is essential to the success of
efforts to properly manage and protect the natural resources of
the Missouri River Basin, satisfy COE trust responsibilities to
the Indian Nations in the basin and operate its projects in
accordance with applicable Federal law. We would appreciate
your help in providing adequate funding for these important
programs and projects. Please let David Pope, MoRAST executive
director, or Chairman Sando know if you have questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity for me, Linda McIntyre, as harbormaster and general manager
of the Moss Landing Harbor District in California to submit prepared
remarks to you for the record in support of the fiscal year 2012 Energy
and Water Development Subcommittee regular appropriations measure. I
appear on behalf of the board of harbor commissioners, the fishermen,
oceanographers and scientists, and the citizens and marine dependent
businesses of the Monterey community which we represent.
We respectively request an additional $3.2 million for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) operations and maintenance general
account for scheduled authorized Federal channel maintenance as
unanimously recommended by the California Marine Affairs and Navigation
Conference.
The board of harbor commissioners recognizes and expresses its
gratitude to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a member of this
subcommittee, and the Honorable Barbara Boxer, chairman of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the other members of
this subcommittee and staff, for their past efforts in funding
operations and maintenance of the Moss Landing Harbor Navigation
Project for more than 60 years. This authorized project is of
significant national economic benefit and critical economic importance
to the commercial fishing industry, university and private
oceanographic research fleet, and Monterey County in the central coast
region of the State of California.
We are equally grateful to the chairman and the other members of
this subcommittee and staff, for their continuing efforts in funding
critically needed operations and maintenance funding of all our
Nation's ports both large and small without discrimination.
Moss Landing Harbor is perhaps best known as the gateway to the
unique Monterey Bay with its Submarine Canyon and National Marine
Sanctuary and the homeport for its oceanographic research tenants,
including California State University Marine Consortium, Stanford
University Hopkins Marine Institute (well-known to John Steinbeck fans
of Cannery Row) and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
(MBARI) an affiliate of the Monterey Bay Aquarium--America's most
visited cultural and educational site.
Without continued maintenance dredging of the Federal channel at
roughly 3-year intervals, none of these scientific, educational,
environmental research, and vital commercial fishing activities could
continue uninterrupted. The year 2012 represents the next required
scheduled triennial dredging event. For this purpose we are requesting
the addition of $3.2 million to the President's budget. We are advised
COE's San Francisco District has the capability to execute this
maintenance dredging cycle.
For those who are unfamiliar with the geography of Monterey Bay and
surrounding region, we invite you to come visit. Moss Landing is
strategically situated approximately mid-point between Santa Cruz and
Monterey Harbors on Monterey Bay. It shares a common entrance with
Elkhorn Slough, a critical estuary of national significance.
Construction of the project for navigation, Moss Landing, Monterey
Bay, California was authorized in the Rivers and Harbors Act of March
2, 1945, at an authorized depth of 15 feet. The congressional findings
reflected the national security and postwar economic development
interest in maintaining and increasing commercial fish production. In
the lexicon of national economic development. The same is true today.
In order to help harmonize the authorization and appropriations
processes in the future and introduce an element of long-term planning
and budgeting stability at COE's district level, we are seeking
completion of a long-term dredged material management plan that would
benefit both us and the Federal Government, and save everyone,
especially the beleaguered U.S. taxpayer, money.
That plan would also continue our use of several grandfathered
dredged material disposal sites as the same land and seaward geographic
factors that make us an indispensable element of the Monterey Bay
ecosystem also limit our options for disposal with few if any landside
alternatives.
In the final analysis we are just a small harbor with a big problem
not of our creation in search of a comprehensive solution. The first
step is funding the long overdue maintenance. We cannot wait another
year.
We look forward to appearing before this subcommittee on future
occasions to provide progress reports concerning our uphill and
upstream efforts to both preserve navigation and improve the
environment in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in
response to any questions that the chair, subcommittee members, or
staff may wish to have me answer.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ohio Lake Management Society
To the honorable members of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development: I am writing in support of continued and expanded
appropriations for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Aquatic Plant Control and Research Program (APCRP). I write on behalf
of the membership of the Ohio Lake Management Society, a citizen based
nonprofit organization, founded in 1986, with mission to promote
research and comprehensive management of lakes and reservoirs in Ohio.
For the past three decades the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
has repeatedly reported to the Congress, in their Clean Water Act
section 305(b) and section 314 documents, that the condition of Ohio's
public lakes is being negatively impacted by nuisance growths of
aquatic weeds, many of which are exotic species not native to the
State. In 1996, the last year such data are available, the Ohio EPA
reported in their Ohio Water Resource Inventory that recreation
opportunities in 32 percent of 222 accessed public lakes in Ohio were
threatened by nuisance growths of aquatic weeds. These data indicate
that there exists a significant and widespread problem with aquatic
weeds currently not addressed by Clean Water Act regulations passed by
the Congress in 1972.
Public lakes in Ohio are used by millions of citizens each year for
recreation, thus the impact of excessive growths of aquatic weeds on
recreational opportunities is significant. The Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, in their 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan, reported that 33 percent of households representing
more than 11 million Ohio citizens enjoy recreational boating, an
activity that demands proper control and management of aquatic weeds.
The extensive problems with aquatic weeds that are being faced in
Ohio are expected to be present in lakes nationwide, thus impacting
recreation for millions of Americans who enjoy boating, fishing, and
swimming. Given this situation, it is inappropriate that the Congress
would eliminate funding for COE's Aquatic Weed Research program, which
provides useful scientific information that affects so many citizens of
the Nation, for so few per capita dollars spent.
It is imperative that the United States Senate continue to fund the
APCRP program so that scientific research from multiple perspectives
(chemical, biological, mechanical, etc.) is conducted to determine the
most cost effective ways to control the multitude of aquatic weed
species, many exotic species, that now overpopulate the Nation's
recreational lakes. The information gained from COE research is
important to those that manage lake water quality to help them select
the best aquatic weed control option for their specific lake situation.
The data from the APCRP program are not only of value to State and
local government agencies that manage public lakes, but also to the
nationwide network of consulting firms that provide lake management
services to citizens that own private lakes, many of which have
problems with too many aquatic weeds.
In conclusion, on behalf of the millions of citizens in Ohio that
enjoy recreational activities on lakes and reservoirs, I urge you to
support continued and expanded funding for the APCRP program to conduct
research on the control of aquatic weeds at a minimum level of $4
million per year. This action by the United States Senate will help
ensure that COE will continue to provide vital scientific data to those
that manage and control nuisance growths of plants in our Nation's
waterways.
______
Prepared Statement of the Stockton Port District, California
We wish to thank you for this opportunity to provide congressional
testimony by the Port of Stockton, California on behalf of its
appropriations requests. The Stockton Port District is a California
public agency created by the California State Legislature. The port is
approaching its 80th year of operations.
The port is located in the city of Stockton, California, which has
an unemployment rate more than 21 percent, and nearly 18 percent for
San Joaquin County (Source.--February 2011 data, California Employment
Department). The port is the economic portal for the San Joaquin Valley
and beyond. It is considered by many to be the economic engine that
generates jobs and income for the Central Valley and the region.
The port suffered significantly during the economic downturn but it
is recovering rapidly with strong growth and jobs creation. We have
more than 1,200 acres available for development, which is almost unique
among California ports. In calendar year 2010, the Port achieved a
throughput of 3.83 million tons. With the introduction of iron ore
exports in January 2011, we expect total throughput to double in the
very near future and expect export tonnages to surpass import tonnages
within 2 years. We are expanding our rail capacity right now and during
the next fiscal year, starting on July 1, 2011, we will spend another
$1 million as well with a goal of being able to increase the throughput
capacity of iron ore and coal unit trains from two per week to seven
per week. This would equate to more than 3 million tons per year and
provide for an export gateway to Asia that is only available at few
ports situated on the west coast. For our bulk commodities, the
availability of a year-round authorized channel depth of 35 feet or
deeper is a very critical factor. Currently our iron ore ships have to
top off downstream in deeper channels before export to Asia. It is
inefficient. Nevertheless, we are rapidly fulfilling the President's
National Export Initiative.
The port and its waterway are of national significance as a
``Marine Highway'' (M-580), a recent designation by the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This is 1 of 18 marine highway corridors
nationally. Additionally we are officially designated a ``strategic
corridor of the future'' by DOT. The port is also designated as a
reserve facility by the Department of Defense in time of need.
Logistically, the port has direct access to two transcontinental
rail lines. Direct rail-to-ship facilities exist at the port which is
nearly unique for California ports. We are within 1 mile of Interstate
5, which serves the entire west coast, north to south.
We are highlighting and updating the three priority projects in our
appropriations requests for your consideration.
--The San Joaquin--Stockton Project is under the operations and
maintenance budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
It is our most urgent and highest-priority request. For the
past several years, COE has not been able to maintain the John
F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels to the federally
authorized depth of 35 feet on a year-round basis. We have been
restricted to 31-33 foot channel depths for many months and
have been unable to do any dredging. This consistent problem
stems from insufficient funding, unpredictable shoaling
locations, and a very short dredging window. Unfortunately, our
only dredging window closes just before the winter when storm
flows create shoaling at unpredictable locations in the
channels. This has impaired the efficient movement of commerce
and sustained employment for the port, its tenants, and the
region.
We have requested the COE for maintenance dredging to 37 feet plus
1-foot overdraft to insure a year-round controlling depth of 35 feet.
We believe COE supports our case through its expressed budget
capabilities to the Congress. The port is requesting $12.5 million for
fiscal year 2012. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget contains only
$3.7 million for this project, which is not enough to assure a year-
round authorized depth. Bulk commodities vessels are very sensitive to
any loss of authorized depth; shippers would incur several hundred
thousand dollars of losses per vessel for each foot of channel depth
blocked by shoaling.
--The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Channel Deepening Project is in
the Construction General Budget of COE. This project would
deepen the John F. Baldwin Channel to 45 feet and the Stockton
Ship Channel to 40 feet. Our fiscal year 2012 request is for
$2.5 million to keep pace with a State of California
construction award of $17.5 million toward the non-Federal
share of the project. This State construction grant expires in
calendar year 2013 if construction is not started. No funds are
shown in the President's budget for fiscal year 2012. This
deepen marine highway project would significantly increase
goods movement efficiencies, especially iron ore and other bulk
exports, increase employment in an area where unemployment
rates are more than twice the national rate, and keep thousands
of trucks off of congested roadways, especially I-880, I-80, I-
580, and I-205. One ship utilizing the ship channel can take
approximately 1,300 trucks off of congested highways between
the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. The economic
and environmental benefits, especially in air quality, are very
robust.
A preliminary economic analysis by COE show a conservative National
Economic Development (NED) average annual benefits of $73.5 million for
this project. Not all the commodity movements, especially calendar year
2011 iron ore exports, are included in this preliminary analysis. A
very robust and positive benefit--cost ratio is expected once the NED
costs are prepared. The Stockton Ship Channel is the primary access
route for waterborne shipping from and into the Central Valley and
beyond.
--The Rough and Ready Island Storm Water Project would be in the
Construction General Budget of COE. This project would replace
an obsolete storm water system and include drainage detention
and lift facility on Rough and Ready Island. The project would
also reduce environmental problems, increase flood protection,
and create more usable land for development on the island.
Rough and Ready Island is one of the State's last remaining
large parcels of industrial property available for immediate
development. The amount of $3 million is requested and is
authorized pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of
2007, Public Law 110-114. The project can be constructed within
a short time period and benefit employment in the immediate
area experiencing a very high rate of unemployment.
We thank you for your consideration for the Port of Stockton
requests.
______
Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District
Dear Senator Feinstein: My name is Dr. Sam M. Hunter, DVM of
Sikeston, Missouri. I am a veterinarian, landowner, farmer, and
resident of southeast Missouri.
I am the president of The Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the Nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in southeast Missouri.
My remarks will be directed toward the Mississippi River and
Tributaries (MR&T) project and the St. Francis River Basin portion of
the MR&T. Those funds when properly expended are investments yielding a
return of substantial benefits to the American taxpayer throughout this
Nation. They are used to prevent flooding to much of our valuable
farmland, to industrial sites, and to upgrade our ever aging locks and
dam system on our navigable streams which will prevent unscheduled lock
closures, modernize our hydro-electric plants, and restore some of our
environmental assets. MR&T authorized by the Congress in 1928 and still
not completed is returning back to our Nation more than $25 for every
$1 expended. This can be a job creating project for our Nation each
year.
We are fully aware of the financial situation of our Nation and we
must all learn to do more with less and strive to reduce out national
debt, balance the budget, and create more jobs for our citizens. There
are projects and programs which are funded 100 percent or cost shared
by our national treasury which need to be eliminated or at least
reduced in scope. However, the MR&T project is not one of them. I will
point out for you the reasons why.
--This project has paid back to our Treasury more than $25 for every
$1 invested for damages prevented and benefits derived.
--The project was authorized by the Congress almost 90 years ago. Our
Nation made a commitment to our citizens to improve a very
valuable resource of our Nation and then maintain it. We must
keep that commitment.
--Investing and making funds available for the MR&T project will
create jobs, and it will bring additional funds into our
treasury.
--It is the most environmental friendly form of transportation in our
Nation.
--It is the most fuel-efficient means of moving commodities. For
instance consider 1 gallon of fuel moves 155 tons of freight by
truck; 413 tons by rail; and 576 tons by water.
--It serves more than 75 percent of the population of this Nation and
touches 36 States.
--It provides a means for our commodity producers and manufacturers
to compete fairly in a global market.
--It provides protection from flooding to the many people who live
along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
--It provides much needed energy from hydropower and provides many of
our cities with drinking water.
--It is used extensively each year for recreational purposes such as
boating, camping, fishing, sightseeing, and the like.
The above is a short list of the benefits of the MR&T project which
is a line item in the budget. This administration and administrations
for the past 30 years each year submit budgetary amounts which are not
sufficient to adequately maintain the channel as well as the locks and
dams of which some are more than 75 years old. We must invest and we
must improve this vital part of our infrastructure. One lock failure
upstream can have a devastating effect downstream for each and every
port and other users of this system.
We currently spend less than $6 billion annually for maintenance
and construction on our major waterways system whereas China and Brazil
are spending $15 and $30 billion annually to modernize and expand
theirs respectively. We must close that discrepancy so we can compete
on the open markets.
There is $210 million in the President's budget for fiscal year
2012 for this project. This is totally unacceptable. This amount might
pay the salaries of current employees without layoffs. We ask you to
support funding of $335 million for fiscal year 2012 which will provide
some funds for maintenance and a small amount for new construction. The
Corps of Engineers (COE) capability is $550 million. The overall COE
budget is less than $5 billion yet it is estimated we need $110-$200
billion over the next 20 years just to modernize and keep our waterway
system functional.
Further, I would be remiss to not mention the hardships and lengthy
delays due to the restrictive nature of policies and regulations being
implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other such
agencies. EPA needs to be reduced in authority and the powers they have
been asserting the past few years. Some of the policies and
restrictions they are implementing are detrimental to the progress our
Nation needs to be making. The delays, lengthy reviews, and unnecessary
requirements are costly and causes many worthwhile projects from being
completed.
Also we ask you to review the mission and purposes of Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The nationwide re-mapping of flood plains
and zones is costly and having an adverse impact on those who live
within our delta areas and who are protected by a well maintained levee
system. Recent concessions made by Director Fugate will help but much
more is needed.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above. We would be very appreciative
of anything this subcommittee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this subcommittee has done for us in the past. We
trust you will hear our pleas once more and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's testimony on the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
Bureau of Reclamation. The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our
on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and in
30 foreign countries and is supported by approximately 1 million
individual members.
We recognize the challenges of working in a constrained fiscal
environment and that the Congress is making appropriation decisions
differently than in years past. We also recognize the continued
importance of our water resources and the benefits those resources
provide to people, our economy, our environment, and the quality of
life in our communities. Our focus is on the programs and investments
needed to ensure those benefits are enhanced today and made sustainable
for tomorrow.
The Nature Conservancy supports the overall approach of building
sustainability into the development and management of our Nation's
water infrastructure, including the ecosystem restoration projects
essential to ensuring that sustainability. These ecosystem restoration
projects pay dividends through higher-quality water, natural flood
control, sustaining commercial fisheries, and supporting economically
important outdoor recreation; with impacts stretching out for decades
to come, the projects and proposals that follow represent a very high
return on investment.
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROJECT
Sustainable Rivers Project (SRP) is an initiative launched by COE
in partnership with the Conservancy to update decades-old water
management practices to meet society's needs today and in the coming
decades. The SRP is developing and demonstrating innovative approaches
to provide for, and improve, water supply and flood risk management
while restoring critical ecosystems. The President's budget includes
two specific initiatives that support these efforts:
Global Change Sustainability.--This project will allow COE to
advance a variety of new practices through several initiatives,
including SRP, working with State and other Federal agencies to
develop a national strategy to update drought contingency plans
and other initiatives to ensure a sustainable water supply and
adapt to projected changes in precipitation patterns and other
outyear conditions impacting the Nation's water supplies. The
Conservancy supports the $10 million in the President's budget
for this program.
National Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations.--Launched in
fiscal year 2008, this assessment is a national effort to learn
from past water management techniques and then apply the
lessons learned more broadly. Part of this effort will develop
new methods and tools that can be transferred to COE projects
nationwide. The Conservancy supports the $571,000 included for
this program.
CORPS CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.--We
were pleased to see Hamilton City selected as 1 of 2 new construction
starts in COE's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget. This project,
developed with substantial assistance by the Conservancy, will increase
flood protection for Hamilton City, California, while restoring
approximately 1,500 acres of riparian habitat. Appropriations for the
first phase will initiate construction of approximately 2 miles of
levee, removal of one-half of the existing levee, and roughly one-third
of the habitat restoration. The Conservancy strongly supports the $8
million proposed in fiscal year 2012 to complete the first phase of
construction.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program.--COE flood control
projects, coupled with agricultural and urban development, have
degraded the Everglades, one of the most diverse and ecologically rich
wetlands ecosystems in the world. Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) 2007 authorized construction of the first projects under the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,and we encourage funding the
Indian River Lagoon South, Picayune Strand, and the Site 1 Impoundment
projects. The Conservancy supports the $162,724,000 proposed for the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2012.
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program.--
Authorized in 1986, this program supports coordinated habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement projects in the Upper Mississippi River
system. Over the 25 years of the program, COE has completed more than
54 projects, benefiting more than 94,000 acres of aquatic and
floodplain habitat. Currently, 22 projects in the program are in
planning, design, or under construction. Completion of these projects
will benefit an additional 70,000 acres of aquatic and floodplain
habitat. The Conservancy supports the $18,150,000 proposed for the
Environmental Management Program (EMP) in fiscal year 2012.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program.--Under this
program, COE has completed 30 projects in the lower Missouri basin
States to assist in the recovery of three listed species, restoring
more than 40,000 acres of habitat. New authority was provided in WRDA
2007 for the expenditure of funds in the upper basin States and for the
Intake Dam project on the Yellowstone River in Montana. Construction of
fish passage and screens at Intake Dam is a priority for the recovery
of the endangered pallid sturgeon and other warm-water fish. The
Conservancy supports the $72,888,000 proposed for the Missouri River
Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program (MRRP) in fiscal year 2012,
including funding to continue progress on the design and construction
of fish passage and screens at Intake Dam.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery.--Eastern oyster populations in the
Chesapeake Bay have been decimated from historical levels by a century
of overfishing, disease, and pollution. This project will help move the
oyster population toward sustainable levels. The $5 million proposed
for the fiscal year 2012 budget will create more than 60 acres of
additional oyster habitat.
Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier.--Invasive
fish, plants, and invertebrates have had severe economic impacts to
human uses and to freshwater biodiversity of the Great Lakes.
Preventing further invasions through the waterway system is the most
cost-effective way to protect the plethora of Federal lands and
infrastructures threatened. The Nature Conservancy supports the budget
request of $13.5 million in the construction account; $10,565,000 from
operations and maintenance; and no less than $3 million in the
Investigations account to expedite the Great Lakes and Mississippi
River Interbasin Study.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
We urge the subcommittee to continue its strong support of the
section 1135: Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment
and section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration programs. Demand for
these valuable programs continues to outstrip funding. The Conservancy
supports adequate funding for these programs in the fiscal year 2012
budget.
Adequate funding will ensure support for two section 1135 projects,
Spunky Bottoms (Illinois) and the Lower Cache River (Alaska). The
Spunky Bottoms project is a model floodplain restoration and
reconnection effort on the Illinois River that needs $750,000 to
complete the Plans and Specifications phase and initiate construction.
The Lower Cache River project seeks to restore natural meanders to the
lower 7 miles of the river, improving bottomland hardwood forests, and
expanding habitat for a variety of sportfish and mussels.
The Conservancy also supports the request for $4,001,000 to
complete design and initiate construction for a section 206 project for
Emiquon East (Illinois), a floodplain restoration and reconnection
project.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS INVESTIGATION PRIORITIES
Illinois River Basin Restoration Program.--This Federal-State
partnership sustains the health of the entire Illinois River Basin
through projects that restore habitats, species, and the natural
processes that sustain them. It complements other Federal programs such
as the Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and
Environmental Management Program of the Upper Mississippi, yet is
unique in its basin-wide approach to restoration. The Conservancy
supports the $400,000 funding proposed for this program in fiscal year
2012.
Puget Sound Nearshore Marine Habitat Restoration.--This study, when
completed, will identify restoration and protection needs and
opportunities in the nearshore regions of Puget Sound. The Sound
supports the second-largest U.S. port (combined Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma) for container traffic that has accounted for more than $70
billion in foreign trade; it is an economic priority to ensure that
Puget Sound maintains the ecological resiliency to sustain vital
services for both people and nature. The Conservancy supports the
proposed $400,000 in fiscal year 2012 to carry out this investigation.
Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study.--COE and the
Conservancy are working together to identify ecological flow
requirements downstream of Corps dams on the Willamette River and
incorporate those flows into dam operations to improve fish and
wildlife habitat and community flood protection. Additionally, this
study will assess the potential for floodplain restoration in the
Middle Fork and Coast Fork tributaries of the Willamette River to
reduce flood damage while restoring natural wetlands and promoting
ecosystem restoration. The Conservancy supports the $213,000 proposed
in fiscal year 2012 to continue this study.
Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study.--Funding these
ongoing economic, fisheries, and wetlands studies will help ensure that
the longest free-flowing river in the lower 48 States maintains its
natural functions while supporting irrigation and other uses of its
waters. The study will help determine the significance of the
cumulative effects of water use on aquatic species and riparian
hardwood forests, while guiding the establishment of beneficial
management practices. The Conservancy supports the proposed $200,000
for fiscal year 2012.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River
Basin Recovery Programs.--These programs take a balanced approach to
restore four endangered fish species--the pikeminnow, humpback chub,
razorback sucker, and bonytail--that adhere to existing and State-
specific water law while facilitating each State's development of their
Colorado River Compact allocation. These programs implement a range of
basin-wide strategies, including improved management of Federal dams,
river and floodplain habitat improvement, stocking of endangered fish,
and management of non-native fish species. The Conservancy supports the
proposed $6.2 million in fiscal year 2012 for the two programs.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.--The program helps
restore the four endangered or threatened species in the basin--
whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid
sturgeon--while enabling existing water projects in the basin to
continue operations. Specifically, the program is working to increase
stream flows in the central Platte River at ecologically and
economically important times; enhance, restore ,and protect lands for
target bird species; and offset post-1997 depletions. The Conservancy
supports the proposed $11,037,000 for this recovery effort in fiscal
year 2012.
Basin Studies and WaterSMART.--We support the request for the basin
study programs and WaterSMART grant programs. These programs support
sustainable water use and management by focusing on water conservation,
reuse and recycling, and on environmental protection and restoration.
We also support the proposed funding for the Bureau's environmental
restoration work, including the programs in the California Bay Delta
and Colorado River.
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDS
We recognize that previous year's appropriations for COE, including
2010 and 2008 appropriations, have been higher than the President's
fiscal year 2012 request. Should the subcommittee decide to appropriate
more than the amount requested by the President, we would work with COE
and partners to promote use of additional funds for other priority
projects, including:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program.--This project would begin construction
on 11 ecosystem restoration and 5 navigation projects while
continuing planning and design work for lock expansion on the
Illinois and Mississippi Rivers.
Cartersville Diversion Dam Fish Passage.--This project would
construct a fish passage at Cartersville Dam, allowing fish,
including the federally listed endangered pallid sturgeon, to
reach the upstream portions of the Yellowstone River.
Connecticut River Watershed Study.--This project will restore 410
miles of river flow and thousands of acres of natural habitat
in the Connecticut River Basin. The study identifies dam
management modifications for environmental benefits while
maintaining beneficial human uses.
White River Basin-Wide Comprehensive Study.--This project will
evaluate the impact of Federal impoundments, navigation, and
water withdrawals for agriculture, power generation,
modifications and a variety of other uses on the White River
basin and help determine ecological and human needs.
Big Cypress Basin Watershed Study.--This project will restore the
natural river flow of Big Cypress Bayou to enhance the health
of Caddo Lake and the downstream wetlands, wetlands recognized
as globally significant by the Ramsar Convention.
Long Island Sound Oyster Restoration.--This project will develop
a comprehensive plan for restoring oysters and other shellfish
in Long Island Sound to support the ecological and economic
well-being provided by a sustainable oyster fishery.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--Flood control and
drainage systems have accelerated erosion and habitat loss
along the Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries. Working
with the Department of Interior, the Corps will evaluate river
management, habitat, and public access to recommend actions for
addressing current and future needs.
West Pearl River Navigation Study.--The aquatic communities of
the Pearl, West Pearl, and Bogue Chitto Rivers are severely
disrupted by old and disused navigation structures. This study
will examine the feasibility of removing them or repurposing
the structures to improve environmental and recreational
conditions.
Thames River Basin Watershed Study.--This study for the Thames
River Basin ecosystem, including its tributaries to Long Island
Sound, will determine the research and management measures
necessary to improve the management of water control structures
in the basin.
Middle Potomac River Watershed Comprehensive Study.--This study
will develop a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional sustainable
watershed management plan for the Middle Potomac River
watershed, balancing the ecological functions and services
provided by the river with the human demands upon it.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our comments on the Energy
and Water Development appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura Harbor, Ventura Port District--
California
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for Ventura Harbor
reflects a request of $2,805,000 for operation and maintenance for
annual dredging activities within and around the Federal channel area
of Ventura Harbor. Unfortunately, funding at that level does not
accomplish the task.
In fiscal year 2011, the Corps of Engineers (COE) was only able to
complete the dredging of 300,000 cubic yards of material, leaving
500,000 cubic yards of material not dredged, and remaining in place to
be addressed next year. It is anticipated that more than 1 million
cubic yards will need to be dredged in fiscal year 2012. Informal
communications with COE suggest that fiscal year 2012 funding of
$4,500,000 is required to meet the Ventura Port District's dredging
requirements for the next fiscal year.
The authorizing legislation for this request is Public Law 90-483,
section 101. The appropriations history is:
Fiscal Year 2004.--$2.9 million (Public Law 108-137);
Fiscal Year 2005.--$2.9 million (Public Law 108-447);
Fiscal Year 2006.--$2.6 million (Public Law 109-103);
Fiscal Year 2007.--$2.6 million (Public Law 110-5);
Fiscal Year 2008.--$3.4 million (Public Law 110-161);
Fiscal Year 2008.--Emergency funding $5 million (Public Law 110-
252) breakwater repairs;
Fiscal Year 2009.--$2.8 million (Public Law 111-8);
Fiscal Year 2010.--$6.1 million (Public Law 111-85) included
additional funds to complete breakwater repairs; and
Fiscal Year 2011.--$2.8 million.
It is noted that employment associated with the commercial fishing
industry in the Port of Ventura area is directly related to the
dredging activities of COE. In 2010, it is estimated that 71 million
pounds of seafood product were unloaded at facilities associated with
the Port of Ventura, accounting for significant employment in the area.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the Altira Group, LLC
Gentlemen: I am writing this letter in support of the Department of
Energy Oil and Gas Research and Development Program and against the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request to zero out this program.
Oil and gas is an essential part of our energy needs now and for
the foreseeable future. As a Nation we should be supportive of efforts
to extract and utilize our natural resources as cheaply and cleanly as
possible. These efforts require the research and development (R&D) to
identify new technologies and methodologies that are being actively
supported by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America
(RPSEA) program.
The RPSEA program that administers these research dollars is
supported with matched funding of 50 percent or more from industry and
the technical support and liaison of thousands of scientists and
engineers. It is an archetype for an efficient public private
partnership and serves a unique place in fostering research at a pre-
commercial stage in the development of technologies that are not
supported by venture capital or industrial research programs.
The oil and gas industry is a technologically driven industry.
However, oil and gas companies produce oil and gas as their end
products, not technology, and they rely heavily on outside service
companies. (This is particularly true for the U.S. Independents who
develop most of our reserves.) Service companies, while good at
deploying new technologies, are not adequately addressing our need for
technological development. In addition, universities have not coped
well with the boom bust industry patterns and are struggling to provide
students adequate research opportunities. RPSEA has done a nice job of
pulling these three constituencies together for relatively low cost and
building a forward-looking R&D structure for the country.
Ultimately the R&D supported by RPSEA will lead to additional oil
and gas development (and royalties to government), jobs to many of the
providers of these technologies and ultimately greater energy security
at a lower price.
Please note, I am a venture capitalist (former oil and gas
geophysicist) and a former Board Member of RPSEA. Our firm focuses on
energy technology. Altira's portfolio companies have not received money
from this program.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on the importance and need for strong
Federal research and development (R&D) activity in the areas of oil and
natural gas, coal, and geothermal technologies. These activities reside
in the Department of Energy's (DOE) fossil energy program (oil, natural
gas, coal, etc.) and energy efficiency and renewable energy program
(geothermal). They are an essential investment in this Nation's energy
security.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is the
world's largest scientific and professional geological association. The
purpose of AAPG is to advance the science of geology, foster scientific
research, and promote technology. AAPG has nearly 34,000 members around
the world, with roughly two-thirds living and working in the United
States. These are the professional geoscientists in industry,
government, and academia who practice, regulate, and teach the science
and process of finding and producing energy resources from the Earth.
AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology plays in our Nation's
economic and social fabric.
It is widely accepted that U.S. energy supplies will come from
increasingly diverse sources over coming decades. New and alternative
energy sources will supplement conventional energy sources to meet the
Nation's growing energy needs at affordable prices. Diversity in energy
supplies enhances U.S. energy security by reducing our reliance on any
single energy source.
Scientific and technological advances are necessary to ensure that
this energy diversification occurs without economically damaging
disruptions. This is very much in the public interest and a compelling
reason why Federal R&D investment is needed.
What is often misunderstood, however, is that this R&D investment
cannot be solely focused on new and alternative energy sources.
Ensuring the uninterrupted availability of conventional energy, which
provides the bulk of the Nation's energy today, also requires new
scientific insights and technological breakthroughs.
In fact, our Nation is not facing a choice between conventional and
alternative energy sources--a choice between yesterday's energy and
tomorrow's energy--although that is how the debate is often framed.
Oil, natural gas, and coal currently supply 83 percent of the
Nation's energy. These resources are the foundation of our energy
future. Upon this foundation we are now developing and deploying new
and alternative energy sources.
Our Nation's R&D choices must recognize the need to keep this
foundation strong while also developing new energy sources for the
future. Both of these tasks require sustained R&D investment.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
AAPG strongly urges continued funding of the DOE oil and natural
gas technologies programs, which the President has proposed for
termination.
Oil and natural gas supply 62 percent of our Nation's energy. Oil
is the source of virtually all transportation fuels. Natural gas heats
homes and businesses, generates electricity, is a chemical feedstock,
and has potential for transportation systems. Supplying the oil and
natural gas consumed today and in the future requires significant
technological advancements.
Several commonly overlooked trends in the oil and natural gas
sectors support a Federal role in oil and natural gas technologies R&D:
--The independent oil and gas producer is responsible for finding and
producing most U.S. oil and natural gas resources. According to
the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), a
trade association, independent producers produce 68 percent of
the Nation's oil, 85 percent of the Nation's natural gas, and
drill 90 percent of the Nation's oil and natural gas wells. The
median-sized independent producer is the epitome of American
small business.
--Independents typically work on projects that are too small for
vertically integrated ``major'' oil and gas companies to
develop commercially. Technology is vitally important for
locating these resources underground, but these producers do
not have the capacity to conduct independent research.
--Increasingly domestic oil and natural gas production is coming from
nontraditional (unconventional) resources, such as the Barnett
Shale of Texas or the Bakken formation of the Willison Basin.
These resources play a vital role in building our Nation's
energy future, and their development requires significant R&D
investment.
--Federal R&D has historically provided support for the Nation's
universities and colleges, which have proven to be a rich
source of technological innovation. But as Federal support for
oil and natural gas technology development has waned, so has
the ability to conduct this type of research and train the next
generation of U.S. scientists and engineers. There is a serious
workforce shortage both in industry and government, and is the
subject of a new study by the National Research Council.
The goal of a robust Federal R&D program in oil and natural gas
technologies is to enable and encourage the environmentally responsible
development of the Nation's petroleum resources on behalf of the
American people. This includes conventional oil and natural gas,
nontraditional resources, and emerging resources, such as methane from
methane hydrates, which according to a recent study by the National
Research Council ``could help to provide greater energy security for
the United States and to help address future energy needs globally.''
We request the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
appropriate $100 million for oil and natural gas technology programs to
be administered by DOE's Office of Fossil Energy to support research
projects that target increased production of domestic oil and natural
gas resources.
COAL PROGRAM
The Nation's coal resources are essential to U.S. energy security.
AAPG supports research and development funding for coal, including
clean-coal technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration. AAPG
urges the Congress to reject the President's proposed cuts to this
program and provide funding of $393 million, equal to fiscal year 2010
appropriations, for these activities.
Again, these investments must be balanced. In evaluating the DOE
coal program, I urge you to review the findings of the National
Academy's report entitled ``Coal: Research and Development to Support
National Energy Policy'', released in June 2007. The study finds that
while there are significant uncertainties in U.S. coal reserve and
resource estimates, there is sufficient coal at current consumption to
last for more than 100 years.
However, there is a real need for more ``upstream'' coal research
to increase our understanding of the Nation's resource base. The study
group observed that presently more than 90 percent of Federal R&D
spending for coal is on the ``downstream'' side, focused on
utilization, carbon capture and sequestration, and transport and
transmission. Only 10 percent goes to resource and reserve assessment,
mining and processing, environment/reclamation, and safety and health.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Geothermal energy is an important alternative energy resource that
provides baseload power to the Nation's electrical grid. Significant
expansion of geothermal power production may be possible through the
development of enhanced or engineered geothermal systems, as well as
mining heat from low-temperature, co-produced, and fluids in permeable
sedimentary resources.
AAPG supports the President's $101.5 million request for the DOE
geothermal program.
SUMMARY
Our Nation has the resources and capacity for a bright energy
future. Realizing this future requires prudent R&D investment to supply
the conventional energy sources we will rely on in coming decades, and
the breakthroughs in new and alternative energy sources that will power
the future. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Gas Association
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Natural gas is America's clean, secure, efficient, and abundant
fossil fuel.
The Department of Energy (DOE) should include in its research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) portfolio energy efficiency of
natural gas equipment in commercial, residential, and industrial
markets.
DOE's Building Technologies Program should spend at least $12
million of its budget on natural gas RD&D.
DOE's Industrial Technologies Program should spend at least $30
million of its budget on combined-heat-and-power (CHP) RD&D (request is
$25 million) with activities in small- (below 20 KW), medium- and
large-scale systems.
DOE's Transportation Technologies Program should spend at least $30
million on natural gas vehicle RD&D.
INTRODUCTION
The American Gas Association (AGA), founded in 1918, represents 199
local energy companies that deliver clean natural gas throughout the
United States. There are more than 70 million residential, commercial,
and industrial natural gas customers in the United States, of which 91
percent--more than 64 million customers--receive their gas from AGA
members. AGA is an advocate for natural gas utility companies and their
customers and provides a broad range of programs and services for
member natural gas pipelines, marketers, gatherers, international
natural gas companies, and industry associates. Today, natural gas
meets almost one-fourth of the United States' energy needs.
On behalf of AGA, I urge you to support increased RD&D funding by
the DOE on the natural gas end-use technologies, which are powered by
an energy source that is domestically abundant, affordable, stable,
highly efficient, and clean.
To that end, we request a modest natural gas efficiency investment
of $12 million in the Building Technologies Program, $30 million in the
Transportation Program and $10 million for small-scale CHP, as well as
supporting sufficient funding in the overall Industrial Program.
At a time when there is growing instability in oil-producing
regions such as North Africa and the Middle East, which has resulted in
$100 per barrel--and rising--oil prices that threaten to derail our
economic recovery, we believe that DOE needs to reassess its research
and development (R&D) funding priorities. The DOE should join with us
to develop highly efficient natural gas based appliances and systems.
The natural gas industry, manufacturers and R&D partners will identify
and capture financial support for this effort with 20 to 40 percent co-
funding expected, depending on the type of R&D performed.
Currently, DOE spends hundreds of millions of dollars yearly on
energy efficiency research, yet very little of this is directed toward
energy efficient natural gas products. In particular, over the past
several years there has been almost no Federal investment in natural
gas technologies for residential and commercial buildings, the CHP
Program in the Industrial Technologies Program has been dramatically
reduced, and the R&D program for natural gas vehicles was totally
eliminated in fiscal year 2006 through 2009. At a time when the value
of natural gas for reducing carbon emissions is being recognized as
never before, this is misguided.
We feel that it is way past time for the office of EERE, whose
mandate is furthering America's energy efficiency, to re-engage in
developing energy efficient natural gas-based technologies. Combining
our cleanest and most-efficient fuel with new, highly efficient end-use
technologies is the best way to ensure our economic viability in an
increasingly carbon-constrained environment.
Such RD&D funding support must focus on highly efficient, superior
performance technologies in which natural gas is used directly in the
residential, commercial, industrial and transportation markets. Using
natural gas directly in traditional end-use applications such as home
heating, water heating and cooking, as well as increasingly in highly
promising new applications such as natural gas vehicles and
distributed--on-site--power generation, can save consumers millions of
dollars, significantly reduce carbon emissions, and, given natural
gas's domestic abundance, enhance our Nation's energy security.
In particular, we urge a small fraction of the funding in the
Building Technologies Program at DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Office be dedicated to natural gas based efficiency
technologies. A $12 million level would equate to approximately 5
percent of the appropriations for that office in 2010 and approximately
2 percent of the President's 2012 buildings budget request.
Specific Building program initiatives include:
Space Conditioning and Water Heating Efficiency and Operational
Improvements--$2.9 Million
This effort will focus on laboratory testing, component and
technology development and field testing of new gas space conditioning
technologies and systems. The water heating R&D effort will improve
performance and cost of components and assembly/installation of
currently available or soon-to-be available systems for domestic or
commercial water heating.
These efforts will be in conjunction with gas utilities working
closely with component and equipment manufacturers. In the commercial
sector, the space conditioning effort will focus on developing new and
improving current gas-based thermally activated (e.g., absorption)
systems appropriate for space cooling and humidity/indoor air quality
control in commercial buildings, while helping alleviate peak electric
demand constraints. Combined space/water heating systems will also be
developed and tested through laboratory and field testing.
--Advance energy efficient technologies and systems for space and
water heating in existing single and multi-family residential
buildings and the light-commercial sector.
--Improve efficiency and reduce cost of highly efficient condensing
gas furnaces and boilers that are poised for wider market
adoption.
--Optimize strategies and technologies for the control of humidity
and indoor air quality in conjunction with gas-based space
heating and cooling systems.
--Reduce first costs of emerging tankless and storage type water
heaters by at least 20 percent, while achieving efficiencies of
more than 80 percent for noncondensing and 90 percent for
condensing type units.
--Develop a combination space/water heating system with improved
efficiency and reduced first cost to be used in residential,
multi-unit, and commercial buildings.
Solar/Natural Gas Hybrid Systems--$2.8 Million
This effort will include technology development and laboratory and
field testing, working with manufacturers of solar thermal or other
renewable-resource systems. Particular attention will be given to
integration/control and system sizing issues as well as safety and
reliability (all of which will strongly impact commercial viability).
--Develop solar thermal-natural gas hybrid technology and products
that cost-effectively generate heat, hot water, and steam, and
thermally driven cooling--reducing carbon emissions and the use
of fossil fuels.
--Improve storage and integration of lower temperature thermal heat
(solar) with higher-temperature natural gas heat system.
--Integrate concentrated solar with natural gas energy systems.
Breakthrough Technology Development--$2.1 Million
This initiative will focus on developing and testing more advanced
technologies and systems that will not be available for the market
place for 3 to 7 years and will make extensive use of longer-term
laboratory research. The main drivers for this research will be carbon
emission reductions and improved efficiency thus producing the next
wave of efficient and clean gas technologies for residential and
commercial use. As promising technologies, components and systems
emerge, appropriate lab and field testing will be conducted.
--Develop catalytic and other approaches for carbon management (e.g.,
formation, reduction, capture, conversion storage) of specific
combustion byproducts like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.
--Support basic combustion research to improve efficiency, reduce
pollutant formation, increase heat transfer to improve the
operation of gas-based energy systems.
--Perform hydrogen enrichment mixtures to reduce carbon emissions
from gas equipment--(a carbon mitigating approach may be to
provide a percentage of hydrogen through the natural gas
pipeline system).
Building Systems and Community Energy System Technologies--$2.6 Million
Parallel attention will be given to both residential and selected
commercial buildings. Different RD&D programs will be developed for
selected building types (e.g., residential single-family homes
retrofit, new-construction homes, multifamily dwellings, retail
building, and institutional building) and regions (e.g., Northeast,
Southwest). RD&D will include laboratory research but will also
comprise extensive testing in instrumented buildings that will serve as
field test facilities. R&D will be coordinated with architects and
builders as well as developers and manufacturers of emerging energy
systems and associated components and controls.
--Develop approaches for optimized integration of gas systems with
the evolving Smart Energy Grid providing consumers new option
for energy management, comfort control and communication with
energy providers.
--Perform advanced energy efficiency and carbon emission analysis
utilizing full fuel cycle protocol, develop new scientific data
and tools to support lowering overall energy use and carbon
emissions in homes and buildings.
--Improve the efficiency and flexibility of operation of gas-based
equipment when used in combination with emerging building
technologies, new communications systems and other energy
systems.
Development of Higher-Efficiency and ENERGY STAR-rated Commercial Food
Service Equipment $1.6 Million
This effort will include laboratory development and field testing,
working with manufacturers and food service preparers. It will develop
improved components that will increase energy efficiency, reduce
emissions, and improve the productivity of ranges, ovens, grills,
griddles, fryers, and other food preparation products.
--Develop new cooking equipment designed to improve the currently
very low efficiency for natural gas cooking equipment.
--Reduce combustion related emissions from gas-fueled residential and
commercial cooking equipment.
--Improve the performance and reduce the cost of critical heat
transfer components in residential and commercial cooking
equipment.
In the industrial Program in DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Office, we encourage overall funding that accommodates a total
of $30 million for CHP (the budget request level and the fiscal year
2010 appropriations are both $25 million). At least $8 million of these
funds should be dedicated to small-scale systems below 20 kW. We also
support a budget that directs at least $25 million to the Industries of
the Future (Specific) Program, which would be in line with appropriated
levels for the past several years and would be used to develop the
technologies used in our Nation's heavy industries to manage their
energy expenditures.
Specific CHP initiatives include:
Small-Scale CHP Research and Development--$8 Million
Micro Combined Heat and Power Products (10kW or less).--Develop,
using existing technological breakthroughs, a system which
would provide on-site electric power and domestic hot water and
heating for homes and small businesses utilizing either propane
or natural gas. This will include development of ``dark start''
technology for use in communities where there is an inability
to deliver reliable electricity via traditional central power
station and transmission/distribution systems.
Gas Heat Pump Technology (7.5-15- tons).--Continue previous DOE
efforts in gas-fired heat pumps (80-percent reduction in
electric peak demand in cooling and 150-percent efficiency in
heating mode). Necessary work:
--fuel management and control development;
--heat recovery to provide domestic hot water and space heating;
and
--power generation.
Further enhancements of the heat exchangers, engine, and
compressors will result in improved efficiency and lower first
costs. This will include development of auxiliary power
capability for plug-in hybrid fueling or other potential
critical power loads.
Emissions and Carbon Footprint Reductions Reasearch and
Development.--Continue ongoing activity. Although the GHP and
Micro-CHP products meet the current air-quality requirements,
further emission reductions are being anticipated. This program
would take a pro-active stewardship toward reducing product
carbon footprints for small engine technology that requires
particular attention.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
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 Institute's (AGI)
perspective on fiscal year 2012 appropriations for geoscience programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The President's budget request
for the Department of Energy (DOE) research programs provides important
and modest investments in research and development (R&D) that will help
support economic growth, job creation and energy independence,
diversification and sustainable management. AGI strongly supports the
wise and increased investments in the Office of Science ($5.4 billion)
and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($3.2 billion) (particularly
the increase for geothermal R&D within EERE). AGI strongly supports
investments in geoscience education, training, and workforce
development through the Office of Science's Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists ($35 million).
AGI is concerned about the termination of limited investments in
oil and natural gas R&D within the Office of Fossil Energy. Oil and
natural gas supply 62 percent of our Nation's energy and will continue
to play a major role in the future. These investments will drive
innovation to support and improve safe and effective domestic
development of clean fossil fuels. The bulk of DOE's oil and gas R&D
investments go to institutions of higher education for training and
research. The United States has a substantial workforce and significant
investments in oil and natural gas research, development, exploration,
and production. Steady, but modest Federal investments in fossil energy
R&D with a longer-term strategic plan would benefit the academic,
private, and public sectors.
The Office of Fossil Energy suffers from an unbalanced portfolio
that focuses primarily on coal, faces uncertainty about direction and
investments, and receives inconsistent funding. We ask for the
subcommittee's support for oil and gas, unconventional natural gas,
geothermal, hydropower, methane hydrates and carbon sequestration R&D
so the Nation can develop a diverse portfolio of energy resources while
enhancing carbon mitigation strategies to secure clean, affordable, and
secure energy supplies for now and the future.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 49 geoscientific and professional
associations that represents more than 120,000 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 society's use
of resources and interaction with the environment.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs
in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science and, under the budget request, would grow by
about 9 percent from about $4.9 billion in 2010 to $5.4 billion in
fiscal year 2012. AGI asks that you support this much needed increase.
The President's request would provide $35 million for Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists, a program aimed at ensuring
that DOE and the Nation have a sustained pipeline of highly skilled and
diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
workers. AGI strongly supports investments in geoscience education,
training, and workforce development within DOE and other Federal
agencies.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget request would increase investments for R&D for
many renewable energy resources. AGI applauds the $102 million
requested for geothermal R&D and greatly appreciates previous support
from the Congress for this key alternative energy resource. The
geothermal research program within the renewable energy account, which
funds Earth science research in materials, geofluids, geochemistry,
geophysics, rock properties, reservoir modeling, and seismic mapping
will provide the Nation with the best research to build a successful
and competitive geothermal industry. AGI also supports an Energy
Innovation Hub focused on critical materials and hope this hub will
consider ways to improve exploration, extraction, and processing of
necessary raw materials as well as replacement materials.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGI urges you to look critically at the Fossil Energy Research and
Development portfolio as you prepare to craft the fiscal year 2012
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. Many Members of
Congress have strongly emphasized the need for a responsible,
diversified, and comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. The
growing global competition for fossil fuels has led to a repeated and
concerted request by the Congress to ensure the Nation's energy
security. The President's proposal, which provides no funding for oil
and gas R&D, is short sighted and inconsistent with congressional and
public concerns. No funding for oil and gas R&D will hinder our ability
to achieve energy stability and security.
The research dollars invested in oil and gas R&D go primarily to
universities, State geological surveys, and research consortia to
address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and
unconventional sources that are the future of our natural gas supply.
This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American
businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be
tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the
subcommittee to ensure a balanced and diversified energy research
portfolio that does not ignore the Nation's primary sources of energy
for the near future, fossil fuels.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) respectfully requests
funding for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, Power Marketing
Administrations, storage for high-level nuclear waste, the Nuclear Loan
Guarantee Program, the Department of Energy Water Power Program, energy
conservation, weatherization, clean coal, fuel cells, fuel and powering
systems, the Navajo Electrification and Demonstration Program and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
APPA is the national service organization representing the
interests of more than 2,000 municipal and other State and locally
owned electric utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively,
public power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric
consumers (approximately 46 million people), serving some of the
Nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA's members
serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less.
We understand that the Congress is operating in a tight fiscal
environment. APPA's priority is to support programmatic requests that
bring down costs, conserve resources, or benefit our public power
customers in other ways. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement outlining our fiscal year 2012 funding priorities within the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).--APPA is disappointed
that the administration and the Congress have decided to stop funding
the REPI. REPI was the first attempt by the Congress to provide
comparable renewable incentives to the nonprofit electric utility
industry and we continue to seek comparability to this day. The
elimination of funding for the REPI program was a step backward in this
process. Defunding not only decreases incentives for new production,
but utilities who had been receiving the funding are stranded mid-
program. Five million dollars would restore funding to the program for
fiscal year 2012, but any funding would help restore payments to those
already approved for the incentive.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Power Marketing Administrations Proposals.--The President's
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed a
measure for all four Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) that would
have had the effect of raising the rates for PMA customers. We
appreciate that the fiscal year 2012 request did not include this type
of proposal.
Purchase Power and Wheeling.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize
appropriate levels for use of receipts so that the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can continue to purchase
and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric
cooperative customers. Although appropriations are no longer needed to
initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the
subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
this important function. The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no
impact on the Federal budget, and is supported by the PMA customers who
pay the costs. We support an increase over the funding levels of the
administration's budget for fiscal year 2012, which are as follows:
--$307 million for WAPA;
--$100 million for SEPA; and
--$40 million for SWPA.
Construction.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize appropriate
levels of funding for the construction budgets of WAPA, SEPA, and
SWAPA. These budgets have continued to decrease over the years however,
this funding remains critical to the operation and maintenance of the
PMAs.
Storage for High-Level Nuclear Waste.--APPA is disappointed that
the administration closed the Yucca Mountain Project and the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in fiscal year 2010. We support
the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and
look forward to hearing the Commission's recommendations on how the
Nation should manage nuclear waste.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees.--APPA is pleased with the administration's
request for DOE Loan Guarantee authority up to $36 billion for new
nuclear facilities and encourages the subcommittee to maintain this
level of funding.
DOE Water Power Program.--APPA was extremely disappointed that
funding for water power was decreased by 20 percent while all other
renewable resources were increased in the administration's fiscal year
2012 request. APPA believes there should be parity among renewable
resource funding. APPA requests $100 million for fiscal year 2012 for
the DOE's Water Power Program. At a time when utilities around our
country must focus on finding carbon-free sources of energy because of
pending State and Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the
importance of hydropower research and development is more important
than ever before. Not only is hydropower a renewable resource, but it
can be used as baseload generation to back up more intermittent
renewables such as wind and solar power.
Energy Conservation.--APPA appreciates the funding increases for
energy efficiency programs provided in the President's budget. The
budget funding levels for fiscal year 2012 are as follows:
--Building technologies--$470 million;
--Industrial technologies--$319 million;
--Federal Energy Management Program--$33 million; and
--Vehicle technologies--$588 million.
We urge the subcommittee to maintain these funding levels.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--We are pleased
that the administration has requested $394 million for the
weatherization program in fiscal year 2012, a significant increase from
fiscal year 2010, and we encourage the subcommittee to maintain that
level of funding.
Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen.--APPA is disappointed
that the budget did not include funding for large-scale commercial
applications of carbon capture and sequestration technology. We
encourage the subcommittee to include funding for Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) and FutureGen. APPA strongly believes as the need for
clean-energy increases, the FutureGen project, or something similar,
will be critical in nearing us to the goal of the world's first near-
zero-emissions coal fired plant. We urge the subcommittee and the
Congress to work with the administration on finding an appropriate role
and funding level for the FutureGen project and CCPI.
Fuel Cells.--APPA was disappointed that the administration
requested zero funding for fuel cell related research and development.
We urge the subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this
program for fiscal year 2012.
Fuels and Power Systems.--We recommend these funding levels for the
following programs:
Innovations for Existing Plants.--$84 million;
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.--$80 million;
Turbines.--$45 million;
Carbon Sequestration.--$150 million;
Fuels.--$25 million; and
Advanced Research.--$48 million.
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.--APPA supports full
funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its
full authorized funding level of $15 million. The purpose of the
program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures in the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. This program
has been consistently underfunded.
FERC.--The fiscal year 2012 budget requests $305 million for FERC,
an increase more than fiscal year 2010 levels. APPA supports this
increase.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for
science programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). The ASM is the
largest single life science organization in the world with more than
38,000 members. The ASM mission is to enhance the science of
microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life processes, and to
promote the application of this knowledge for improved health and
environmental well-being.
ASM supports the administration's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget
of $5.4 billion for the DOE's Office of Science, a 9.1-percent increase
more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriation level. The proposed fiscal
year 2012 budget will enable the Office of Science to continue its
leadership in critical areas including:
--renewable energy;
--environmental cleanup;
--carbon capture and sequestration;
--climate change; and
--basic research across the physical and biological sciences.
DOE investments in science and technology create new industries and
jobs, and strengthen United States basic research capabilities. The
Office of Science funds research in academic institutions, DOE
laboratories and technology centers that employ more than 30,000
scientists and engineers. In fiscal year 2012, more than 26,000
researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry and
international groups are expected to use DOE's world-renowned research
facilities.
The Office of Science is the largest Federal sponsor of basic
research in the physical sciences as well as the largest Federal funder
of materials and chemical sciences. The 10 national laboratories
directly overseen by the Office of Science are world leaders in basic
and applied research, generating breakthroughs in multiple disciplines.
DOE provides scientific expertise to address challenges including
events in postearthquake Japan, the search for clean energy, and many
environmental challenges.
ASM has a specific interest in microbiological research overseen by
the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program. Microorganisms
are essential to research areas like biofuels and environment
remediation. ASM recommends congressional approval of the proposed
budget increase for the BER program to $718 million, about 22 percent
more than the fiscal year 2010 level.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S INVESTMENTS IN BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH YIELD INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
The Biological and Environmental Research program cuts across
scientific and engineering disciplines to understand complicated
biological, climatic, and environmental systems. BER-funded research
has advanced scientific knowledge providing the foundational research
to support biofuels development, monitor subsurface contaminants and
expose the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. BER funding is also
responsible for new research tools that help investigators explore the
interface of biological and physical sciences.
The BER research portfolio has transformed science and technology
in the United States. An example is the Human Genome Project initiated
by BER in 1986, a catalyst for the biotechnology industry and the
emerging field of systems biology. BER-sponsored activities have helped
shape modern climate science with powerful climate modeling
capabilities. BER's computing experts and facilities have guided new
disciplines dependent upon high-end computer resources, such as
computational biology and bioinformatics. DOE funding has influenced
scientific discovery. Recent examples include:
--Use of a newly patented group of naturally occurring microbes to
detoxify chlorinated solvents that contaminate a former DOE
reactor site, improving groundwater quality;
--Genetic mapping of plant digesting microbes from the cow rumen,
generating 270 billion letters of the DNA code in a massive
data-collecting effort to understand how to efficiently degrade
plant biomass for biofuels production; and
--Atomic-scale xray crystallography studies that identified microbial
proteins possibly key to formation of drug-resistant biofilms,
suggesting new antibiotic targets.
The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes increases for the areas of
genomic science and computational biosciences, as well as for BER's
Joint Genome Institute, Structural Biology Infrastructure and programs.
BER's major scientific goals for fiscal year 2012 include advances
in genomic science, radiological sciences, climate research, and
subsurface biogeochemistry. Relevant research will be distributed
between BER's two subprograms, Biological Systems Science Division
(BSSD) and Climate and Environmental Sciences Division (CESD). The
former focuses on fundamental principles related to function and
structure of living systems from microbes to mammals, while the latter
examines environmental impacts of energy production and use. Both rely
heavily on microbiological systems and techniques.
The fiscal year 2012 request for BSSD is $376 million, an increase
from the fiscal year 2010 level of $310 million. In fiscal year 2012,
CESD would receive nearly $342 million compared to $278 million in
fiscal year 2010. Within CESD, Environmental System Science activities
increase by 22 percent. BER budgets also include support for world
class facilities and research consortia. The BSSD subprogram manages
the Joint Genome Institute, the Bioenergy Science Center, the Joint
Bioenergy Institute, and three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers. The CSSD
oversees two scientific user facilities, the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement Climate Research Facility and the Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory (EMSL). The Joint Genome Institute is now
sequencing more than 4 trillion genome base pairs annually (more than
130 times that of 5 years ago), while EMSL with its powerful
instrumentation and computing housed at DOE's Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, leads worldwide efforts in the field of
proteomics. Results reported from BER-funded research in the past year
include:
--Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that
various microbial species cooperate in marine environments
during their cycling of organic matter, important to the global
carbon cycle (BSSD-funded).
--Bioenergy Science Center studies described a new method to
genetically modify the cellulose-degrading bacterium
Clostridium thermocellum, with potential to expedite critical
degradation steps in biofuels production. DOE scientists at
Princeton University developed the first-ever quantitative
model for metabolic processes in another Clostridium species
that produces butanol, ethanol, and hydrogen during biomass
fermentation and is already used by industry--a step toward
engineering the microbe for biofuels synthesis.
--Another collaborative CESD study determined that different
microorganisms convert soluble uranium to different forms of
reduced uranium, pertinent to controlling contaminants at
nuclear sites. Other researchers used microbial fuel cell
techniques and electrodes inserted into soil to monitor
microbial activity as related to the progress of uranium
bioremediation, a technique also applicable to other microbial
processes in the environment.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S RESEARCH BUILDS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE, WORKFORCE
DOE science programs have evolved and expanded into an R&D
infrastructure unparalleled in specific areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. DOE laboratories operate sophisticated
equipment often not available elsewhere, and large numbers of non-DOE
researchers from the United States and other countries regularly use
DOE facilities to conduct studies that would otherwise be impossible.
The DOE Office of Science has built extraordinary research
capabilities, including particle accelerator centers, advanced
computational centers, and atmospheric monitoring facilities. As an
example, EMSL offers users a supercomputer and more than 60 major
instruments to support environmental sciences, serving more than 700
users annually. In the past year, an international team of more than 80
researchers from 21 institutions used the world's first hard xray free-
electron laser, the Linac Coherent Light Source at DOE's Stanford
Linear Accelerator Center National Accelerator Laboratory, to produce
the first single-shot images of intact viruses, expected to lead to
eventual videos of molecules, viruses and live microbes in action.
Innovative research tools developed at the national labs or other
DOE-funded institutions regularly stimulate multiple scientific fields,
often transferring to the technology marketplace as valuable commercial
products. The DOE toolkit includes research protocols, monitoring and
measuring equipment, computer models and databases, and considerably
more. One commercialized example is the PhyloChip developed by DOE
scientists that can detect up to 50,000 species of bacteria and archaea
in a single environmental sample, which was deployed at last year's
gulf oil spill. The innovation has already spawned a start-up company
and is expected to have broad applications in monitoring. At BER's
Joint Bioenergy Institute, scientists developed a mass spectrometry-
based detection technique called multiple-reaction monitoring, to more
efficiently and accurately identify microbial proteins that convert
cellulosic sugars to biofuels. Last year, BER-sponsored university
scientists introduced an optimization method that delineates all
possible metabolic pathways in an organism like biofuels-related
bacteria, then suggests which genetic changes could trick the microbe
into overproducing a desired product like ethanol.
The Office of Science also supports the Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program, at $35.6 million, a substantial
72-percent increase more than fiscal year 2010. The WDTS program
continues DOE's long history of training scientists, mathematicians,
and engineers as U.S. technical workforce, principally through research
grants and contracts at universities, the private sector, and DOE's own
laboratories. The program also reaches out to all academic levels. Each
year, participants in training and education programs at DOE
laboratories include--
--more than 250,000 K-12 students;
--22,000 K-12 educators;
--4,000 undergraduate interns;
--3,000 graduate students; and
--1,600 postdoctoral employees.
In 2010, a new graduate fellowship program selected its first
cohort of 150 students, beginning an initiative to attract more
students to careers in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics,
engineering, environmental sciences, or computer sciences.
department of energy's partnerships elevate u.s. science and technology
The BER program collaborates with other Federal agencies including
the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture (USDA),
the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, to
optimize complementary research. DOE and USDA, for example, share
similar goals in finding new bioenergy sources while DOE's climate
change studies integrate closely with those in multiple Federal
agencies. DOE collaborations extend to academia, industry, nonprofits,
and international partners. The Office of Science funds more than 7,000
individual research projects at universities, national laboratories,
U.S. industry, and the nonprofit sector. In fiscal year 2012, the BER
budget would support approximately 2,400 researchers and graduate
students in more than 200 U.S. Federal, academic, and private
institutions. DOE personnel also advise non-DOE scientists and
policymakers; about 40 DOE experts have travelled to Japan with more
than 17,000 pounds of equipment to help monitor radiation released by
the recent earthquake.
Extramural DOE funding contributes significantly to science and
technology achievements. More than 110 Nobel laureates have received
DOE support, as did two recipients of the 2011 Franklin Institute
Medal. Last year, 39 DOE-funded projects garnered R&D 100 Awards which
recognize the world's most promising new products, processes,
materials, or software that had entered the market the previous year.
DOE funding has supported the basic research for 800 R&D 100 winners
since 1962.
CONCLUSION
ASM recommends that the Congress approve the proposed fiscal year
2012 budget for the DOE science programs that support diverse often
large-scale research, uniquely important to the U.S. economy, national
security, a healthy environment and the future status of U.S. science
and technology.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy; Crop Science
Society of America; and the Soil Science Society of America
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) are pleased
to submit the following funding recommendations for the Department of
Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2012. For the Office of Science, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $5.4 billion.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in
the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these
sciences through the publication of quality journals and books,
convening meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and
public information programs, providing scientific advice to inform
public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of
agronomy and crop and soil sciences.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight
budget for fiscal year 2012. We also recognize that the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary
components, and we applaud the subcommittee for the support provided to
the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. For fiscal year 2012,
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $5.4 billion.
The Congress approved the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-358), 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 moving overseas. Such an investment is
needed to keep U.S. science and engineering at the forefront of global
research and development in the biological sciences and geosciences,
computing and many other critical scientific fields. The Office of
Science supports graduate students and postdoctoral researchers early
in their careers. However, because of the uncertainty of the Federal
budget, the Office of Science was not able to provide the essential
support needed in fiscal year 2011. As a result, it is important that
increase emphasis is placed on these programs in fiscal year 2012.
Nearly one-third of its research funding goes to support research at
more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide. The Office of
Science also reaches out to America's youth in grades K-12 and their
teachers to help improve students' knowledge of science and mathematics
and their understanding of global energy and environmental challenges.
This recommended funding level of $5.4 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 $5.4 billion will allow the Office of Science to:
--maintain and strengthen DOE's core research programs at both the
DOE national laboratories and at universities;
--provide support for Ph.D.s, postdoctoral associates, and graduate
students;
--ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities; and
--allow the Office of Science to develop and construct the next-
generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S. pre-eminence
in scientific research.
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. The research
disciplines that the BES program supports include condensed matter and
materials physics, chemistry, soil, mineralogical, and geosciences,
influencing virtually every aspect of energy resources, production,
conversion, transmission, storage, efficiency, and waste mitigation.
Research in geosciences leads to advanced monitoring and measurement
techniques for reservoir definition. The BES program is one of the
Nation's largest sponsors of research in the natural sciences. In
fiscal year 2010, the program funded research in more than 170 academic
institutions located in 50 States and in 14 DOE laboratories located in
12 States. Thus, approximately 40 percent of the BES program's research
activities are sited at academic institutions.
Within the BES program, the chemical sciences, geosciences, and
energy biosciences subprogram supports fundamental research in soil,
biogeochemistry, geophysics, and biosciences. We support funding this
subprogram at $394.7 million in fiscal year 2012.
Within BES there exists several critical pieces of equipment
essential for elucidating the soil's potential to provide essential
services--carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, water purification,
waste treatment, provisioning of industrial and pharmaceutical goods,
and a mitigating sink for chemical and biological agents--that enhance
the resilience of managed and natural systems.
As such, the Societies support the increases included in the
President's budget for the major items of equipment projects, including
the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory, the world's first hard xray free electron laser (FEL),
which produces ultrafast pulses of xrays millions of times brighter
than even the most powerful synchrotron light sources. The LCLS
provides scientists with a unique tool for studying the arrangement and
motion of atoms and electrons in metals, semiconductors, ceramics,
polymers, catalysts, plastics, and biological molecules with the
potential to significantly impact advanced energy research and other
fields. The societies support the requested increase for the LCLS
included in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget (+$30,000,000 more
than fiscal year 2010) to extend the xray spectral range at the LCLS.
Our soil scientists also are users of the National Synchrotron
Light Source (NSLS-II) built to enable the study of material properties
and functions, particularly materials at the nanoscale, at a level of
detail and precision never before possible. We support the increase
requested in fiscal year 2012 (+$12,000,000 more than fiscal year 2010)
to initiate the fabrication of approximately 5 to 6 additional
instruments.
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. We support the
$19.3 million increase proposed by the President to the Geosciences
program, specifically for the purposes of continuing to expand research
on geochemical studies and computational analysis of complex subsurface
fluids and solids.
Biological and Environmental Research
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program, for more than five decades, has advanced
environmental and biological knowledge that supports national security
through improved energy production, development, and use; international
scientific leadership that underpins our Nation's technological
advances; and research that improves the quality of life for all
Americans. BER supports these vital national missions through
competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories,
universities, and private institutions. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the
funding of the BES at the President's requested level for fiscal year
2012 of $717.9 million. A variety of programs within BER are essential
to continued fundamental research about biological systems science,
geochemical observations, and determining environmental sustainability
of our energy production systems. Among other items, the DOE Bioenergy
Research Centers, the Joint Genome Institute, the Environmental
Molecular Science Laboratory, and biological sequencing science are
essential for overcoming the challenges of ensuring our Nation's energy
security and environmental health.
The Climate and Environmental Sciences subprogram, Environmental
Systems Science will support essential subsurface biogeochemical
research and basic research on the fate and transport of contaminants
in the subsurface. The ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding for
Environmental Systems Science at $104.2 million for fiscal year 2012, a
level which would retain funding for the Terrestrial Carbon
Sequestration Research, while also investing in research on contaminant
transport to ensure minimal risk to exposure. This research addresses
unique physical, chemical, and biological processes controlling the
flux of contaminants across and within the root zone of soils and the
flux of contaminants to surface water bodies. Processes in these
critical zones influence fluxes of carbon and key nutrients between the
atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere.
IDENTIFYING ESSENTIAL RESEARCH
Our members participated in the community-based workshop in March
2010 that developed the workshop report, ``Complex Systems Science for
Subsurface Fate and Transport.'' The report emphasized the need to
understand the role that subsurface biogeochemical processes play in
determining the fate and transport of contaminants including heavy
metals and radionuclides. Participants concluded that computational
models of coupled biological, geochemical, and hydrological processes
are needed to predict the rates and kinetics of transformation and
sequestration of these critical DOE contaminants.
Within BER, we support the increase included in the President's
budget for the Genomic Science Program, to bring the total level of
funding to $241.5 million for fiscal year 2012. The Joint Genome
Institute within the Genomic Program is an essential infrastructural
component which uses tools from contemporary systems biology to
understand and predict the energetic relationships between microbes and
plants. The increase would support synthetic molecular toolkits that
predict, design, construct, and test new biological systems for clean-
energy solutions.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The Office of Science manages 10 world-class laboratories, which
often are called the ``crown jewels'' of our national research
infrastructure.
National Energy Technology Laboratory
National Energy Technology Laboratory's Carbon Sequestration
Program is helping to develop technologies to capture, purify, and
store carbon dioxide (CO2) in order to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions without adversely influencing energy use or hindering
economic growth. 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.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of the world's premier
centers for research and development 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 American Society of Plant Biologists
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we
submit this statement for the official record to support the requested
level of $5.42 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science for fiscal year 2012. The testimony highlights the importance
of biology--particularly plant biology--as the Nation seeks to address
vital issues such as energy security.
ASPB and its members recognize the difficult fiscal environment our
Nation faces, but believe investments in scientific research will be a
critical step toward economic recovery. We would also like to thank the
subcommittee for its consideration of this testimony and for its
support for the basic research mission of the DOE Office of Science.
ASPB is an organization of approximately 5,000 professional plant
biology researchers, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral
scientists with members in all 50 States and throughout the world. A
strong voice for the global plant science community, our mission--
achieved through work in the realms of research, education, and public
policy--is to promote the growth and development of plant biology, to
encourage and communicate research in plant biology, and to promote the
interests and growth of plant scientists in general.
FOOD, FUEL, ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH--PLANT BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND
AMERICA'S FUTURE
Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are the primary producers on which
all life depends. Indeed, plant biology research is making many
fundamental contributions in the areas of domestic fuel security and
environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
better foods, fabrics, pharmaceuticals, and building materials; and in
the understanding of basic biological principles that underpin
improvements in the health and nutrition of all Americans. In fact, the
2009 National Research Council (NRC) report ``A New Biology for the
21st Century'' placed plant biology at the center of urgent priorities
in energy, food, health, and the environment.
In particular, plant biology is at the center of numerous
scientific breakthroughs in the increasingly interdisciplinary world of
alternative energy research. For example, interfaces among plant
biology, engineering, chemistry, and physics represent critical
frontiers in both basic biofuels research and bioenergy production.
Similarly, with the increase in plant genome sequencing and functional
genomics, the interface of plant biology and computer science is
essential to our understanding of complex biological systems ranging
from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Despite the fact that plant biology research--the kind of research
funded by DOE--underpins so many vital practical considerations for our
country, the amount invested in understanding their basic function and
mechanisms is relatively small when compared with broader impacts on
areas including energy security and economic development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of our membership's extensive expertise, ASPB is in an
excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant science priorities
as they relate to bioenergy and, specifically, with regard to
recommendations for bioenergy research funding through the DOE's Office
of Science.
Within the Office of Science, the programs in BER and BES are
crucial to understanding how basic biological processes work. For this
reason ASPB is supportive of the fiscal year 2012 request to fund BER
at $717.9 million and BES at $1.985 billion. Sustained funding for
these programs is vital as the discoveries made in these areas will
ultimately be the foundation for the next fuels and technologies we use
in our daily lives.
In addition:
--We commend the DOE Office of Science, through their programs in
Basic Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research
for funding the Bioenergy Research Centers and the Energy
Frontier Research Centers. These centers provide a model for
collective science innovation that complements DOE's essential
investment in individual investigator and small group science.
ASPB strongly encourages funding for the DOE Office of Science
that would be specifically targeted to the funding of
individual or small group grants for bioenergy research.
--Photosynthetic research is one clear example of an interface
between the physical sciences and biology. Indeed, the
importance of disciplinary integration is a central theme of
several recent NRC reports including ``A New Biology for the
21st Century, Research at the Intersection of the Physical and
Life Sciences, and Inspired by Biology: From Molecules to
Materials to Machines''. The DOE Office of Science has been the
major source of funding for fundamental studies of
photosynthesis, which is the primary source of chemical energy
on the planet. However, the current funding available for
photosynthetic research is not commensurate with the central
role that photosynthesis plays in energy capture and carbon
sequestration. Hence, ASPB calls for the Office of Science to
expand its research portfolio in the area of photosynthesis and
carbon capture.
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. If biomass crops are to be
used to their full potential, however, considerable effort must
be expended to improve our understanding of their basic biology
and development, as well as their agronomic performance.
Therefore, ASPB calls for DOE to support research targeted at
efforts to increase the utility and agronomic performance of
bioenergy crops and to enhance understanding of plant cell
walls and the production of cellulosic biomass.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
INTRODUCTION
After experiencing a record year of growth in 2009, the American
wind industry installed just more than 5,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity
last year. Two of the principal causes for the decrease were the
reduced demand for electricity due to the economic slowdown and the low
price of natural gas compared with historic levels. Wind systems are
commercially deployable today and cost-competitive with virtually all
other new electricity generation sources. In addition, polling
consistently shows that a strong majority of Americans want more wind
power. Just last year, 89 percent of American voters (84 percent of
Republicans, 88 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats)
agreed that increasing the amount of energy our Nation gets from wind
energy is a good idea.\1\ However, keeping America's domestic wind
industry competitive with other generation sources and the wind
industry in other countries depends in part on increased research,
development, and deployment (RD&D) funding to reduce costs and improve
reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ March 2010 survey by Neil Newhouse, Public Opinion Strategies;
Anna Bennett, Bennett, Petts & Norrington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) requests a funding
level of $144.2 million for fiscal year 2012 for the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Wind Energy Program, an increase of $17.3 million more
than the President's congressional budget request. Of this amount, AWEA
requests that an additional $10.1 million be designated for the
integration of variable power sources. An additional $6.2 million
should be provided for the R&D of advanced technology components, and
an additional $1 million should be provided for the study of wind
energy and wildlife interactions. While we recognize that DOE has
proposed a $64 million increase in funding for needed offshore wind R&D
and generally concur with the proposed research activities, we wish to
re-emphasize the importance of expanded R&D for land-based
installations as well.
We appreciate the recognition of the important role wind energy
will play in meeting America's future energy needs, which is reflected
in the 60-percent increase in funding for the DOE Wind Energy Program
that is included in the President's budget request. This funding
increase is an important step in overcoming constraints to meeting the
DOE's scenario of wind energy providing 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity by 2030,\2\ but funding should be increased in the three
critical areas mentioned above, and maintained for wind resource
characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030''
(July 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
importance of the department of energy's wind energy program
For years, the DOE Wind Energy Program has provided important help
to the wind industry by supporting technology advances and identifying
and addressing other hurdles to wind energy development. The program
provides needed technical support, guidance, information, and limited
cost-shared funding for efforts to explore and develop wind energy
resources. AWEA commends the DOE Wind Energy Program for successfully
developing programs that are consistent with the wind industry's long-
term needs. We have noticed a growing rigor in the program's
organization and structure to address the needs of the growing wind
industry.
Past investments in wind have resulted in significant improvements
over the past 30 years, such as increased output, improved reliability,
and lower costs. In fact, the cost of wind, when adjusted for
inflation, has dropped from more than $0.50/kWh in 1980 to between
$0.05 and $0.06 today.\3\ Despite this dramatic decrease, there is
still plenty of room for further reductions that will be critical for
wind energy to compete in an environment of very low electricity costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Black and Veatch, ``20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the
United States'' (October 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, more work is necessary. Wind power is still constrained by
difficulties in market acceptance and the need for improvements in
cost, performance, and reliability. DOE's 20-percent wind energy by
2030 report assumes that capital costs must be reduced by 10 percent
and that turbine efficiency must increase by 15 percent to reach the
goal of providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind by
2030. The DOE report identifies a need for continued Federal investment
in wind RD&D by stating, ``In a functional sense, wind turbines now
stand roughly where the U.S. automotive fleet stood in 1940''.\4\ As
our Nation turns to wind power to meet more of its energy needs, it is
important for DOE to increase funding to improve wind turbine
reliability and reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030''
(July 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving 20 percent of U.S. electric power from wind, with the
critical help of RD&D, would:
--Create 500,000 jobs, generating more than $1 trillion in economic
impact by 2030;
--Reduce natural gas demand by approximately 7 billion cubic feet/
day--nearly one-half of the current consumption in the electric
sector;
--Decrease natural gas prices by approximately 12 percent, saving
consumers approximately $128 billion;
--Avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the electric
sector in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent of expected electric
sector emissions; and
--Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 17
percent in 2030 (one-third of which would come from the arid
West).
The DOE Wind Energy Program currently receives approximately $79
million annually. In comparison, the RD&D budgets for many other
traditional and emerging energy sources are much higher. Non-defense
nuclear RD&D energy programs receive $775 million, coal programs
receive about $383 million, and solar and biomass energy receive $243
million and $216 million, respectively. These are historic imbalances
in funding that date back to the 1970s. A higher Federal funding level
for wind energy RD&D will help ensure that wind energy remains
competitive with other forms of energy.
SPECIFIC WIND INDUSTRY PRIORITIES
Each year AWEA and its member companies identify the RD&D
priorities that will most effectively help realize the vision of
providing 20 percent of America's electricity from wind by 2030. The
following four areas are the wind industry's top priorities in addition
to the funding that has already been requested in the President's
budget.
Integration of Variable Power Resources
The integration of variable power sources, such as wind power, into
the electrical grid is a key area of focus for meeting the 20 percent
by 2030 wind energy goal. The systems integration program area focuses
on the operations issues of integrating variable, nondispatchable power
sources into the power system. Numerous studies from the United States
and Europe (with significant involvement from DOE-funded experts) have
shown that even minor changes to power system operations can
accommodate much greater amounts of wind.
Unfortunately, the DOE budget request justification includes a
reduction in funding for renewable systems interconnection from $14 to
$3.9 million. The current funding level should be preserved.
Advanced Technology Components
Advanced technology components, from drive trains to blades to
towers to controls and sensors, have enormous potential to drive down
the cost and increase the reliability of all future wind turbine
systems, not just those located offshore. Such advancements can be
accelerated and stimulated by DOE, especially as industry deals with
the current downturn in wind turbine installations. With continued and
accelerated advancement, studies show that onshore wind turbine
installations in the United States over the next decade can approach
150 gigawatts (enough to generate roughly 10 percent of U.S.
electricity). The reduction in the utility-scale R&D testing budget
line item indicates a reduced emphasis on these important technologies,
which instead should be receiving greater attention.
Wind energy is now cost competitive with virtually every other
energy source and technology advancements can drive the cost down even
more. Already, these technology advances have enabled a typical modern
wind turbine to produce 15 times more electricity than the typical
turbine in 1990, but further improvements are needed to meet the 20-
percent goal by 2030.
Siting Issues
The DOE 20-percent report also identified siting issues as a
potential barrier to achieving that level of deployment. To address
these issues, the wind energy industry invests millions of dollars
every year in research related to the interactions between wind energy
and wildlife, including through a variety of collaborative efforts
involving Federal and State officials, as well as conservation
organizations. However, given the importance of resolving siting
issues, including wildlife-related concerns, to the future of the
industry, it is necessary and appropriate for DOE to support such
efforts as well. AWEA recommends devoting $1 million of the DOE R&D
budget to supporting research on wind energy and wildlife interactions.
Wind Resource Characterization
Discrepancies between the projected and actual performance of wind
facilities illustrate the urgent and continuing need for improved wind
resource characterization methods (modeling and measurements). These
methods include micrositing to reduce wind turbine wake losses and to
optimize large wind farm array layouts. These key areas can be
addressed in the short term to reduce the cost of energy. The DOE
fiscal year 2012 budget justification includes an increase from $5.7 to
$7.1 million for this area of research. AWEA endorses this funding
increase.
CONCLUSION
The President and the Congress have called for a bolder commitment
to the development of domestic energy resources to meet our Nation's
growing energy demand. Continued investments in wind energy RD&D are
delivering value for taxpayers by fostering the development of a
domestic energy source that strengthens our national security, provides
rural economic development, spurs new high-tech jobs, and protects the
environment.
While the wind industry continues adding new generation capacity,
challenges still exist. Continued support for DOE's Wind Energy Program
is vital to helping wind become a more prominent energy source, which
will benefit the economy and environment. To ensure that funding levels
are commensurate with our Nation's need for more domestic energy, AWEA
urges the subcommittee to provide $144.2 million for the Wind Energy
Program in fiscal year 2012. Along with other key Federal policies,
both new and sustained, greater RD&D funding through DOE will help
transform the 20-percent wind vision into a reality.
AWEA appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on DOE's
fiscal year 2012 Wind Energy Program budget before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We thank
the subcommittee for its time and attention to our request.
______
Prepared Statement of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes the elimination of
funding for the Oil and Gas Research and Development Program at the
Department of Energy (DOE), as well as a request for legislation to
repeal section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which has created
a valuable public/private partnership to maximize the value of domestic
energy resources.
At this time, when the security of foreign energy sources is
questionable and the high price of imported energy is damaging the U.S.
economy, responsible development of domestic resources is a winning
proposition for the citizens of the United States. The United States
has vast resources of clean natural gas locked in shale and other tight
formations, as well as substantial gas and liquid reserves located
offshore in waters too deep for economic production with current
technology. Alternative (nonhydrocarbon) energy sources will not make a
significant contribution to the Nation's energy supply for the next 10
to 20 years, so our Nation's energy security depends on our ability to
develop the natural gas resources in a safe and environmentally
responsible fashion.
The U.S. oil and gas industry is unparalleled in its ability to
solve the tough engineering problems associated with oil and gas
production in challenging environments around the world, but the
economic development of domestic shale gas and other challenging
resources requires the development of basic scientific knowledge and
novel engineering concepts that are best accomplished in partnership
between industry and the research establishment in the United States.
The Oil and Gas Research and Development Program in DOE is a hallmark
of such a partnership. For example, the program was crucial in bringing
a resource such as coalbed methane from marginally economic status to
the state of development where it makes a significant contribution to
the Nation's gas supply, and attracts industry investment without
Government subsidy.
The Nation needs this type of research and development investment
in today's marginally economic resources in order to develop the
technology that will attract tomorrow's industry investment and ensure
secure domestic sources for critical energy needs in the near future.
Now is definitely not the time to eliminate funding for the Oil and Gas
Research and Development Program at DOE.
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Dr.
Lloyd R. (Bob) Lawrence, Jr., and I am president of Bob Lawrence &
Associates, Inc., a consulting firm in Alexandria, Virginia. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss a key
infrastructure problem facing our Nation, our electric grid; and a key
solution, Advanced Conductor Technology. Specifically, I wish to
discuss two key technological solutions for major grid problems, one
solution being composite conductor technology, and the second solution
being High Temperature Superconductor technology. During the past 7 or
8 years, these two technologies, together, have been funded at an
annual level of about $25 million. For reasons that are not clearly
explained or understood, the fiscal year 2012 request suggests zeroing
out the promising technology advances in these areas. I am here to
request that the subcommittee restore Advanced Conductor Technology to
a reduced but needed level of $20 million.
As you are aware, the backbone of the grid consists of many
thousands of miles of transmission lines, virtually all of which are
based on steel core conductors, which are cables constructed with steel
cores for strength, and wrapped with heavy, aluminum wires which carry
the electric current. Much of the Nation's electric grid is 40 to 50
years old, and is in need of modernization and/or expansion to meet the
growing electrical needs of the country, and the modern need for ultra
high reliability to service our computer fleet and modern manufacturing
processes.
The Congressional Budget Request for the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) states that the request is ``OE's
leadership in developing `next generation' electric grid technologies,
tools, and techniques.'' Further, the request states that ``today's
electric grid was designed and constructed in the last century before
cell phones, personal computers, and the Internet.'' And ``society's
changing needs have pushed an aging and sometimes congested grid to its
operating limits.'' Finally, ``A modern electric grid is critical to
meeting the Nation's energy, environmental, and security goals.''
The request states, unequivocally, that; ``Without the development
and deployment of `next generation' electric transmission,
distribution, and customer technologies, the grid could become a
barrier to the adoption of cleaner energy supplies and more efficient
demand-side measures.''
All that being said, the OE request is for $237,717,000, none of
which is for research and development on advanced conductors, the basic
structure of the grid.
One solution which has shown extraordinary success, with additional
promise, is the ``composite core'' technology. In this case, the steel
core of conventional cable is replaced with a composite core providing
for higher-temperature operation, with lower sag, and higher
conductivity. The composite, itself, can be one of a number of
different materials, individually chosen for its individual properties.
The most successful to date, developed under a joint Department of
Energy-Industry program is the Aluminum Matrix Technology composite
core, also known as Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced. With a
one-for-one replacement against conventional, steel core technology,
the composite core has shown a doubling of electricity carrying
capacity, with the same sized cable. This, then, allows for the
doubling of capacity in critical transmission lines without needing any
additional rights-of-way or additional tower structures. This provides
huge environmental and permitting advantages, substantially lower cost
of increased capacity, and a much shorter time from concept to
operation. The producer of this modern grid option just celebrated the
1,000th mile of commercial production and installation of ACCR. Due to
the substantial ratepayer benefits demonstrated to date, further
research in the composite conductor area is a productive and logical
path to follow.
A second solution, which will take additional time for broad entry
into the electrical marketplace, is High Temperature Superconductivity,
also known as HTS. Twenty years ago, laboratory scientists were
ecstatic when a small, centimeter-squared wafer of HTS material could
be shown to conduct electricity, without resistance, at the temperature
of liquid helium. Today, according to the OE budget request, the
technology has come to the point where HTS laboratories have
``Demonstrated consistent production of second generation, High
Temperature Superconductivity wire (greater than 300 meters long), with
70,000 ampere-meters critical current-length. Madam Chairman, I first
worked on a Government grant in a University laboratory in the fall of
1964, nearly 47 years ago. I have been involved in Research and
Development all my life. When you see a technology move forward,
continuously, such as the HTS technology continues to move, it is not
logical to cut it off and end its forward motion, when it promises such
substantial benefits. Worst of all, you will lose the experience,
knowledge, and corporate memories of the researchers and engineers who
work on the technology, because they will be on to something else. You
need to provide the funds to keep the present teams together.
HTS technology will have its first grid applications in high-
capacity, underground transmission cables, Fault Current Limiters, and
transformers. Additional benefits will come from the smaller
``footprint'' required to provide HTS substations. The first grid
application is likely to be underneath our electrically congested
cities, where HTS transmission and distribution cables can provide much
higher electrical capacity in the same electrical conduits presently
occupied by conventional technology.
In short, it is in the strong public interest to continue the
Advanced Cables and Conductors program, addressing both composite
technologies and high temperature superconductors, at a reduced level
of $20 million for fiscal year 2012.
I thank you for your attention to this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies
Honorable Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and
members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit
this testimony to your subcommittee on behalf of the Center for
Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST). The center is a consortium of
five universities with strong programs in energy and minerals
resources. I and the representatives of the member universities
participating in the consortium as listed--Richard A. Bajura--West
Virginia University; Rick Q. Honaker--University of Kentucky; Peter H.
Knudsen--Montana Tech of the University of Montana; and Jan D. Miller--
University of Utah--are writing this testimony to request that your
subcommittee appropriate research funding for advanced separations as
part of the Fuels Program, Fossil Energy Research and Development,
Department of Energy (DOE). The advanced separations research is
mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, title IX, subtitle F,
section 962.
In 2010, the U.S. mining industry produced coal and mineral
concentrates with a sales value of $107.5 billion at the mine mouth.
These raw materials were used to produce approximately 50 percent of
the Nation's electricity and various mineral materials worth $578
billion. According to the 2011 Mineral Commodity Summary published by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the value-added mineral materials
contributed $2.1 billion to the Nation's economy, which accounted for
14.4 percent of GDP. Further, some of the mineral materials produced by
the U.S. mining industry are of strategic importance to the development
of renewable energy resources and the defense industry. Despite the
importance of the mining industry, there are no federally funded
research and development (R&D) programs that help the industry to do
better in meeting the environmental regulations and the national needs.
I would like to address two major issues the U.S. mining industry
is facing today. One concerns with the coal industry complying with the
Clean Water Act, and the other is developing domestic mineral resources
to supply the rare earth elements (REE) for the energy and defense
industries.
In 2009, the United States produced 1.07 billion tons of coal, with
55 percent of which produced in the Western United States and 45
percent in the East. The bulk of the mined coal in the East is washed
in water to remove mineral matter impurities. Burning coal as mined
incurs a high cost of shipping and produces large amounts of ash,
SO2, mercury, and other undesirable elements. Most of the
mineral matter is removed at mine sites, and the efficiency of cleaning
coal is high for the coarse coal, which is larger than approximately
0.15 mm in size. However, cleaning finer coal becomes more costly and
difficult, causing some operators to discard the finer size fraction
despite the fact that the fine coal refuse contains recoverable coal.
Some companies recover part of the fine coal using the process known as
flotation, while discarding ultrafine coal smaller than 0.044 mm in
size. A recent congressionally directed study conducted by the National
Research Council (NRC) showed that 70-90 million tons of fine refuse is
being discarded to 713 active slurry and fresh water impoundments in
the United States. Assuming that 30-40 million tons of the refuse is
recoverable coal, the dollar value of the coal wasted in this manner is
estimated to be $2-$2.6 billion per year.
A study conducted by DOE in the 1980s showed that approximately 2-
2.5 billion tons of fine coal has been discarded over the years to
numerous impoundments. The total amounts may be close to 4 billion tons
by now as the coal industry continued to discard the ultrafine coal
since the DOE report was written, and the coal production has also been
steadily increasing. Assuming that roughly one-third of this amount is
recoverable, the dollar value of the coal discarded in the existing
impoundments may exceed $100 billion.
Some companies discard the fine coal slurry to underground mine
workings, while others store it in large impoundments. There are
several citizens groups in the Appalachian coal fields opposing to
these practices by citing violation of the Clean Water Act. Some groups
contend that the fine coal impoundments represent the worst form of
valley-fill mining. To address these issues, the West Virginia
legislature is debating legislation. If the legislature bans permits
for new impoundments or mandates elimination of impoundments by law,
the cost of producing coal would rise significantly and can adversely
affect the Nation's economy.
A better alternative would be a technological solution. CAST has
been developing advanced technologies that can be used to help
companies eliminate the problem at the source, i.e., stop discarding
fine coal to impoundments or injecting it into old underground
workings, and further to recover the coal from existing impoundments. A
series of advanced technologies has already been developed, which
include the MicrocelTM flotation column, dewatering aids,
and hyperbaric centrifuge, all of which are marketed commercially under
appropriate license agreements. The hyperbaric centrifuge was tested at
pilot scale in 2009, and the successful test results have been reported
in a DOE Fossil Energy Techline report on February 9, 2010. Encouraged
by the test results, a first full-scale unit was tested successfully in
February 2010, in Alabama, and the results have been reported in the
Techline again on January 4, 2011. On the basis of the successful test
results, the company has installed additional units for commercial use.
It is believed that other companies will follow the suite.
The hyperbaric centrifuge described above is an advanced dewatering
technology. It is useful for separating spent water from clean coal;
however it is not designed to remove mineral matter from ultrafine
coal. Therefore, CAST has been developing a new technology that can
remove both mineral matter and water simultaneously, so that it can be
used to recover coal from the fine coal refuse that has been deposited
in impoundments. Laboratory experiments conducted on ultrafine refuse
samples consisting of particles that are finer than 0.044 mm showed
that this new process can be used to reduce the ash contents to 3-4
percent by weight and the moisture contents to 1-2 percent by weight,
with 94-98-percent coal recoveries. An international patent application
has been filed on the basis of the laboratory test results. It is
necessary, however, that scale-up tests be conducted at 1-3 tons/hour
capacity before the technology can be commercialized.
With the remaining pages of this testimony, I would like to address
the needs for R&D funding to develop advanced separation technologies
that can be used to recover minerals containing REE from domestic
resources. China produced 55,000 metric tons of the rare earth oxides
(REO) in 2009, which accounted for 97 percent of the world production.
Recently, the Chinese Government announced that it would impose
production and export quotas for the REO. This new policy created
serious concerns in the United States and many other countries that
have been relying on the Chinese export of the rare earths. As shown in
the CRS report for the Congress (R41744), REEs are critical elements
for the manufacture of the world's strongest permanent magnets, which
are essential components of various military weapons systems such as
precision-guided missiles, smart bombs, aircrafts, etc.
The United States used to be the world's largest producer of REE
during 1960s and 1980s. Due to the high cost (mainly labor) of
production, and the stringent environmental constraints, the production
shifted gradually to China. However, the United States still has 13
billion metric tons of reserves. The major rare earth minerals in the
United States are basinasite ((Ce,La,Y)CO3F) and monazite
((Ce,La,Y,Th)PO4) that are recovered by flotation. In China,
the ores containing these minerals are in the range of 4-7 percent,
which are increased to 50 to 70 percent by flotation. The basinasite
and monazite concentrates are then treated chemically to extract
different REOs and rare earth metals.
As is well known, REEs are not rare. In average, they are more
abundant than copper and silver except that they do not occur in
concentrated forms, making it difficult to mine economically. Further,
the mineral grains are very small, usually smaller than 0.074 mm, which
also contributes to the high costs of separation (or processing). In
the United States, the mineable rare earth deposits are found in
Mountain Pass, California; Bear Lodge, Wyoming; Diamond Creek, Idaho;
Elk Creek, Nebraska; Lemhi Pass, Idaho-Montana; and also in South and
North Carolina.
The key technology that is currently used to separate rare earth
minerals from associated gangue minerals is flotation, which is also
used for the separating mineral matter from coal and for the separation
of one mineral from another in the mining industry. The
MicrocelTM flotation technology, which has been developed by
CAST and is used commercially in the coal and base metals industries,
can also be used for the separation of rare earth minerals. What is of
critical importance in the flotation separation of these uncommon
minerals is the control of surface chemistry of the minerals involved.
If your subcommittee appropriates research and development funding for
the fiscal year 2012, CAST can develop reagents that can facilitate the
beneficiation of domestic rare earth mineral resources.
CAST has also developed a mathematical model for flotation in
general. Unlike other models developed to date, it is based on first
principles. Therefore, it has predictive and diagnostic capabilities.
If funding becomes available, a model-based computer simulator will be
developed for applications to the separation of rare earth minerals.
As noted above, CAST has developed a novel separation process for
fine coal cleaning, in which both mineral matter and water can be
separated simultaneously from coal. This process is more selective than
flotation, particularly for the separation of fine particles. This
process can be further developed to recover rare earth minerals.
CAST is a premiere research center for developing advanced
separation technologies for the minerals and coal industries. Many of
the technologies developed at the center are commercially used in the
industry. Some of the technologies developed more recently will be able
to help the coal industry stop the practice of discarding fine coal to
the environment and at the same time maximize the utilization of a
valuable energy resource. Further, they can also be used to recover
coal from the 4 billion tons of fine refuse that has been discarded in
numerous impoundments and thereby create jobs. CAST also has acquired
expertise to develop separation technologies that can be used to
produce REE from domestic resources, so that the United States can
continue developing renewable energy resources and secure the defense
industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
INTRODUCTION
This statement is submitted on behalf of the membership of the Coal
Utilization Research Council (CURC), an organization of coal-using
utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, universities and
institutions of higher learning, and several State government entities
interested and involved in the use of coal resources and the
development of coal-based technologies.\1\ Members of CURC have
developed, together with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
a Technology Roadmap that defines a research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) program that focuses upon the rapid development of
cost-effective advanced coal and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
technologies (www.coal.org) and the recommendations discussed in this
testimony are keyed off this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several members of CURC are not-for-profit organizations
designated as such for Federal tax law purposes. Such organizations are
prohibited in whole or in part from undertaking advocacy activities
with respect to Federal Government appropriations. This written
statement could be construed as such an activity. Membership
contributions made to CURC by these organizations are not used for
these advocacy purposes; rather such contributions are utilized to
undertake analyses and other educational activities as provided by
CURC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT'S FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
The President recently announced his intent to launch a program
aimed at achieving domestic energy security by increasing the
production of America's domestic energy resources, and by producing
them in a manner consistent with responsible stewardship of the
environment. In order to fuel our recovering economy and ensure jobs
are created, coal must be a part of the President's program. In turn,
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy RD&D program is
fundamental to ensuring coal will play a vital role in our Nation's
energy future.
The Department's coal RD&D program seeks to develop more efficient
and cleaner advanced coal technologies, including technologies to
capture and store CO2 emissions from the use of coal. The
Department's program has a proven track record of partnering with
industry to overcome the challenges of using coal and controlling its
emissions. The proof of this successful partnership is evidenced by the
fact that since the inception of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the use of
coal in this country has increased by more than 200 percent while the
emissions of criteria pollutants has decreased by an average of 88
percent. This success is largely attributable to our Nation's
continuing investments in the RD&D of clean-coal technologies.
Similarly, the actual tons of coal used in the United States are
expected to increase over the next several decades. The challenge is to
accompany these increases in coal use with the development of
technologies to address environmental concerns at lower and lower
overall costs. Successful technology investments will enable the Nation
to continue to reap the economic and energy security benefits
associated with use of our most abundant domestic fossil fuel resource
in a manner that is respectful of the environment. It also means that
the United States will retain technology leadership in the use of coal
and this can mean exporting products, growing jobs, and assuring that
developing economies that use coal will have access to technologies
that assure a low carbon and overall environmental footprint.
COMMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RELATED TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET
REQUEST
The programs administered and supported through the Department's
Fossil Energy office have been distinguished by efforts to foster
partnerships with industry RD&D efforts, as well as a broad spectrum of
university research organizations. These programs between industry,
government, and the academic community have enabled participants to
actively engage in each part of the technology development chain from
basic research to applied research and development (R&D), and
culminating in large-scale technology demonstrations and early
commercial deployment. During the past several years, a principal focus
of the DOE's coal R&D program has been the capture and storage of
carbon dioxide. CURC members have participated in the DOE CCS related
activity, and will continue to support that RD&D. However, the Nation
faces additional energy and environmental challenges which would also
be amenable to collaborative coal-related RD&D by Government and the
private sector, and these challenges may be more immediate that the
climate challenge. We recommend greater balance between support for
CCS-related activities and other coal-related RD&D, as set forth below.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that coal will
continue to provide more than 40 percent of our Nation's electricity in
2035. And yet, despite the enormous contributions that the Department's
Fossil Energy program has made to the development and successful
commercialization of clean-coal technologies, the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget recommends a 30-percent decrease in funding from
fiscal year 2010 levels. Understanding the shared desire to constrain
discretionary spending, we believe that it would be counterproductive
to reduce Federal investment which results in lower-cost electricity
and increased competitiveness of American goods. At a minimum, CURC
recommends that the budget be maintained at the fiscal year 2010 level
of $400 million for the coal R&D program, and that additional resources
be appropriated to put us in a position to conduct second-generation
technology demonstrations by 2016.
Department of Energy Proposal To Restructure the Coal Research,
Development, and Demonstration Program
CURC believes that the proposed restructuring of the DOE coal RD&D
program provides more transparency on the types of activities that are
under the portfolio of each program area, and provides specific
recommendations on those programs as proposed under the fiscal year
2012 budget restructuring:
Demonstrations
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--For the third consecutive year, the
administration did not request funding for large-scale
demonstrations of advanced coal technology on the basis of
funding provided by the Recovery Act for Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) Round III. As with other new and emerging
technologies supported by the Department, support cannot be
discontinued with this limited number of demonstration
projects. A sustained and expanded demonstration program is
integral to the commercialization of advanced coal and CCS
technologies. In its proposed program plan, the Department
suggests that CCPI Round IV must be initiated in 2016 if the
programmatic goal of demonstrating second-generation
technologies by 2020 is to be achieved. Incremental funding for
the CCPI IV program must be provided in the fiscal year 2012
budget, and each year thereafter, in order to initiate a CCPI
Round IV program in 2016.
FutureGen.--Funding for FutureGen has been made available through
the Recovery Act. CURC reiterates its support for this project
as an important and necessary step in the demonstration of an
integrated CCS system. This type of government-supported
project is vital to make CCS a commercial reality.
Power Systems Research and Development
Carbon Storage
CURC recommends an increase of $10 million more than the
President's request for a total of $125.5 million. This increase
corresponds with the funding recommended in the CURC-EPRI roadmap and
will allow for the Phase III Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
tests to proceed as planned, and will allow a reasonably robust set of
projects to be selected in the current small-scale-test funding
opportunity announcement. The program should emphasize beneficial use
of carbon dioxide for hydrocarbon recovery to accelerate the
development of the infrastructure needed to permit full-scale
deployment of CCS in the future.
Advanced Energy Systems
Advanced Combustion Systems.--This program should support
development of technologies that increase the efficiency of
coal conversion to energy and contribute to reducing the costs
of carbon capture from combustion-based power generation, for
both new and existing steam powerplants. CURC recommends that
the budget be increased by $20 million (for a total of $30.7
million) in fiscal year 2012 as follows:
--Restore the materials budget for ultrasupercritical (USC) (high
temperature and pressure) boilers/steam turbines back to $5
million. Without an increase, this program will be phased
out and there will be no path forward toward a highly
efficient, USC demonstration plant in the United States.
Without DOE completing this program, the United States will
lag behind India, China, and Japan on technology and
competitiveness.
--Add $5 million for efficiency and heat rate improvements (beyond
just higher-steam temperature conditions) for both existing
and advanced plants. Efficiency improvements are a
fundamental step toward zero emission power and contribute
toward reduced conventional emissions, reduced
CO2 emissions, and lower cost CO2
capture systems.
--Increase the Advanced Combustion Systems budget for oxy-firing
systems by $10 million. The proposed fiscal year 2012
budget is well below the CURC-EPRI Roadmap and inadequate
to fund both continuing oxy-fired projects plus a new
funding opportunity that will focus on second-generation
oxy-fired technologies.
Gasification Systems.\2\--DOE studies have shown that integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture has the
potential to achieve a cost of electricity at parity with
current new coal generation without CCS. Achieving this goal
requires:
--technology improvements that reduce the parasitic losses of
carbon capture;
--reduction of IGCC base cost through advanced modeling and
construction techniques; and
--increasing gasifier availability to 90 percent.
The proposed fiscal year 2012 budget reduction will add years and
uncertainty to the schedules for validation and commercial
availability of currently identified improvements, and it does
not provide funding for new solicitations needed to advance
technology innovations. CURC recommends that the fiscal year
2012 gasification systems budget be increased by $26 million,
for a funding total of $64.9 million, to support new RD&D
opportunities that improve gasifier availability ($10 million);
achieve major cost reductions ($10 million); and improve cost
and performance for gasification-based coal conversion to
chemicals and fuels ($6 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is also important to note that advances in this area not
only support advanced IGCC, but support all gasification programs in
general, including industrial gasification, biomass gasification,
hydrogen and fertilizer production, SNG, and coal-to-liquids programs
and to these ends this program should encompass the concept of advanced
gasification technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Turbines.--CURC recommends that the Advanced Turbine
program be increased by $17.4 million for a total of $32
million. The Department has been partnering with industry to
develop the latest generation of advanced gas turbines (the
``G'' and ``H'' class of turbines), but these turbines are not
yet ready to meet the demands of IGCC plants with high levels
of CO2 capture. Reduced funding in the last few
years has delayed progress and jeopardized DOE's goal of
developing advanced turbines capable of improving the total
efficiency of an IGCC plant by 5 percentage points by 2015. The
proposed reductions to the turbine budget will lead to an even
more significant delay in meeting the 2015 targets. These gas
turbine technologies will be at risk of not being ready for the
next CCPI demonstration program opportunity; thereby, extending
the availability of critical technologies to help lower the
cost of IGCC well into the next decade.
Fuels.--Although the President's budget proposes to cut this
program, CURC recommends the addition of $20 million to
continue coal conversion RD&D under the fuels program. In 2008,
we spent $388 billion on imported petroleum products, or 57
percent of our balance-of-trade deficit. Production of liquid
transportation fuels from 60-percent coal and 40-percent
biomass could provide 3 million barrels per day of gasoline
equivalent by 2020. This program would create new jobs through
increased coal production, operating coal-to-liquid plants in
widely dispersed geographic locations, and bolster our
national, energy, and economic security through producing
indigenous fuels. Coal plus biomass fuels meet the requirements
of the Energy Policy Act of 2007 and have been shown to be net
carbon sinks regarding carbon emissions. Funding should be
directed toward simulation modeling and pilot plant testing on
eastern, mid-content, and western coals, biomass
characterization and feeding, and transformational research to
reduce the energy penalty costs of conversion processes and
plant capital costs which are currently a deterrent to
implementation coal to liquids technologies.
Carbon Capture
Postcombustion Capture.--CURC agrees with the administration's
request for fiscal year 2012 of $55.5 million for this program.
However, funding should also target concepts at pilot scale as
well as lab scale. In this program, DOE should also consider
the development of technologies that capitalize on the use of
hardware being installed or planned for other uses at existing
facilities and that seek to co-benefit emission reductions that
may achieve capture levels of less than 90 percent from flue
gas streams. Technologies that have the ability to achieve
incremental reductions at lower costs of electricity should be
considered as part of the broader CCS goals of the DOE program.
Pre-Combustion Capture.--CURC agrees with the administration's
request for fiscal year 2012 of $13.4 million for this program.
Likewise for pre-combustion capture, funding should be robust
and target concepts at pilot scale as well as lab-scale.
Cross-Cutting Research
CURC recommends that funding for the Cross-Cutting Research program
be increased by $15.4 million (for a total of $54.15 million) to
support the following activities that will develop the next generation
of advanced coal plants:
--increase the budget for high-performance materials research from
$0.973 to $5 million in order to support development of new
high-temperature and pressure materials that will allow coal
plants to generate electricity much more efficiently and,
therefore, reduce overall emissions of both criteria pollutants
and greenhouse gas emissions;
--increase funding for university coal research from $2.4 to $4.8
million to ensure there is a foundation for innovation with our
university partners in developing advanced coal technologies;
and
--provide $5 million in funding for a water management research
program to develop technologies that reduce water consumption
for powerplant cooling.
The new emphasis upon computational modeling in the DOE program is
conceptually attractive as a means to evaluate different concepts that
are being developed in the coal research program, and could be useful
in moving those technologies from basic research into scalable
component technologies. Modeling is also useful in directing attention
to targeted areas where further engineering research is needed to solve
operational problems. While modeling may be successful in reducing the
amount of time and funding required to develop, demonstrate and deploy
technology, modeling simply cannot replace practical applications and
demonstrations of the technology. Members of CURC do not believe that
modeling and simulation programs should serve as surrogates in lieu of
demonstrations at any scale that provide real operating results. CURC
is supportive of efforts to fund the development of computational
models if the budget is robust enough to fund all of the priorities
identified in this testimony, but CURC does not believe funding should
be provided at the expense of funding other R&D and demonstration
activities.
Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program
The DOE loan guarantee program is one of several important tools
that act to reduce the large cost penalty associated with the
installation of first-of-a-kind advanced coal systems with CCS. Other
tools, such as the Department's CCPI demonstration program, as well as
investment tax incentives and CO2 sequestration credits, are
also necessary and equally as important, as these financial assistance
programs must in some cases be used in combination in order to bring
down the cost of first of a kind projects and/or provide different
value to different business models, and therefore some tools may be
used over others for specific projects and entities. CURC recommends
that additional authority for fossil energy projects be provided in the
fiscal year 2012 budget to ensure this tool is available to support the
deployment of new fossil-based projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association
The Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA) is submitting written
testimony to express our concern with the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request to eliminate funding for the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Oil and Gas Research and Development Program (R&D program). COGA
is worried that defunding a program designed to ensure the United
States is able to take full advantage of clean and abundant domestic
energy sources will curtail innovative technology, slow economic
recovery, and increase our dependence on foreign energy sources.
COGA is a Colorado nonprofit corporation formed to foster and
promote the beneficial, efficient, responsible and environmentally
sound development, production, and use of Colorado oil and natural gas.
Colorado's oil and gas industry contributes to the economic recovery by
supporting more than 190,000 jobs for families and much-needed revenues
for State and local governments while providing Americans with clean,
safe, affordable, and abundant domestic energy sources. The
ramifications of defunding the R&D program will be felt across the
Nation, including Colorado which has recently had vast amounts of
extractable resources become economical because of technological
innovation.
Since the late 1970s the DOE has engaged in research and
development for oil and gas, making valuable contributions to
development of our vast domestic energy resources. DOE projects have
achieved success in increasing exploration and production; addressing
environmental protection through reduction of environmental impacts;
and in the development of ``game changing'' technology such as fuel
cells, gas turbines, and infrastructure improvements. Projects funded
through the R&D program are essential to promote efficiency and
responsibility in the extraction of our natural resources. Without
adequate investment, domestic development of innovative technology will
be hindered and further benefits go unrealized.
The market alone will not drive technological and environmental
innovations in the oil and gas industry. While many of the ``majors''
(large companies with refining and marketing capabilities) engage in
research and development, the reality is that 90 percent of all oil and
gas wells are owned by independents (operations primarily dedicated to
exploration and production). Although varied in size, the vast majority
of independents do not have the resources to engage in research and
development. Thus, without economic encouragement industry research and
development is likely to yield lesser benefits.
Additionally, the R&D program is essential in promoting cleaner and
more environmentally friendly ways to extract oil and gas resources.
Many independents lack the resources to pursue these R&D endeavors,
thus technology to mitigate potential environmental disturbances is
unlikely to reach its full potential.
Increasing domestic oil and natural gas production will result in
increased support for independent producers, less reliance on imported
oil, and increased government revenues from royalties and taxes. We
believe that our tremendous domestic oil and natural gas reserves
provide a significant opportunity for the United States to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil while reducing environmental impacts
associated with energy development. But to do this, we need to work
together in developing technology to ensure we have the energy to power
our future. Thus, COGA respectfully urges the subcommittee to
reconsider the proposed defunding of the DOE Oil and Gas Research and
Development Program.
______
Prepared Statement of Cummins Inc.
Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana, is a corporation
of complementary business units that design, manufacture, distribute
and service engines and related technologies, including fuel systems,
controls, air handling, filtration, emission solutions, and electrical
power-generation systems. The funding requests outlined below are
critically important to Cummins' research and development efforts and
would also represent a sound Federal investment toward a cleaner
environment and improved energy efficiency for our Nation. We request
that the subcommittee fund the programs as identified below.
OFFICE OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Development.--Increase the
request of $49 million by $20 million to bring the program total to $69
million in fiscal year 2012, $56 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 2010. Two important areas of research included in the Advanced
Combustion Engine research and development (R&D) are:
--the development of more energy-efficient technologies for diesel
and gas engines, which will contribute to petroleum use
reduction; and
--the development of robust engineering design tools for large-scale
computational combustion analysis to develop cost-effective and
-efficient combustion engines.
Light duty trucks continue to be a large segment of the surface
transportation fleet. The Department of Energy launched the Advanced
Power Train (APT) light duty (LD) initiative to reduce fuel consumption
in this sector. The goal of the APT-LD program is to deliver cost-
competitive technologies for a standard light duty pickup truck which
can achieve at least a 40-percent improvement in fuel economy over the
state-of-the-art gasoline engines while meeting Tier 2 Bin 2 tailpipe
emissions (the same emissions standard required for gasoline powered
vehicles). Class 2a trucks consume nearly 3.9 million oil barrels/day
of petroleum fuel. A fuel efficiency enhancement of 40 percent can
reduce petroleum consumption by 1.5 million oil barrels/day. This
enhancement will provide energy security by lowering petroleum imports,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the trade deficit. Innovative high-
risk technologies, such as low-temperature combustion, variable-valve
actuation and closed-loop selective catalytic reduction controls are
planned under this project. The funding increase will address
significant technology hurdles in the areas of on-board diagnostics,
parasitic loss reduction, after-treatment requirements, and the use of
renewable fuels. Without the increased funding, research activities
would be significantly limited. We understand the President's budget
would provide $10 million in funding for the APT-LD program. We believe
$15 million is needed in this area to adequately cover all R&D
activities.
Advanced Computing, a large-scale computational simulation
initiative, is targeted at achieving cost-effective means for even
greater fuel efficiency; 60-percent thermal efficiency engines. Models
will be developed for advanced chemical kinetics, computational fluid
dynamics and large eddy simulations. These models will simulate
advanced combustion regimes, transient events and cycle-to-cycle
variability. Development of better solver algorithms will minimize
cycle-to-cycle variations and more rapid optimization of overall
engine.
These projects are in line with the administrations investment in
clean-energy technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil. We
understand the Department of Energy (DOE) intends to allocate $15
million out of the Advanced Combustion Engine budget to fund Advanced
Computing. We support this allocation. However, adequate funds do not
exist with Advanced Combustion Engine to cover this activity.
Therefore, we are requesting and additional $15 million in funding to
cover these important activities.
OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Industries of the Future (Crosscutting)/Next-Generation
Manufacturing Processes, Combined Heat and Power Generation --Advanced
Reciprocating Engine Systems.--The Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Generation budget line includes the important Advanced Reciprocating
Engine Systems (ARES) program funded at approximately $10 million in
fiscal year 2012. We request that ARES program funding be increased by
$3 million to $13 million in fiscal year 2012. The ARES program is an
important component of distributed generation and has applications in
CHP. The objective of this industry cost-shared program is to develop
high-efficiency, low-emissions, and cost-effective technologies for
stationary engine systems (500-6,500 kW) that can use natural gas or
domestic renewable resources ``opportunity'' fuels. Natural gas-fueled
reciprocating engine powerplants are preferred for point-of-use power
generation, low-operating costs, and reliability. Opportunity fuels can
be renewable fuels (e.g., landfill gases) which exhibit low BTU, lower
methane number, and varying gas composition. Their use reduces the
dependence on high-quality pipeline natural gas. Technologies sponsored
by the ARES program have demonstrated 47-percent engine efficiency (a
20-40-percent increase from the baseline engines), higher-power
densities than current products, with an expected reduction in life-
cycle costs and GHG emissions. Recent technology advances include
advanced ignition systems, analytical tools for optimum combustion and
prediction of onset of knock in a field test generator set. The funding
increase in the fiscal year 2012 budget will support advanced
technology challenges including combustion enhancements with low BTU
and methane gases, nitrogen oxides (NOX) reductions,
advanced sensors and controls, hardware durability, and lower life-
cycle costs. The development of distributed power generation supports
national energy security needs, improves protection of critical
infrastructure and decreases dependence on the national electrical grid
system through point-of-use energy production.
INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE (CROSSCUTTING)/NEXT-GENERATION MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES, COMBINED HEAT AND POWER
Support the Request of $25 Million in Fiscal Year 2012.--$24.7
million was appropriated in fiscal year 2010. This project is to
develop a flexible CHP system which can be deployed in commercial and
light industrial (100-500kW) applications at a lower total cost of
ownership. CHP systems offer higher system energy efficiency, lower
emissions, and economic benefits. Combined heat and power systems use
an internal combustion engine to produce electricity at point-of-use
and recover waste heat for heating or cooling purposes. Energy
intensity of the CHP systems can be reduced in excess of 35 percent due
primarily to more efficient electrical generation and recovered waste
heat. Modern engine designs operate with much lower regulated exhaust
emissions and carbon dioxide. The fiscal year 2012 budget will support
CHP performance modeling, cost-effective package design, remote
modeling, and CHP system integration. The project will result in a
system that is easy to use and inexpensive to install, while providing
the lowest-emissions internal combustion natural gas engine for a CHP
system of this size.
Advanced Combustion Engines--Health Impacts.--No funds were
requested by the administration for this program. We request an
increase of $2 million to bring the program total to $2 million in
fiscal year 2012. The objective of this program is to expand the
knowledge base relating to the heath implications of emissions
technologies being developed to meet energy-efficiency goals. The
Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES) is funded under this
program. The ACES program is a cooperative effort between Government
(DOE, Environmental Protection Agency) and industry (EMA, MECA, API) to
assess health effects of emissions from 2010 compliant heavy-duty
engines. The ACES program will include emissions characterization,
chronic exposure animal bioassays, and identification of any
unanticipated emissions or health effects from new engine technologies.
Continuous monitoring of air toxins and source apportionment techniques
are also proposed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Diesel Technology Forum
The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) www.dieselforum.org is a not-for-
profit organization representing diesel engine and equipment makers,
fuel suppliers and emissions control technology companies. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding certain aspects
of the fiscal year 2012 proposed budget of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), particularly its Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) and
its various budget activities for commercial vehicles, advanced
combustion engine research and development (ACE R&D), fuels technology
and materials research.
The fiscal year 2012 energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE)
budget proposes to substantially reduce investments in several key
budget activity areas that impact heavy-duty diesel engines, commercial
vehicles and truck efficiency programs. This includes ACE R&D (reduced
12.4 percent from fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels; $55.987 million
to $49 million); a reduction of $5 million for fuels technologies; and
reduction of $2-$3 million in materials technologies.
Because of well-established future need, proven past performance,
and extended societal benefits, funding for Vehicle Technologies
Programs including ACE R&D, fuels and materials technologies and
SuperTruck activities has delivered proven benefits and must be
restored.
The subcommittee faces a difficult task of setting priorities among
many competing programs with limited resources. The subcommittee should
seek to strike a better balance between fully funding programs that are
known to improve efficiency of existing energy-intensive sectors on a
near-term basis while at the same time supporting a reasonable vision
and funding for infrastructure development, deployment and
electrification of passenger vehicles; the potential energy-saving
benefits of which may not be realized for several decades or more. We
recognize that savings will need to be found across all programs but
are concerned about the disproportionate impact on proven existing
programs while unprecedented significant new resources are being
requested elsewhere for new initiatives.
The commercial vehicle research activities have been cross-cutting
in scope and shared risk and benefits between DOE, private industry,
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT)and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This suite of programs to make
commercial vehicles more energy efficient--the 21st Century Truck
Partnership and diesel engine and fuel research--have been among DOE
EERE's most successful investments. They are proven to have helped meet
important societal goals of economic growth and small business
development (economics of more energy efficient commercial truck
acquisition and ownership); cleaner air (reducing diesel engine
emissions), reduced reliance on imported oil (increasing commercial
truck energy efficiency). They have also enhanced our national
security, through contributing to fuel savings of DOD military
vehicles. Fuel accounts for 70 percent of the bulk tonnage transported
to the battlefield and reducing consumption by 1 percent leads to 6,500
fewer soldier trips, which has been identified with saving lives on the
battlefield through reduced risk in transporting fuel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bochenek, Grace. ``U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research
Development and Engineering Center, 2010''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Commercial Vehicle and Engine Programs Have Delivered
Substantial and Proven Economic, Environmental and Energy
Saving Benefits.--For every $1 invested, advanced combustion
research delivered $53 in benefits. According to a May 2010
study \2\ previous advanced combustion research for laser and
optical diagnostics along with combustion modeling undertaken
by the DOE and now having been implemented in commercial
vehicles on the road today saved 17.6 billion gallons of diesel
fuel over a 12-year period (1995-2007); a 4.5-percent savings
in fuel consumption more than what would have occurred without
the program investments. This translates into a monetized
saving of $34.5 billion in 2008 dollars, and reduction of more
than 177 million tons of CO2 prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Link, Albert N. ``Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S.
DOE Vehicle Combustion Engine R&D Investments, Department of Economics,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro''; May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The established goal of improving fuel economy by 20 percent for
commercial vehicles in the ACE R&D has the potential to save more
energy than the electrification of 1 million cars. Past investments
have contributed to diesel engine manufacturers being able to meet the
most stringent emissions standards on record, resulting in today's
clean diesel technology with near zero emissions of ozone forming
compounds (nitrogen oxides) and particulate matter. The total health
and environmental benefits in terms of savings in air pollution and
energy savings exceed $70 billion according to the previously
referenced May 2010 study.
The Ongoing Need To Reduce Energy Consumption From Commercial
Vehicles is Well Established.--Heavy-duty commercial trucks
play the central role in the Nation's freight movement and
goods delivery system, transporting 70 percent of the U.S.
goods purchased. Diesel-power will be the primary technology of
choice for providing this service in the foreseeable future due
to its unmatched combination of efficiency, power, performance,
reliability, and durability along with economical ownership and
operation. Tractor-trailer type trucks (Class 8) use 80 percent
of commercial trucking industry fuel. This accounts for 28
percent of total U.S. fuel usage. According to DOT, from 1970-
2007, the number of trucks more than doubled while the mileage
increased by 3.9 percent during the same period. Economic
growth and recovery demands more trucking services, more miles
traveled and more energy consumption. These past and predicted
future trends underscore the need for continued gains in fuel
efficiency benefits from continued future investments in
commercial truck and diesel engine efficiency. Further,
according to the Advanced Energy Outlook (Figure 2, below) with
a 75-percent reduction in light-duty oil consumption; heavy-
duty vehicles will make up the largest share of the consumption
in the future. As global commodity, heavy-duty petroleum
consumption already rivals that of light-duty vehicles. U.S.-
developed fuel efficient technology for commercial vehicles
through the EERE has had and will continue to have a global
impact, adding much greater leverage on petroleum demand and
cost on a global scale.
Figure 1. The Nation's economy is linked to truck transport. Source.--
Argonne National Laboratory.
Future Societal and Technological Challenges Facing Commercial
Vehicles are Significant, and Heighten the Need for Continued,
Robust Government Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program Investments.--A landmark final rule from the EPA and
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
expected in July 2011 that will establish the first-ever
greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements for commercial
trucks. Goals for near and long-term reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions and fuel efficiency improvement will be
established at that time and will likely stretch the limits of
currently known technology capabilities. The significant
funding reductions in the suite of EERE commercial vehicle and
engine programs in the fiscal year 2012 budget could delay or
jeopardize gains in meeting these important societal goals.
Figure 2. Internal DOE analysis, August 2008, comparing Heavy Truck oil
consumption at AEO 2008 reference case levels with a 75% reduction in
high-duty oil consumption relative to EIA's AEO 2008 reference case due
to significant light-duty fuel economy gains and fuel switching. (p.
21)
Reaching these challenging goals will require substantial
manufacturer investment in the next 3-5 years at a time when economic
recovery and market potential for heavy duty commercial trucks remains
tentative. More than ever, the combined collaborative approach of the
DOE program of shared research toward common energy saving objectives
is needed and necessary to assure continued progress and increase the
speed of development, deployment of technologies, and societal
benefits.
Fully Funding Commercial Vehicle Research Budgets Assures
Continued Gains and Leverage of Ongoing Progress That Will Help
Expedite Fuel-Saving Technology Development and Deployment
While Managing Risks That Will Lead to Greater Future Fuel
Savings.--Given the substantial progress made in the 21st
century truck program, a framework of continuous progress has
been developed over time that is a predictive indicator of
potential future success. Adequate DOE program funding can
assure that the commercial vehicle, engine and SuperTruck
program goals of 50-percent increase in freight efficiency
(ton-miles per gallon) will be more likely to be met. Truck and
engine manufacturers face the unique challenge of competing
societal demands of improved efficiency, near-zero emissions
while meeting customer demands for lowest cost of operation.
Significant investments in research are required but there are
diminishing opportunities to recoup the substantial investments
needed to meet these goals with only an average 200,000-250,000
heavy duty trucks sold annually. A fully funded SuperTruck
program can assure these goals are more likely to be
accomplished earlier than if companies alone shoulder larger
research demands.
Commercial Vehicle, Engine and SuperTruck Efficiency Program
Benefits Reach Beyond Private Industry in the United States, a
Factor To Be Carefully Considered in the Final
Decisionmaking.--Collateral benefits have accrued to the
Department of Defense from the 21st Century Truck Partnership
program through the efficiency advancements extending to
military applications and a subsequent reduced dependence on
petroleum. Continued funding of the vehicle technologies
program, SuperTruck and ACE R&D will have long-term strategic
value to reducing petroleum consumption of the U.S. military.
The United States is the global leader in advanced clean diesel
engines and efficiency gains here in the United States will
ultimately impact the global marketplace.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an incontrovertible and established need to improve energy
efficiency of the Nation's commercial vehicles. Commercial diesel-
powered trucks are the backbone of the U.S. economy and the prime
movers of the Nation's goods movement system, and will be for the
foreseeable future. Fuel consumption in this sector is projected to
continue to grow with the economy. Past EERE engine and vehicle
efficiency programs have delivered substantial and well-documented
economic, energy and environmental benefits to society. However the
continued progress of these efforts is in jeopardy due to an imbalanced
fiscal year 2012 budget request.
An adequate Government funding stream for the suite of vehicle
technology programs like SuperTruck and the ACE R&D, fuels technologies
and materials must be restored to fiscal year 2010 levels to assure
continued progress and accelerate development and deployment of energy-
saving technologies. Proposed reductions to the fiscal year 2012 EERE
funding will jeopardize continued progress at an especially critical
time as the industry moves to meet new greenhouse gas emissions and
fuel efficiency goals, near zero emissions levels along with competing
customer demands with the backdrop of a weakened and recovering
economy.
A national energy strategy should seek to balance investments in
near-term and long-term energy-saving strategies. Proven incremental
gains in efficiency from existing fuels and technologies, particularly
in sectors that use the most energy today without viable alternatives
for the future must be a cornerstone of the national energy program and
funded accordingly. While battery development and electric-powered
vehicles may hold great promise, so too should investments in programs
with assured near-term efficiency gains.
The diesel engine is the prime mover of America's transportation,
infrastructure and goods movement today and for the foreseeable future.
Now near zero emissions and still as the most energy efficient internal
combustion engine (30-percent more efficient than gasoline), clean
diesel technology has made great progress and has substantial future
potential efficiency gains to meet future societal goals.
We appreciate the opportunity to file these comments. An ongoing
dialogue with the subcommittee on making best use of limited dollars to
achieve shared goals of greater energy efficiency while preserving a
major economic force for the U.S. economy is essential.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Steven Bryant
Defining priorities for Federal research funding is all the more
important when reductions in overall Federal spending are being
discussed. One such priority is the small but impactful Strategic
Center for Natural Gas and Oil within the National Energy Technology
Laboratory in the Department of Energy.
The U.S. economy runs on fossil fuel, including 20 million barrels
per day of crude oil, the greater part of which is imported. But 30
billion barrels of this essential resource can be extracted from
domestic reservoirs if improved technology for injecting CO2
into these reservoirs can be developed. The Strategic Center for
Natural Gas and Oil has established a visionary program for just this
purpose.
Continuation of this program is important for three compelling
reasons:
--Recent advances in science and technology outside the oil
industry--including nanotechnology, novel synthetic chemistry,
and efficient computational methods--have opened up truly new
possibilities for substantially increasing recovery of oil by
injecting carbon dioxide. The Strategic Center for Natural Gas
and Oil has committed to exploiting these possibilities.
--Independents and small operators, not the majors, are conducting
essentially all the carbon dioxide injection for oil recovery
in the United States. This segment of the oil and gas industry
is eager to take advantage of new technology. But these
operators do not have the wherewithal to conduct basic research
needed to implement new ideas from outside the industry.
--Federal funding is a critical mechanism for training the next
generation of engineers and scientists who will implement these
advanced technologies, working for domestic companies operating
domestic oil fields--very good jobs that are a boon to local
and regional economies.
In view of the often strident discussion of budget priorities in
Washington and the rest of the country, it seems timely to remind
members of the subcommittee that over the last 60 years the United
States has a proud history of investing in basic research at its
universities. That investment has been repaid countless times over.
Practitioners educated in this way have contributed to a decades-long
stream of technical innovation which has maintained U.S. leadership of
the global economy. CEOs from all business sectors are unanimous on
this point: Without continued innovation, the U.S. economic leadership
will surely falter.
Many Federal programs have worthy justifications for their
continued existence. But few can offer as large a return on the Federal
investment as this one in the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil.
Even fewer provide that return in an area of unquestionably vital
importance to the U.S. economy and national interest: the continued
supply of domestically produced oil.
______
Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this
written testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
EEI is the association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric
companies. Our members serve 95 percent of ultimate electricity
customers in the shareholder-owned segment of the industry and
represent approximately 70 percent of the U.S. electric power industry.
EEI appreciates this opportunity to share our views on some of the
Department of Energy's (DOE) programs for the fiscal year 2012. We
believe a robust national energy policy that supports the full
portfolio of energy resources is critical to our country's national
security and economic growth. Therefore, we respectfully ask the
subcommittee to direct sufficient resources toward these critically
important activities.
ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION
EEI embraces the goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on the
road by 2015. The United States faces numerous energy policy
challenges, but perhaps none looms larger than energy security. Ongoing
conflict in the Middle East and increasing demand as nations' economies
recover have left crude oil prices hovering around $110 per barrel.
U.S. drivers are now paying an average of $3.73 per gallon of gas, a
65-percent increase in 4 months. We strongly support increasing
domestic oil supply. Turning to electricity as a transportation fuel is
critical, too.
The transformation of the Nation's transportation fleet to one
fueled in part by domestically produced electricity can gradually help
reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Plug-in electric
vehicles (PEVs) are being rolled out in major U.S. markets, as
automobile manufacturers join utilities in embracing electricity as an
important transportation fuel.
The job creation potential behind electric transportation is
enormous. As the Nation transitions to a new era of electric
transportation, demand for jobs in this new technology sector will
continue to increase. From manufacturing batteries to building the
necessary electricity recharging stations, PEVs will create high-
quality employment opportunities throughout the country. The Federal
Government estimates that tens of thousands of American jobs will be
created to manufacture PEV batteries and components.
The Congress has a significant role to play in securing a place for
electric vehicles in the transportation fleet. Federal funding is
crucial to help break down market barriers to the commercial-scale
deployment of electric vehicles and related infrastructure.
Accordingly, EEI supports funding for DOE's PEV vehicle technology
programming, including battery and electric drive technology
development and grants to communities for the installation of PEV
recharging infrastructure.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Coal generates almost 45 percent of our electricity and will
continue to be an important fuel source for our Nation's electricity
mix. Coal is the largest domestically produced source of energy in the
United States.
EEI urges strong support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and
advanced coal technology programs, including loan guarantee authority
for advanced fossil projects. CCS is a promising and important
technology that will allow continued utilization of our abundant
domestic coal reserves to generate a reliable and affordable supply of
electricity in a cleaner manner. CCS commercialization is still in the
future, but demonstration technologies hold great promise, and we are
working with the Congress and the administration to develop policies
that will accelerate its commercial availability and deployment.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
EEI urges support for DOE's nuclear loan guarantee program and
recommends approval of the additional $36 billion requested in loan
volume for nuclear energy projects. Nuclear powerplants generate about
20 percent of the industry's electricity and are the largest source of
carbon-free electricity production in the country.
SMART GRID
EEI supports robust funding for smart grid programs. In addition to
operational benefits such as automatic outage detection and automated
meter reading, customers with smart meters receive other types of
benefits, including easier energy management and the potential of the
electric grid to act as a platform for future energy technologies,
including plug-in electric vehicles and distributed generation.
Currently, electric utilities install between 15,000 and 20,000 smart
meters every day. By 2019, it is estimated that more than 58 million
smart meters will be in use in more than one-half of all U.S.
households.
Deployment of smart grid technology means job creation across the
economy. Researchers at the Milken Institute point out that smart grid
construction requires highly skilled labor from various architectural
and engineering occupations. Because smart grid investments have a
significant economic impact, technology deployment would revitalize
employment in research and development and in construction, where more
that 1.3 million jobs were lost from 2007 to 2009.
CYBER SECURITY AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RELIABILITY
Protecting the Nation's electric grid and ensuring a reliable,
affordable supply of power are EEI's member companies' top priorities.
Indeed, system reliability requirements are what set electric utilities
apart from most other industries. Utilities have an obligation to
serve, to maintain exceptional reliability, and to keep their systems
secure in an era of increasing cyber threats.
The electric power industry is constantly making investments to
strengthen and improve the operations and security of its cyber systems
and to identify and address vulnerabilities. One research organization
has projected that global spending on utility cyber security will top
$21 billion over the next 5 years. Industry in the United States,
however, cannot go it alone. We urge the Congress to continue public-
private partnerships to help ensure a robust and resilient electric
grid.
TRANSMISSION, SITING, AND PERMITTING
Siting new transmission is critical for electric companies to be
able to move power to where it is needed, to maintain a reliable
electricity system, and to expand access to renewable energy resources.
In 2009, shareholder-owned electric utilities and stand-alone
transmission companies invested an unprecedented $9.3 billion in our
Nation's transmission infrastructure. This represents a 9-percent
increase more than 2008 levels and an 82-percent increase more than
2000 investment levels. Since the beginning of 2000, industry has
invested $68 billion in transmission. We anticipate at least $56
billion in transmission system investments through 2020.
The siting of new transmission lines, however, remains a difficult
and lengthy endeavor, particularly where multiple States or regions
must approve the project, or when the siting involves Federal lands.
Sufficient funding to ensure timely coordination between Federal
agencies and prompt issuance of Federal authorizations and permits is
essential for a robust transmission system.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Utility spending on energy efficiency continues to increase. Over
the past 3 years, electric utilities doubled their budgets for energy
efficiency, growing from $2.7 billion annually to $5.4 billion. Utility
efficiency budgets are expected to reach or exceed $12 billion by 2020.
As in the past, EEI recommends that Federal funding be used for the
development and deployment of efficient energy technologies to help
meet electricity demand growth, while enabling consumers to manage
their energy usage.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
EEI supports funding for renewable energy research and development
to help make these resources cost-competitive. The Energy Information
Administration projects that renewable energy resources will continue
to increase their share of the Nation's generation mix--from 11 percent
in 2009 to 14 percent in 2035. Twenty-nine States and the District of
Columbia have renewable portfolio standards.
ENERGY STORAGE AND BATTERIES
Improved energy storage is critical for enabling the widespread use
of electric vehicles, efficient, and reliable smart electric grid
technologies, and variable renewable energy resources. EEI supports
Federal initiatives to advance and accelerate storage/battery
technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
The Electric Drive Transportation Association is the cross-industry
trade association promoting the advancement of electric drive
technology and electrified transportation and we are writing regarding
the fiscal year 2012 request for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Vehicle Technologies and other electric drive programs.
Our members include vehicle manufacturers, battery and component
manufacturers, utilities and energy companies, and smart grid and
charging infrastructure developers. We are committed to realizing the
economic, national security, and environmental benefits of displacing
oil with battery electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell
vehicles.
Electric drive vehicles, from mild hybrids to full electrics are
being introduced into the market place in passenger cars; commercial
trucks, neighborhood electric vehicles, buses; tractors and ground
support equipment and are poised to advance to commercial scale. As the
uncertainties roiling the global oil market are spiking the cost of
gasoline as well as consumer goods in the United States, it is more
important than ever to push forward in our concerted efforts to
increase electrification and reduce dependence on imported energy.
DOE, working with the electric drive industry and other
stakeholders, is helping to accelerate technology breakthroughs,
promoting investment in manufacturing capacity and speeding deployment
of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure.
The Department's Vehicle Technologies program promotes government/
industry partnerships and leverages private sector investments to
accelerate technologies that serve our national energy goals.
Specifically, we support the Department's efforts to advance energy
storage technologies and the administration's request for the Batteries
and Electric Drive Technology program, which will develop next-
generation battery technologies that increase performance and bring
down costs. We further support the proposed level for Vehicle and
Systems Simulation and Testing programs, including the Advanced Vehicle
Testing Activity (AVTA), which are advancing next-generation charging,
systems integration and codes and standard for vehicle to grid
communication.
The Vehicle Technologies program is also home to important work in
reducing the cost and expanding the abilities of medium- and heavy-duty
electric drive trucks. Recognizing their enormous potential to
transform the commercial fleet and reduce oil consumption in that
transportation segment, we ask that the subcommittee direct sufficient
resources toward program activities that advance electrification of
medium and heavy duty vehicles, including work with industry partners
to reduce component costs and further enhance performance.
Another key focus for DOE advanced vehicle technology efforts is
fuel cell electric vehicles, which are important zero emission/zero
petroleum options that will be integral to meeting national goals for
energy security and reduced emissions. The industry is meeting
aggressive cost, performance, and deployment milestones as it pushes
toward commercialization in 2015. A meaningful partnership with the
Federal research and development community through the Hydrogen
Technologies Program is critical to keeping that timeframe.
We believe the fiscal year 2012 budget for Hydrogen should maintain
the Department's commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell research,
providing an expanded emphasis on programs that reinforce the vehicle
commercialization effort. Specifically, we ask that funding for fuel
cell electric vehicle and infrastructure deployment activities in
Technology Validation and in early market development, including
education and other enabling activities, be provided at levels
sufficient to enable the industry to build on technology and market
achievements to meet the 2015 target.
Finally, we strongly support the Vehicle Technologies Deployment
programs, including Clean Cities' mission of advancing the Nation's and
energy security by reinforcing communities' own efforts to expand
deployment of electric drive vehicles (battery electric, hybrid and
fuel cell electric vehicles), other alternative fuel vehicles and
recharging/fueling infrastructure. We are pleased that Department's
fiscal year 2012 budget requests an expansion of these partnerships and
supports additional resources for communities deploying electric drive
vehicles and recharging infrastructure.
Recognizing significant budgetary constraints that the subcommittee
faces, we respectfully request that the subcommittee make the wise
investment of resources in the DOE's electric drive programs that will
enable the Department to continue to be an effective partner in
accelerating the achievement of a secure and sustainable transportation
sector.
We thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Committee of ASME's Technical
Communities
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee: The
Energy Committee (EnComm) of ASME's Technical Communities is pleased to
provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2012 budget request for
research and development (R&D) programs in the Department of Energy
(DOE).
INTRODUCTION
The 125,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and
technical society. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets some 600
industrial and manufacturing standards, some of which have become de
facto global technical standards. The Energy Committee of ASME's
Technical Communities comprises 40 members from 17 Divisions of ASME,
representing approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced mix of energy supplies to meet
the Nation's energy needs, including advanced clean coal, petroleum,
nuclear, natural gas, waste to energy, biomass, solar, wind, and
hydroelectric power. ASME also supports energy efficient building and
transportation technologies, as well as transmission and distribution
infrastructure sufficient to satisfy demand under reasonably
foreseeable contingencies. Only such a portfolio will allow the United
States to maintain its quality of life while addressing future
environmental and security challenges. Sustained growth in the energy
systems on which the United States depends will also require stability
in licensing and permitting processes not only for power-generating
stations but also for transmission and transportation systems.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced and sustained
levels of funding for R&D, as well as government policies that
encourage deployment and commercialization. The Energy Committee
supports much of the fiscal year 2012 budget request, especially the
increases in funding for fundamental scientific research. The Energy
Committee also wishes to emphasize that a balanced approach to our
energy needs is critical, and this is why we remain concerned about the
substantial decrease in funding for fossil energy, which is essential
to meeting our national energy needs now and in the future.
FOSSIL ENERGY
The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $520.7 million for fossil
energy represents a $206.7 million reduction compared to the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation; a 44.5-percent decrease. Fossil Energy
Research and Development (FE R&D) would be reduced by 31.3 percent, or
$206 million to $452.9 million. The administration continues to point
out that $3.4 billion was devoted to Fossil Research and Development as
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and
conceding this point, other offices, such as EERE and Science, also
received funding in ARRA and are slated for substantial increases as
part of the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Funding for Natural Gas Technologies and for Unconventional Fossil
Energy Technologies would again be targeted for elimination by the
administration. The United States has access to significant
unconventional gas resources with the potential to provide abundant,
affordable, clean low-carbon energy source for years to come. Prior FE
R&D has contributed to making this possible. However, this potential
will not be realized unless this resource can be produced reliably,
economically, safely and with minimal environmental impact.
Accomplishing this task and keeping the United States in the forefront
of unconventional fossil energy technology will require an investment
in basic research, technology development, and investments in advances
in low-impact environmental technologies that will not be undertaken by
industry in the current economic climate. The budget for these efforts
should be maintained at least at the fiscal year 2010 level. The EnComm
encourages a restoration of funding for coal research programs to at
least the levels appropriated for fiscal year 2010. Coal remains a
critical resource for our Nation and its economy; however, we must
continue to invest in technological advancements that will reduce
environmental impacts for this energy. The use of more efficient
processes for coal combustion, such as advanced integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) technology, combined with carbon sequestration
will allow the United States to utilize its coal resources in a more
environmentally sound and cost-effective manner. We encourage strong
and consistent funding for these programs now and in future years. The
administration has also requested to zero out the section 999 program
of the Energy Policy Act that is administered by the Research
Partnership to Restore Energy for America (RPSEA), with oversight by
FE-National Energy Technology Laboratory. This program funds
unconventional natural gas research, a small producers program and
ultra-deep water. This program addresses needed technology developments
in safety and environmental protection. The EnComm strongly supports
the continuation of this important program,
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY
The EnComm supports the $550 million budget request for ARPA-E.
ARPA-E represents a significant opportunity for the United States to
cultivate technological breakthroughs related to energy sources and
uses. A steady commitment to Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E) will encourage energy technology innovation and the committee
believes that this is a worthwhile endeavor for the DOE as we seek to
accomplish technological breakthroughs in energy technology.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
The EnComm is discouraged to see a slight reduction of $5 million
in the fiscal year 2012 DOE Nuclear Energy budget request to $857
million more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount. Although,
this represents a minor budget reduction, particularly during sensitive
budget negotiations, the EnComm is disappointed to see that no funding
was requested for the creation of the Regaining our ENERGY Science and
Engineering Edge (RE-ENERGYSE) program, which was requested for $5
million in fiscal year 2011. The Congress has not supported this
program since it was first proposed in the fiscal year 2010 request and
repackaged in the fiscal year 2011 proposal. Still, educating the next
generation of nuclear engineers will be critical to the fulfillment of
both the administration's Clean Energy Standard as well as national
security. The EnComm is hopeful that the DOE will work to identify new
opportunities for nuclear engineering scholarship.
Similarly, the Energy Committee is concerned about the plan by the
administration for a discontinuation of the Generation IV Nuclear
Energy Systems program. The Energy Committee is curious to see how the
proposed Reactor Concepts research, development, and deployment program
distinguishes itself from the traditional R&D program under the Office
of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy, as a low-carbon, nongreenhouse gas-
emitting resource, is a critical component of a diverse U.S. power
generation mix and should play a larger role in the Nation's base power
supply. Given the President's proposed national ``clean-energy
standard'' of 80 percent by 2035 the EnComm believes very strongly that
sustained increases in nuclear power research are justified.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
EERE manages America's investments in research, development, and
deployment of DOE's diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy
applied science portfolio. The fiscal year 2012 request of $3.2
billion, $943 million more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated
amount of $2.21 billion, and provides a broad and balanced set of
approaches to address the urgent energy and environmental challenges
currently facing our Nation. Most of the key EERE programs, including
Biomass, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Building Technologies, Vehicle
Technologies, and Industrial technologies, would receive substantial
increases in funding to support the growth of renewable energy. The
EnComm is particularly pleased to see large increases for both the
Industrial Technologies Program (ITP), as well as the Building
Technologies Program. ITP conducts energy assessments for energy-
intensive factories to identify low-cost methods to improve their
efficiency. The EnComm encourages the Congress to include waste-to-
energy as an important component of the country's Renewable Energy
portfolio to provide it with the same benefits as energy from biomass.
The EnComm believes that the development of transportation fuel
systems that are not petroleum-based is a critical part of our future
national energy policy. The fiscal year 2012 budget for biomass and
bio-refinery systems R&D is slated to receive a $124 million increase
to $340 million for fiscal year 2012, 57 percent more than the fiscal
year 2010 appropriated amount. The Energy Committee supports the
current appropriation and encourages the Congress to ensure that these
research programs continue to receive adequate funding. We are also
pleased to see the $273 million increase in the effort related to
vehicle technologies emphasizing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The integration of all cost-effective electric generating
technologies into the operation of the electricity distribution system
is critical to economic operation of the national electric grid. The
EnComm believes that R&D related to the integration of the electric
grid and its control as a truly national system is imperative for the
growth of effective and economic energy generation technologies and we
encourage full funding for such research.
SCIENCE AND ADVANCED ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The EnComm is pleased by the request for the Office of Science (OS)
which restores the funding trajectory mandated in the America COMPETES
Act of 2007 (Public Law 109-69). The fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
of $5.4 billion is an increase of $452 million from the fiscal year
2010 appropriation. OS programs in high-energy physics, fusion energy
sciences, biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences,
and advanced scientific computing, serve, in some small way, every
student in the country. These funds support not only research at the
DOE laboratories, but also the work at a large number of universities
and colleges. We believe that basic energy research will also improve
U.S. energy security over the long term, through its support for R&D on
cellulosic ethanol and other next-generation biofuels, advanced battery
and energy storage systems, and fusion. The only program slated for a
decrease in OS is Fusion Energy Sciences. The EnComm has some concerns
about the recent delays for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) experiment being conducted in Cadarache,
France. The EnComm would like to see ITER built by 2018, but in
recognition that this is now unlikely; the EnComm will reserve further
judgment until more information becomes available. The Energy Committee
strongly supports the budget request for the Office of Science, as well
as the proposed doubling track for the office by fiscal year 2017.
The Office of Science, in collaboration with ARPA-E, has announced
the ``Sunshot Initiative'' to scale down the cost of solar energy by
roughly 75 percent to $1 per watt of electric power, or about 6 cents
per kilowatt hour of electricity. The program would cost $425 million
to begin according to the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
request. The EnComm believes that this type of collaboration represents
a good opportunity to leverage the technical resources available to
both ARPA-E and the Office of Science. The EnComm would like to see the
DOE make a strong effort to demonstrate the distinction between this
project and similar types of research efforts, like the Energy Frontier
Research Centers, and the Innovation Hubs to avoid redundancy.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
DOE is also very active in areas outside of R&D. The environmental
remediation program that funds the decommissioning and decontamination
of old DOE facilities is one such research area. The EnComm questions
the advisability of flat funding for the Environmental Management
program. The Yucca Mountain Waste Repository is a critical part of the
environmental cleanup activity. Termination of this project, in the
short term, will only extend and increase the final cost of the
environmental management program. The EnComm does not support this
backward step. The coming resurgence in the commercial nuclear arena is
likely to deplete the trained professionals available for this program
as engineers choose to move to the more stable commercial environment.
The Congress should appropriate the funds to ensure that this work is
accomplished in an expeditious manner.
CONCLUSION
Members of the EnComm consider the issues related to energy to be
one of the most important issues facing our Nation. The need for a
strong and coherent energy policy is apparent. We applaud the
administration and the Congress for their understanding of the
important role that scientific and engineering breakthroughs will play
in meeting our energy challenges. In order to promote such innovation,
strong support for energy research will be necessary across a broad
range of technology options. DOE research can play a critical role in
allowing the United States to use our current resources more
effectively and to create more advanced energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding both the
R&D and other parts of the proposed budget for the DOE. The EnComm is
pleased to respond to requests for additional information or
perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Efficiency Coalition
We the undersigned represent a broad-based coalition of energy
efficiency and environmental organizations, public interest
organizations, and small and large businesses. We write today to ask
your support for key energy efficiency programs within the Department
of Energy (DOE). These programs provide the foundation for the clean-
energy investments that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the
clean-energy economy.
Energy efficiency is our cheapest, fastest, and cleanest-energy
resource and a necessary solution to address energy prices, energy
security, air pollution, and global warming. Energy efficiency already
is the equivalent of any of the Nation's other energy resources: since
1973, we save more energy each year from efficiency measures than we
get from any single energy source, including oil. The following fiscal
year 2012 funding recommendations build on past successes and provide
additional support for provisions funded as part of American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act.
In the months ahead it will be necessary for you to make difficult
choices regarding budget priorities for the fiscal year 2012 budget. We
believe that investments in programs that reduce costs for both
individuals and businesses, and create greater economic prosperity and
energy security for our Nation, should be maintained and in some
instances enlarged. Energy efficiency programs are a source of savings
that in turn are spent in other sectors of the economy, and it does not
make sense to cut these programs, especially with our energy security
imperiled by the turbulence in Libya and the Middle East.
Now is not the time to cut energy-efficiency programs and
initiatives which help to protect Americans from volatile energy
prices. Rather, we must increase investment in energy efficiency
programs in order to meet our country's energy needs and safeguard our
energy future.
We support the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 for
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) and specifically for the following EERE
programs:
--Building Technologies Program, including the Better Buildings
Initiative ($470 million);
--Industrial Technologies Program ($319 million);
--Weatherization Assistance ($320 million);
--State Energy Program ($64 million); and
--Federal Energy Management Program ($33 million).
In addition to existing programs, it is important for America to
maintain its competitive edge through continued research in new
advanced energy efficiency technologies, such as the research
undertaken by the DOE's ARPA-E program, for which the administration
request is $550 million.
The budget for the 2012 fiscal year presents both a challenge and
an opportunity. By fully deploying the power of energy efficiency, we
can help drive the economic recovery we all long for. Increased
investment in critical energy efficiency programs will help those
American families and businesses who are struggling today to lower
their energy costs. It will improve our Nation's energy security in
these uncertain times. We strongly urge your support for the programs
identified in this letter, and welcome the opportunity to brief you or
your staff on the benefits these energy efficiency programs provide to
consumers and businesses in America.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY COALITION
Alliance to Save Energy; American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy; American Institute of Architects; American Public Power
Association; Association of State Energy Research and Technology
Transfer Institutions; Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Center
for Environmental Innovation in Roofing; Citizens for Pennsylvania's
Future (PennFuture); Copper Development Association; Danfoss; Direct
Energy; Energy Future Coalition; Energy Platforms; Interfaith Power and
Light; National Association for State Community Services Programs;
National Association of Energy Service Companies; National Association
of State Energy Officials; National Community Action Foundation;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Polyisocyanurate Insulation
Manufacturers Association; Rebuilding Together; Rinnai; Schneider
Electric; Service Employees International Union; Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc.; Sheet Metal
Workers International Association; The Stella Group, Ltd.; U.S. Green
Building Council; and United Technologies Corporation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Executive Committee of the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory Users Organization
We are the Executive Committee of the Users Organization of the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) located outside of
Chicago, Illinois, and represent the 3000 user scientists of the
premier U.S. laboratory for particle physics. Our membership includes
researchers in high-energy physics (HEP) who study fundamental
particles, astrophysics, and accelerators. Eight national laboratories
are actively engaged in HEP research. These laboratories host
facilities that are used by scientists from other national
laboratories, from hundreds of U.S. universities, and from dozens of
foreign institutions. Fermilab is the only one of the laboratories
dedicated exclusively to the field.
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and the National
Science Foundation supports HEP research at U.S. national laboratories
and universities. More than 160 U.S. institutions in 43 States host
physicists, astrophysicists, engineers, and accelerator scientists who
work in HEP. More than one-half of these institutions are funded
through the DOE Office of Science.
We urge the Senate to support sustained funding for fundamental
science within DOE's Office of Science and the National Science
Foundation. We request that the portfolio of funding for basic research
be balanced. HEP research is a key part of these programs that yields
valuable benefits to our Nation as described below. Our field is
undergoing a transition with the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator program
coming to a conclusion after an incredibly successful three decades.
New programs are underway or just beginning that will provide the basis
for vibrant, world-class research for the next several decades. This
transition is a critical time for our field in the United States and
requires sustained funding to maintain our leadership in HEP research.
VALUE OF HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS RESEARCH
In our modern economy, science and technology (S&T) are driving
forces of national strength as detailed in the National Academies
report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future'' and the 2010 update ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm Revisited''. Continued leadership in S&T
fields is critical to our economic growth, national security, and world
leadership. Innovation derived from a highly trained workforce is key.
Without new technological developments within the United States,
our economy will not grow and other countries will surpass us. But the
most revolutionary technologies often require revolutions in our
fundamental knowledge and understanding, or are invented in the
research struggle of our most talented minds in pursuit of measuring,
understanding, and testing new ideas and concepts. No one could have
predicted the nature of our current society from the first studies of
the electron; however we would not be communicating via email, fax, or
text messages without them.
HEP strives to understand the most fundamental aspects of nature.
We can rarely predict the outcome, but the quest for knowledge has
always led to numerous advances, some of which are listed below.
Certain results are predictable: we will educate and train some of the
best and brightest students who will contribute to our Nation in many
different arenas.
VALUE OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
While the primary purpose of HEP research is not the creation or
development of new technology, our work often requires it to accomplish
our goals. Many of our experiments require technology that does not
exist when the project is started. Therefore, many of our researchers
spend a significant part of their careers advancing high-tech particle
detectors, developing complex computing algorithms, and pushing the
limits of high-speed electronics. Without continuous innovation we
would not be able to complete our experiments. But once these advances
are made they are applied by industry.
An example of this is the construction of the Fermilab Tevatron
accelerator that reigned as the world's most powerful machine of its
kind for nearly three decades. It required 1,000 superconducting
magnets to be placed around a 4-mile ring. Creating superconducting
magnets requires superconducting wire. At the start of the project in
the 1970s, it was known how to make such wire, but the industry needed
to make it did not exist. Fermilab researchers helped to build up that
industry and advance their production techniques through a very
successful joint government/business venture. Once the accelerator was
complete in 1983, these businesses looked around to see what other
projects could use superconducting wire. MRIs that are commonly used
for medical imaging are an example. Because of the work of Fermilab,
MRIs became much more widely available in the 1980s.
A current experiment being led by Fermilab scientists is the Dark
Energy Survey (DES). This experiment requires a digital camera larger
than any ever built. Their technological developments will eventually
influence the digital cameras available at your local electronics store
as well as devices no one has even dreamed of yet.
High-energy physicists have been the leaders in accelerator science
since its beginning. Our work requires the most powerful particle
accelerators that can be built. However, accelerators are now used in
thousands of applications. More than 17,000 particle accelerators are
used throughout the world, only a small fraction of these dedicated to
HEP. Most are used by industry and for medical treatment. The tire
industry, for example, now uses particle accelerators to treat their
tires, which has resulted in a reduction of 3 pounds less rubber per
tire and a reduction in the amount of chemicals needed in the
production process. The industry is more efficient and better for our
environment because of the application of particle accelerators. This
success was unanticipated in the early days of accelerator development,
but is certainly a positive result.
VALUE OF EDUCATION
The United States has long been the destination of choice for the
best science students from around the world. Our universities provide
an education that is second to none. Our national laboratories provide
research opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere. Fermilab is an
excellent example of this. Numerous students from foreign institutions
travel to Fermilab to complete their research. Many of these students
then choose to stay in the United States after completing their
degrees.
Our students learn a variety of skills that are applicable in
numerous fields. They learn how to work on problems where the answer is
unknown and how to adapt to unforeseen challenges. They learn skills in
computer programming, data analysis, simulation of complex problems,
and electronics development, among others. They learn to work in teams
and do collaborative projects. Most importantly, they learn how to take
a project from start to finish, write a document detailing it, and
present it to an audience. These skills are all highly desired by
businesses.
Many of our students choose to continue their immediate careers as
postdoctoral associates. This provides a postgraduate education that
further develops their skills. Postdocs generally take on more complex
projects and develop leadership and management skills. Most HEP
experiments involve 20 to 2,000 scientists and face challenges that are
similar to those in many businesses.
Scientists trained in HEP work in telecommunications, software
development, aerospace, education, medicine, government, and finance,
to name a few. Approximately one-fourth of our Ph.D. students enter new
fields. Private businesses are the largest and most diverse employers
of scientists trained in HEP. Several former HEP researchers have
founded or led small and large companies, including Richard Wellner,
chief scientist at Univa UD, a cloud management software company;
Francisco Vaca, CEO of Vaca Capital Management LLC; George Coutrakon,
director of operations at Loma Linda University Medical Center; and
Homaira Akbair, CEO of SkyBitz, a satellite-based tracking company.
Our researchers are engaged in all levels of education and
understand the importance of scientific literacy in our society. We use
numerous venues to advance this. Hundreds or thousands of public
lectures are given around the country each year. Our scientists visit
local schools to share the excitement of science through physics
demonstrations or presentations of their work. The QuarkNet program,
funded through the National Science Foundation, trains K-12 teachers in
28 States in cutting-edge research so that they can take it back into
the classroom. More than 38,000 students attend Fermilab education
activities each year.
IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS
Continued funding of science research is critical to our Nation.
Severe budgetary cuts will have devastating effects that will be felt
for decades. Science opportunities will be delayed or lost to other
nations. Our reputation as the place to be for the best and brightest
will be damaged. The administration's request for fiscal year 2012
maintains a funding level for science research that will allow us to
avoid substantial damage.
Large cuts will have immediate impacts on our universities and
national laboratories. Layoffs and/or furloughs will be unavoidable if
we return to fiscal year 2008 funding levels. Several Fermilab projects
that were slated to start construction in fiscal year 2011 have already
been delayed. These projects are key to the near-term future of the
laboratory and the U.S. HEP program.
However, the largest and longest-lasting impact will be in our
training of the next generation of scientists. Severe cuts will force
us to train fewer students. It will demoralize our current students and
postdocs, and some will quit. And we will no longer attract the best
students. It will take a long time to overcome even a short-term cut to
funding. These young people will be the foundation on which our
economic growth depends. Without the advanced training offered by
fields such as HEP, they will lack the skills to develop the next
technology or the next new industry. Or they will be trained in other
countries and that innovation will occur overseas. It is critical that
we remain attractive to U.S. and foreign students now and in the
future.
SUMMARY
Scientific research in general, and HEP in particular, provides
value to our Nation that will be lost without continued funding from
the U.S. Government. The knowledge that is gained will lead to future
innovation that will continue our world leadership. The path to that
knowledge will lead to advances in technology that will help sustain
our economic recovery. And the education of students from the United
States and abroad will provide the knowledgeable workforce that will
carry us through the next half century.
It is critically important to maintain our leadership position in
scientific research. The repercussions of severe cuts will be felt for
a long time. We urge the Senate Appropriations Committee to support the
President's request to maintain our scientific research program for the
long-term health of the Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfully requests an appropriation of $5.10 billion for the
Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE SC) in fiscal year 2012.
This figure is in keeping with President Obama's vision for strong
national investment in innovation, and it would enable DOE SC to
continue to support essential research programs that enhance human
health and quality of life, invigorate the economy, bring the Nation
closer to energy independence, and drive scientific advances.
As a Federation of 23 scientific societies, FASEB represents more
than 100,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States.
FASEB's mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress
and education in biological and biomedical sciences, including the
research funded by DOE SC, through service to its member societies and
collaborative advocacy. FASEB enhances the ability of scientists and
engineers to improve--through their research--the health, well-being,
and productivity of all people.
DOE SC provides more than 40 percent of the total funding for basic
research in the physical sciences, including fundamental research in
energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, materials and
chemical sciences, and computational science. In addition to supporting
research at more than 300 colleges and universities, DOE SC funds and
manages 10 world-class national laboratories.
The DOE SC national laboratories, located in eight States across
the country, maintain essential research and development facilities
containing sophisticated instrumentation such as particle accelerators,
advanced light sources, and supercomputers. Because large-scale
facilities provide infrastructure beyond the budget of any individual
research institution, tens of thousands of university and industry
scientists rely heavily on access to unique DOE SC instrumentation in
order to conduct cutting-edge research. For example, xray facilities
housed at DOE SC national laboratories, such as the Advanced Photon
Source at Argonne National Laboratory, are used by nearly all U.S.-
based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to conduct protein
structure studies critical to the drug design process. Furthermore, the
oil and gas industry uses DOE SC instrumentation to study the atomic
structure of chemicals used to process and refine fossil fuels. Without
strong and sustained support for DOE SC, operations at national
laboratory facilities could be limited or terminated, forcing U.S.
companies that depend on them to move their research studies to
overseas locations providing better access to instrumentation.
At academic institutions and national laboratories across the
country, DOE SC-funded scientists have uncovered a wealth of knowledge
that has led to life-changing developments in energy, medicine,
computer science, and other fields. For example, a team of DOE SC-
funded scientists is studying a fungus capable of degrading plant
material into the simple sugars necessary to make biofuels, possibly
leading to a more economical means of manufacturing ethanol for
industrial applications. DOE SC also partners with other Federal
science agencies on projects requiring multidisciplinary resources and
expertise. Along with the National Science Foundation and the National
Eye Institute, DOE SC sponsored the research and development of an
artificial retina to restore sight in patients blinded by eye diseases
such as macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa. The study of
artificial retina technology has advanced the general field of neural
prostheses, which has the potential to improve the lives of people with
spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, deafness, and other
neurological disorders.
Now is not the time to abandon investment in the innovative
research supported by DOE SC. Insufficient funding for the agency would
curtail groundbreaking scientific discoveries by forcing essential
research facilities to close, causing thousands of scientific jobs to
be lost, and deterring the next generation of scientists and engineers.
A source of abundant, safe, clean, and sustainable energy is critical
to the Nation's future. Development of new energy sources that can be
used in place of fossil fuels will create new industries, reduce U.S.
dependency on foreign oil, protect the environment, provide economic
opportunities, and strengthen national security. Furthermore, because
of the collaborative work of science agencies and the increasingly
interdisciplinary nature of scientific research, support for the
Federal research and development portfolio has never been more
important. With its vital mission and unique research facilities,
investment in DOE SC programs should be one of our highest national
priorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for DOE SC.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
On behalf of the members of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy
Association, we are writing to urge your continued support for fuel
cell and hydrogen energy programs for fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water
Development appropriations. These critical programs create green jobs,
increase the efficient use of our Nation's natural resources, reduce
dependence on foreign oil and enhance energy security, while reducing
criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.
As the subcommittee develops the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill, we urge you to support the fuel cell
and hydrogen programs at the fiscal year 2010 levels of $174 million
managed by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and $50
million in Fossil Energy (FE) organizations at the Department of Energy
(DOE). This amount would fully fund the critical research, development,
demonstration and deployment of these technologies in order to gain a
stronger foothold in current markets and move the others to
commercialization in the near-term.
Fuel cell and hydrogen technologies produce jobs and are a crucial
part of the portfolio of advanced energy technologies that will help
achieve the Nation's oil and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Fuel
cells for stationary power and material handling equipment are
commercially available and creating jobs today in domestic and export-
oriented manufacturing. The United States is poised to introduce fuel
cell electric vehicles by 2015, as long as there is continued support
for technology maturation, supplier development and infrastructure
deployment. Advanced R&D in FE and EERE, market transformation,
technology validation, and hydrogen efficiencies in EERE are key
components of the fuel cell budget.
The United States currently leads the world in fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies. Japan, Germany, Korea, and China have made it a
national priority to develop these technologies and attract the skills
and intellectual property to create a domestic clean-energy business as
a platform for a future export market. In the United States, fuel cell
commercialization is underway, and businesses are making the necessary
investments to bring fuel cell-powered products to American customers.
President Obama has set strong targets for the Nation for clean-
energy generation and manufacturing; and for increasing the number of
vehicles fueled by biofuels, natural gas, and powered by electric drive
trains. Fuel cells and hydrogen energy can help America meet those
goals faster, more efficiently, and with less impact on the
environment. Fuel cells are always the cleanest way to use any fuel,
whether renewable or fossil, and all fuel cell electric vehicles are
hybrids, as they use batteries to store energy; moreover, there is no
cleaner way to use natural gas as a transportation fuel than to reform
it for use in a fuel cell electric vehicle.
What the industry needs now is help from DOE in leveraging these
private dollars to help mature current markets and aid in creating a
competitive landscape for budding ones. Realizing the budget
constraints you are working under, a budget consistent with fiscal year
2010 levels will send a strong, positive signal to other investors,
companies investing in fuel cell products, auto makers, supply chain
partners, and potential customers. We need a robust market for fuel
cells and hydrogen energy in the United States if we want to keep these
industry jobs and the resulting economic growth here, as well.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
STRENGTHEN FEDERAL HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL PROGRAMS
Proposal.--Fund DOE fuel cell programs at a Congress-approved level
for fiscal year 2010; restore reductions proposed by the administration
for fiscal year 2012.
DOE's Office of Fuel Cell Technologies, Fuel Cell and
Infrastructure Technologies Program supports the development of fuel
cells, hydrogen fuel and supporting infrastructure for power
generation, backup power, industrial vehicles, portable applications,
and passenger cars. The program has made exceptional progress in a few
short years, helping to reduce the cost of fuel cells by 45 percent
since 2007 and the cost of hydrogen produced from renewable sources and
natural gas by 40 percent. The program has tested and evaluated 160
fuel cell vehicles in real-world operation, led the development of
safety codes and product standards, and helped deploy more than 1,000
fuel cell systems to Federal agencies and early private sector
customers where they are improving energy efficiency and security of
supply with low or zero emissions.
The United States is the recognized world leader in fuel cell
technology. DOE research has supported more than 200 patents. But the
full benefits of commercialization, including, by DOE's estimate, up to
677,000 jobs in the next 25 years, will go where the Government
policies and public-private partnerships are strongest. Germany, South
Korea, Japan, and China, among others, are implementing long-term
programs designed to capture the fuel cell lead and reap the economic
and energy security benefits that will follow. The Obama
administration's proposal to reduce fuel cell funding would send just
the opposite signal to our domestic market, and have long-term
undesirable consequences.
Fuel cell technologies are a crucial part of the new energy network
that is needed to achieve the Nation's energy policy and greenhouse gas
reduction goals. DOE estimates fuel cells can reduce oil imports by
nearly 8 billion barrels over the next 40 years, reduce CO2
emissions by 2.4 billion tons, and save consumers $1.6 trillion. A
robust public-private partnership focused on cost reduction and early
deployment will accelerate commercialization and the benefits that
accrue with marketplace success.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs--$174 Million
Vehicles and Infrastructure.--Support for deployment and fueling
infrastructure, backed by testing and evaluation, is essential
to accelerating the transition to the marketplace. As its Phase
I Technology Validation program winds down, DOE should evolve
to support early volumes of commercial Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicles and related infrastructure.
Market Transformation.--The Market Transformation Program
provides technical and financial support for purchase or lease
of fuel cell systems entering the marketplace. The program
creates U.S. jobs, improves security of air travel and
communications, and enables a commercial transition in early
markets by driving down costs through economies of scale. DOE
should continue Market Transformation activities in all market
sectors.
Enabling Activities.--These programs prepare local communities
for fuel cell installations, fueling stations and vehicles, and
help DOE evaluate program options. Systems analysis, safety,
codes and standards, education, and manufacturing technology
programs all contribute to commercialization.
Research and Development.--DOE's robust program of cost reduction
via research into materials, catalysts, and components should
continue. Hydrogen is one of a portfolio of fuels that together
will achieve U.S. energy security while meeting greenhouse gas
reduction goals. Improved hydrogen storage will reduce vehicle
cost and improve capability, and will enable efficient use of
hydrogen as a storage strategy for intermittent renewable
resources, such as wind and solar power. Hydrogen from biomass
uses a renewable domestic energy source and provides greater
greenhouse gas reductions than biofuel combustion.
Office of Fossil Energy: Solid State Conversion Alliance Program--$50
Million
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) is a cost-shared
public-private partnership developing high-temperature solid oxide fuel
cells (SOFCs) for stationary power generation that has met or exceeded
every benchmark set for it by the Congress and the DOE in its more than
10 years of existence. Industry has spent $3 for every $1 of Government
funds, and decreased the cost of SOFCs tenfold, while increasing their
efficiency and durability by 2 to 3 times. Continued support is needed
to scale-up the technology to central power station levels. The United
States lead in SOFCs, and has created commercially viable distributed
power generation using natural gas, biogas, and landfill gas that emits
zero criteria pollutants at a low-GHG intensity. Continued development
and commercialization of SECA technology will deliver a significant
return to the U.S. economy. Walking away now would hand the fruits of
our investments to our foreign competitors.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Technology Institute
Gas Technology Institute (GTI) welcomes the opportunity to provide
comments to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development.
GTI is an independent not-for-profit organization serving research,
development, and training needs of the natural gas industry, gas
consumers, and energy markets. Most of the 250-person GTI staff is
based at GTI's headquarters located on an 18-acre campus in Des
Plaines, Illinois. More than 70 percent of our personnel are
technically trained engineers and scientists. GTI has more than 280,000
square feet of office, laboratory, shop, library, and training space
with more than 110,000 square feet devoted to laboratory, fabrication
and testing facilities. GTI currently manages approximately $60 million
in research and development contracts per year (more than 100
projects), and has been managing contracts of this type since the
1940s. GTI performs contract Research and Development (R&D) for the
Department of Energy (DOE) and is very familiar with many of its
programs.
NATURAL GAS
New opportunities for the production of natural gas in the United
States will provide a jobs and economic boom to many parts of our
Nation over the next 10 years. In the last year alone Pennsylvania has
created 44,000 new jobs and their residents have received more than
$389 million in lease payments from private companies for the right to
explore natural gas trapped in shale formations. By 2020, 211,000 new
jobs are expected to be created in Pennsylvania and lease payments more
than $1.9 billion \1\ to be paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PA-
Marcellus-Updated-Economic-Impacts-5.24.10.3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist in accomplishing the goals of energy independence,
reducing emissions and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs, the
Congress and executive branch should provide similar attention and
resources to the development and deployment of natural gas technologies
as are provided to other energy sources. Today, the DOE spends billions
of R&D dollars on wind, solar, coal, and more-efficient electric
technologies. These are all important efforts, however, when reviewing
the agency's entire R&D budget, less than 1 percent is spent on natural
gas R&D even though natural gas represents 25 percent of our Nation's
primary energy use and that is expected to grow over the next several
decades and natural gas provides compelling public benefits in terms of
domestic economic growth, improved energy security, source energy
efficiency, and reduced carbon dioxide emissions.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
For R&D related to natural gas, a review of the combined budgets of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and Fossil programs
alone, show that in 2010, the U.S. Government provided an estimated $80
million (3.5 percent), out of an almost $2.3 billion total. It is clear
that if the United States wants to support an expanded role for clean-
burning natural gas, leading to improved energy independence, energy
efficiency, job creation and reduced emissions, scarce R&D dollars
should be, in part, focused on natural gas. These new natural gas
technologies could be utilized in all energy sectors including homes,
businesses, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation; as
well as to enhance reliability and safety of the natural gas production
and delivery system.
Natural Gas Research and Development Funding Information and
Observations (Increase Funding for Natural Gas Research and
Development)
The $100 million Industrial Technology Program (ITP) continues to
be the only program at DOE that focuses a portion of their budget on
developing new more efficient technologies for manufacturing. Many of
these technologies will be powered by natural gas.
Approximately 60 percent of the $673 million 2010 fossil energy
budget for R&D was appropriated for coal while only 2.5 percent was
directed to natural gas.
During 2010, Coal accounted for 22 percent of the country's primary
energy use while natural gas represented 25 percent of the county's
primary energy use. It would be fair and prudent to spend comparable
R&D funding for natural gas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/
#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=2-AEO2011®ion=1-
0&cases=ref2011-d120810c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spending stimulus
provided $3.4 billion to the Fossil Energy Program. All was spent on
coal.
The approximately $200 million buildings program at EERE has no
specific program to support natural gas technologies for homes and
businesses even though approximately 70,000,000 U.S. homes and
businesses use natural gas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A.G.A. ``Gas Facts: with 2008 Data'', Tables 8-2 and 8-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently natural gas vehicle (NGV) R&D at USDOE is $5 million.
Electric vehicle R&D is approximately $128 million.
The Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability only funds R&D
programs for the Electric Grid, not the entire energy delivery system,
thus discounting the importance of our Nation's gas pipeline
infrastructure which currently supplies 21 percent of U.S. electricity.
No money within the Renewable program is directed toward the
development of technologies to produce renewable natural gas (RNG) from
livestock manure, landfills, wastewater treatment, or woody-bio-mass
even though RNG may offer the most efficient means to deliver nonwind
or solar renewables to energy consumers.
The current proposed DOE budget by the administration provides no
funding or R&D program direction for natural gas vehicles, efficiency
improvements for natural gas power generation or home appliances,
efficiency for natural gas commercial cooking, natural gas carbon
capture, renewable natural gas technology, or development of hybrid
solar natural gas technologies.
Following are recommendations that begin to address the lack of
natural gas R&D at DOE. Within some of the recommendations are
suggested resource amounts. GTI suggests these amounts as part of
whatever allocated dollars are agreed upon between the Congress and the
administration. We are not suggesting new money--just a reasonable and
prudent refocus supporting an equitable approach for natural gas R&D.
Residential homes and commercial buildings consume more than 40
quadrillion Btus (or Quads) of energy. Developing building technologies
that utilize the least amount of total energy; provide similar
performance as existing technologies and take advantage of renewable
opportunities can ensure the most efficient use of important domestic
energy resources such as natural gas.
Natural gas is an important domestic energy resource, with nearly
all of U.S. demand for natural gas coming from North America and 52
percent of all U.S. homes utilizing natural gas for space/hot water
heating or cooking. While an expanding supply from new sources such as
gas shales has resulted in a flattening of prices--a trend that is
expected to continue, this domestic source of energy should be used in
the most efficient and clean manner ensuring the maximum benefit of
existing and future supply.
BUILDINGS PROGRAM
The natural gas industry, manufacturers, and R&D performers will
identify and capture financial support for this effort with 20 to 40
percent co-funding expected, depending on the type of R&D performed.
We recommend natural gas efficiency R&D within the DOE's Buildings
Technology Program of $12 million. This is a very small request
relative to their overall 2010 budget which was more than $200 million,
and this request is supported by the American Gas Association (AGA) and
numerous gas utilities and other gas related trade associations.
Specific program initiatives include:
Space Conditioning and Water Heating Efficiency and Operational
Improvements.--$2.9 million.
Building Systems and Community Energy System Technologies.--$2.6
million.
Breakthrough Technology Development.--$2.1 million.
Development of Higher-Efficiency Commercial Food Service
Equipment.--$1.6 million.
Solar/Natural Gas Hybrid Systems.--$2.8 million.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Within ITP, we are concerned of the new focus proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. This new focus of R&D
support for manufacturing of advanced materials discounts the 20 years
of stakeholder involvement by the steel, glass, aluminum, heat-treating
food processing, and other energy intensive industries that have worked
with the Industrial Technology Program to develop new processes and
other means to reduce energy consumption and improve manufacturing
technologies. Many of these stakeholders have already voiced their
concerns to Members of Congress and DOE.
GTI suggests that a good guide for ensuring that the ITP addresses
the R&D needs of energy-intensive manufacturing industries can be found
in section 452 of the ``Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007''.
We are not suggesting the specific funding outlined in that section,
but rather the language regarding the scope and focus of the ITP
presented in section 452 titled ``Energy Intensive Industries
Program.''
We also recommend specifically that ITP include a focus on waste
heat recovery, and combined heat and power.
--Gas Heat Pump Technology (CHP);
--Micro Combined Heat and Power Production Development (CHP); and
--CHP Efficiency and Carbon Reduction Improvements (CHP).
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
As mentioned earlier the President's budget request for DOE in 2012
provided no funding for natural gas vehicle R&D even though the request
for the overall budget for the vehicle programs was $588 million. GTI
proposes a budget of $30 million for natural gas vehicle R&D. This
request is supported by AGA, numerous gas utilities, and NGV America.
Specific program initiatives include:
--Development of new engines to meet a wider range of applications.
--Integrating natural gas engines into additional medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle platforms such as buses, trash trucks, delivery
trucks, and over-the-road trucks as well as marine and off-road
applications.
--Develop new natural gas hybrid-electric platforms.
--Reduce cost and weight of compressed and liquefied natural gas
storage systems.
Renewables.--Ensure that some portion of the Renewables program
area can support the demonstration of a renewable natural gas
production facility utilizing gasification to produce pipeline quality
gas from woody-biomass. (Excellent efficiency--low emissions).
Fossil.--Currently there is no funding for natural gas and the
President's USDOE Fossil Energy R&D budget request of $453 million is
directed for coal carbon capture and sequestration. Program direction
would be welcome for improving efficiency of natural gas power
generation, natural gas exploration and production R&D to address
environmental concerns, and natural gas power generation carbon
capture.
Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability.--All funding is
focused on the electric grid. The President's proposed budget of $238
million should provide program direction, at a minimum, to address the
synergies of our Nation's pipeline infrastructure in relationship to
electric grid reliability.
SECTION 999/THE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP TO SECURE ENERGY FOR AMERICA
In 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act, (section 999) funding
was directed from the Nation's Oil and Gas Royalty Trust Fund to create
a program that would focus on unconventional natural gas exploration
and production R&D and on deepwater fossil fuel extraction R&D. The
program was designed to provide $12.5 million to the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) and $37.5 million to a nonprofit whose
sole purpose was to manage and guide an energy R&D program as described
above. This total of $50 million annually is directed spending.
The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America was
eventually chosen by DOE to manage the $37.5 million R&D program.
Today, RPSEA continues to manage $37.5 million of the program and
provides a resource plan to DOE annually for the execution of the
funding.
RPSEA disseminates RFP's once USDOE approves its annual plan and a
majority of the funding supports work performed by universities and
nonprofits like GTI. The most recent annual plan delivered by RPSEA
centers on performing environmentally focused R&D for shale gas and
deepwater fossil fuel exploration. RPSEA stands ready to assist the
Nation in better understanding and addressing the environmental issues
related to shale gas and deepwater fossil fuel exploration and
production.
The Congress should continue support for section 999, (which funds
RPSEA) at current or increased levels.
--RPSEA continues to be a model of Private/Public R&D partnerships
focused on delivering new technology and analysis.
--RPSEA is developing environmental and process solutions for shale
gas and deepwater fossil energy exploration.
--Natural gas R&D funding in the 1980s and 1990s supported by the
natural gas industry and the Federal Government helped to make
possible the current and growing production of natural gas from
shale formations, and contributed to the technological
breakthroughs that reversed a 40-year decline in domestic oil
production.\4\ \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf.
\5\ http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/12/us-oil-and-gas-reserves-
increased.html and http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/
sec3_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--RPSEA, while having considerably less financial resources than the
R&D programs of the 1980s and 1990s, can help continue the
development of breakthrough technologies and processes to
improve and enhance natural gas exploration and production.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association
The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to
provide the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the United
States Senate Appropriations Committee with our industry's statement
recommending fiscal year 2012 funding levels for the Department of
Energy (DOE).
While the GTA recognizes the need to reduce Federal spending in
today's fiscal environment, we respectfully recommend that the fiscal
year 2012 appropriation for fossil energy include $20 million for the
Advanced Turbines Program research and development (R&D) to meet
critical national goals of fuel conservation, greenhouse gas reduction,
fuel flexibility (including syngas and hydrogen), and criteria
pollutant reduction. A spending level of $20 million is more
appropriate than the administration's recommendation $14.6 million
considering the fiscal year 2010 spending level was $32 million. A
spending level of $20 million would still represent a significant cut
of 37 percent and will result in pushing out the timeline for the
development and deployment of environmentally advanced gas turbines by
several years.
It is clear that dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
are in the national interest. It is also clear that our economy needs
more electric generation capacity to resume and promote further growth.
Without new technology, the power generation industry will be hard
pressed to produce additional electric capacity, while at the same time
meeting 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 efficient, versatile, cleaner, and
have the ability to burn hydrogen-bearing reduced carbon synthetic
fuels and carbon-neutral alternative fuels is needed to ensure the
reliable supply of electricity in the next several decades. Domestic
coal based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with carbon
capture and storage 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 liquefied natural gas (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.
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADVANCED INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE /
H2 GAS TURBINE--REDUCING THE PENALTY FOR CO2
CAPTURE
At current rates of research and development it is unlikely that
the Nation will have available the gas turbine technologies to meet the
needs of carbon capture capable powerplants. The advancement of these
technologies must be undertaken by the DOE since there is currently no
pathway to the development, insertion, and maturation of these
technologies into the Nation's electric power infrastructure based on
market forces. Thus, a combined effort by the public and private
sectors is necessary.
The turbines and related technologies being developed under the DOE
Fossil Energy Advanced Turbines program will directly advance the
performance and capabilities of future power generation with
CO2 capture and storage. Advances are needed to offset part
of the powerplant efficiency and output reductions associated with
CO2 capture. Program funding is required to cost-share in
the technology development of advanced natural gas/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 powerplants
with carbon capture. These technologies will:
--increase plant efficiency;
--increase plant capacities; and
--allow further reductions in combustion emissions of hydrogen rich
fuels associated with CO2 capture and storage.
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 Federal cost-share funding is immediate. The funding
levels in past years for the advanced turbines program has been
inadequate to meet DOE's Advanced Power System goal of an IGCC power
system with high efficiency (45-50 percent HHV), near-zero emissions
and competitive capital cost. To meet this 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.
The plan for the IGCC-based powerplants 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 storage 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 44-46 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.
MEGA-WATT SCALE TURBINE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
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 both
natural gas and high-hydrogen fuels.
The turbine industry believes that this technology is highly
relevant to industrial coal gasification applications including:
--site-hardened black-start capability for integrated gasification
combined cycle applications (the ability to restart an IGCC
powerplant when the electric grid has collapsed);
--supplying plant electric load fueled on syngas or hydrogen;
--increasing plant steam cycle capacity on hot days when large
amounts of additional power are needed; and
--in gas turbines for compression of high-hydrogen fuels for pipeline
transportation.
The development of MW-scale turbines (1-100 MW) fueled with either
natural gas or 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. Funding is required to design efficient and low emissions
combustors that accommodate the new fuels.
GAS TURBINES REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The gas turbine industry's R&D partnership with the Federal
Government has steadily increased powerplant efficiency to the point
where natural gas fired turbines can reach combined cycle efficiencies
of 60 percent, and quick-start simple cycle peaking units can reach 46
percent. The gas turbine's clean exhaust can be used to create hot
water, steam, or even chilled water. In such combined heat and power
applications, overall system efficiency levels can reach 60 to 85
percent LHV. This compares to 40-45 percent for even the most advanced
thermal steam cycles (most of which are coal fired).
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 powerplant solutions. This can be
done by funding research to make gas turbines both efficient and more
capable of utilizing hydrogen and synthetic fuels as well as increasing
the efficiency, durability and emissions capability of natural gas
fired turbines. If the Congress provides adequate funding to DOE's
turbine R&D efforts, technology development and deployment will be
accelerated to a pace that will allow the United States to achieve its
emissions and energy security goals.
GTA respectfully requests $20 million in fiscal year 2012
appropriations for the Fossil Energy Advanced Turbines Program to meet
critical national goals of fuel conservation, fuel flexibility
(including natural gas, syngas, and hydrogen), greenhouse gas
reduction, and criteria pollutant reduction.
Gas Turbine Association Member Companies.--Alstom Power; GE Energy;
Florida Turbine Technologies; Rolls-Royce; Siemens Energy; Solar
Turbines; Pratt & Whitney Power Systems; Strategic Power Systems; and
VibroMeter.
______
Prepared Statement of GE Energy
OVERVIEW
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE)
for the consideration of the subcommittee during its deliberations
regarding the fiscal year 2012 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). GE recognizes that particularly difficult choices must be
made in fiscal year 2012. These budget pressures make it essential that
the subcommittee prioritize those programs that will contribute to
economic growth and jobs creation and support core technology
development. GE recommends:
--in the coal budget, increased investment in integrated gasification
combined cycle technology development;
--funding at the levels requested by the administration for solar and
wind technologies; and
--support for Smart Grid Research and Development.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Coal Program, Advanced Energy Systems, Gasification Systems.--The
proposed fiscal year 2012 budget would reduce gasification research and
development (R&D) by 32 percent from the fiscal year 2010 funding
level. This trend confirms a fundamental shift in DOE's focus to
advanced combustion/postcombustion carbon capture--ostensibly due to
potential application to new and existing plants. GE believes that this
is a flawed strategy that compromises the future of coal. It ignores
the superior environmental performance of Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) with respect to water usage, criteria pollutant
emissions, hazardous air pollutants and useful coal byproducts. It also
ignores the proven ability of IGCC with full-scale, commercially
proven, pre-combustion carbon capture to provide the lowest avoided
cost of CO2 compared to other technologies.
It remains the case, however, that the base cost of IGCC must be
reduced further to provide a low-carbon option for coal that does not
depend on incentives. Today the higher initial capital cost of IGCC
combined with the current low cost of natural gas places IGCC at a
disadvantage. DOE studies have shown that IGCC with carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) can achieve a cost of electricity equal to current
new coal generation without CCS, but not without further technology
improvements. The fiscal year 2012 budget is insufficient to develop
these improvements.
DOE should prioritize technology programs having dual benefits in
terms of reducing base plant cost that will also reduce the avoided
cost of CO2 as compared to conventional coal with carbon
capture. GE recommends that the fiscal year 2012 budget for IGCC
restore the fiscal year 2010 funding level of $63 million to support
programs having nearer term and dual benefits:
--design for constructability and cost/technology tradeoff modeling
($8 million);
--design methodologies and technologies for availability and
reliability ($7 million); and
--operational flexibility for tomorrow's grid ($5 million) (to
support the higher penetration of renewable generation).
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) is an outlet for validation at commercial scale and prototype
application of technology from the coal R&D programs. The
oversubscription of the CCPI-3 solicitation demonstrated industry's
interest in undertaking coal projects. However, the continuing
uncertainty of carbon policy makes private investment in demonstrations
that explicitly require carbon capture and sequestration--which reduces
plant output, reduces efficiency, increases fuel consumption and
exposes the project developer to potential legal risk--difficult to
justify.
Taking these concerns into consideration, GE recommends that DOE
move forward with the development of a CCPI-4 solicitation no later
2015. The solicitation should not exclusively require CCS, but should
include EOR and other beneficial uses of CO2, and should
allow for technologies that have dual benefits as described above. A
phased program should be employed for projects that incorporate CCS, to
begin with funding of front-end engineering designs (FEEDs) and site
characterization before proceeding further. This will enable a utility
to provide accurate cost data to its regulators and demonstrate that it
has a sequestration resource with sufficient capacity for the life of
its plant.
Advanced Energy Systems, Hydrogen Turbines.--The proposed fiscal
year 2012 budget will reduce funding for the Hydrogen Turbine program
by 53 percent from fiscal year 2010. The program has been successful in
meeting technical goals and working toward offsetting much of the
performance penalty associated with coal-fueled IGCC carbon capture
while also achieving very low NOX emissions. However,
funding limitations have delayed the program from meeting its original
2015 goals until 2016-2017, and the fiscal year 2012 budget reduction
will extend the delay out until 2020. This presents a high risk of
technology not being ready for the next CCPI demonstration opportunity.
GE recommends funding of $45 million in fiscal year 2012 to help
recover schedule so that advanced hydrogen turbine technology is ready
for the next CCPI opportunity.
Water Management.--Large amounts of water are needed to produce or
extract energy, and large amounts of energy are needed to treat or
transport water. EPA has recently released a proposed Cooling Water
Intake Rule that underscores the important linkage between water use
and energy generation. What is more, CO2 capture increases
raw water usage by up to 125 percent, depending on the underlying
technology. In order to achieve DOE's aggressive goals of reducing
freshwater withdrawals and consumption 50 percent by 2015 and 70
percent by 2020, water-related R&D funding is needed. Despite this
need, yet again this year, DOE has requested no new funding for the
Water Management subprogram, and also has stated that all projects
involving Water Management are to be suspended.
GE believes that funding should be provided for R&D for innovative
water reuse technologies and demonstration projects including:
--cooling tower blowdown reuse;
--Flue Gas Desulphurization wastewater reuse and recovery;
--ash pond solids reduction; and
--treatment and reuse of produced water from unconventional oil and
natural gas production to further reduce environmental impacts
and operational costs of upstream energy processes.
Support also is needed to advance reuse/treatment technologies for
the conversion of impaired wastewater streams into sources of renewable
water in areas of water scarcity, reducing the need to use energy to
transport water over long distances and to support electricity
generation.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Solar.--GE urges the Congress to fully fund the DOE's fiscal year
2012 budget request for Solar Energy. This request for $457 million
represents a necessary commitment to accelerate the development and
deployment of solar, particularly Photovoltaics (PV). GE is investing
significantly in solar PV technology with a focus on cost reduction.
Public funding for technology innovation and R&D is critical to
improving solar's cost competitiveness with traditional power-
generation technologies and to achieving the ambitious goal of a
dollar-a-watt installed price for solar electricity before the end of
the decade. In addition, funding for Systems Integration will provide
more solutions for higher penetration of PV on the grid. By enhancing
the affordability and reliability of solar, these investments in R&D
and grid integration can advance the adoption of this technology by
utilities and other consumers.
Wind.--GE also urges the Congress to fully fund the DOE's fiscal
year 2012 budget request for Wind Energy of $127 million. This funding
will support the continued evolution and scaling of this technology. GE
is the leading wind turbine supplier in the United States and has
invested more than $1 billion in wind technology development since
2002. Further progress in improving the cost, performance, and
reliability of wind technology is critical. In particular, we believe
the program's increased focus on advanced drivetrains, control systems,
and components represent important investments in areas where public
R&D plays a critical role in accelerating technology development and
deployment. In addition, continued support for the DOE's new offshore
wind R&D and demonstration program will be essential to the development
of a domestic offshore wind market and manufacturing base.
SMART GRID
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.--GE supports the
fiscal year 2012 budget request for Smart Grid Research and
Development. R&D on Smart Grid technologies will advance reliable,
affordable, efficient, and secure delivery of electric power to
industrial, commercial, and residential customers, while at the same
time transitioning the grid to support new forms of renewable energy.
Integration of traditional grid electric infrastructures with modern IT
computer and communications systems will be necessary, and GE is
working closely with national and international standards development
organizations in the development of Smart Grid interoperability
standards. Cybersecurity is a fundamental design principle of this
effort.
R&D is required to develop advanced grid analytics software to
optimize grid efficiency and reliability, including ``Big Data''
storage and real time analysis and exascale computing. Funding through
ARPA-E and its Wireless Innovation Fund also will be critical to the
development of cutting edge wireless technologies needed for the
acquisition of data for grid analytic programs.
In order to reduce risk and accelerate the adoption of new advanced
Smart Grid technologies R&D funding will be required for the
development of Smart Grid modeling, simulation, and visualization of
both the transmission and distribution networks. Advanced modeling
capabilities will serve as a critical tool in the modernization of the
electric grid by assisting grid operators in identifying the technical
limits of conventional grid technologies, and facilitating development
of new technologies and solutions to respond to a changing energy mix
and an increasingly responsive consumer base. In addition, advanced
modeling capabilities can enable grid operators and power systems
planners to aggregate, analyze, and act upon the vast quantities of
data collected by Smart Grid technologies, thereby unlocking the full
potential of the Smart Grid. DOE should expand industry participation
in this program to fully leverage work already underway.
Smart Grid Renewables and EV Research and Development.--The Smart
Grid can fundamentally change the way electricity is generated,
transmitted, and consumed, thereby delivering substantial improvements
in the efficiency and reliability of our Nation's electric grid.
Additional research is needed in areas such as the integration of plug-
in hybrid electric vehicles and advanced management of distribution
voltage.
GE recommends that in order to achieve higher levels of renewables
penetration, R&D funding should be set aside for power electronics
development. GE recommends that the Congress provide support for DOE to
conduct research into applications of power electronics to support
Smart Grid technologies.
Energy Storage.--GE endorses the requested funding for further
research into energy storage technologies. The fiscal year 2012 budget
request appropriately broadens the scope of interest to include
innovations in new battery chemistries. This could lead to radical
improvements in energy storage performance. Electricity storage is a
critical technology to enable both deployment of electric vehicles and
improvements in grid stability and efficiency through utility-scale
storage.
GE recommends that equal attention should be given to both electric
vehicles and storage. The requirements of utility-scale storage are
quite different from those of electric vehicles. GE recommends
inclusion of research into large-scale energy storage into this line
item. This includes all potential storage modalities such as compressed
air, pumped hydro, and flywheel technologies.
COMBINED HEAT AND POWER
Industrial Technologies Program.--GE supports the request for $25
million in funding for the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Generation
line item of the Industrial Technologies Program. This funding has
enabled demonstration of a reciprocating natural gas engine operating
at 47-percent efficiency, up from a baseline of 37 percent while
preserving the exhaust heat for combined heat and power applications.
When used in CHP applications the total efficiency can reach 90
percent, making this by far the highest-efficiency and lowest-emission
solution for distributed electricity generation. Gas engines also have
rapid start and efficient load following capability making this a key
technology to ensure continued stable electric grid operation with
increasing addition of variable resources such as wind. Continued
funding will enable completion of the final phase of demonstrating 50-
percent efficiency.
______
Prepared Statement of GSI Environmental Inc.
As an environmental consulting firm with more than 25 years
experience in the oil and gas industry, we strongly encourage the U.S.
Senate Appropriations Committee to continue to fund the important work
of Department of Energy (DOE) Oil and Gas Research and Development
Program for development of new and improved technologies for
environmental management in the U.S. domestic oil and gas sector.
Need for Improved Environmental Management Technology.--With the
current expansion of the shale gas industry into new geographic regions
of the United States and the over-riding goal of achieving U.S. energy
independence, the coming years will see ever-increasing exploration,
drilling, and production activity throughout the country. As this rapid
expansion is underway, the general public and media are already
demanding improved measures for protection of natural resources and
public health.
Key Role of DOE.--The DOE Oil and Gas Research and Development
Program is the only Federal program currently dedicated to addressing
these environmental concerns. The DOE, through the Research Partnership
to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), works with the scientific
community and the oil and gas industry to develop new technologies for
efficient resource development and environmental protection. This
information is then shared with both large and small producers to
improve environmental management practices nationwide.
Benefits of DOE Environmental Research and Development Program.--
The attached table identifies 10 examples of projects supported by the
DOE RPSEA program which are providing practical, tangible benefits in
terms of improved environmental management in the domestic oil and gas
sector today, including:
--Environmentally Friendly Drilling Practices to reduce the footprint
of drilling operations and enhance environmental protection
measures;
--Treatment of Highly Saline Produced Water to allow reuse and
recycling, rather than discharge, of valuable water resources,
as well as recovery of a marketable salt product;
--Protection of Sensitive Eco-Systems in Major Shale Gas Plays in
Colorado and Utah, in order to reduce potential environmental
impacts and costs of shale gas development;
--Innovative Methods for Management of Produced Water including
generation of electrical energy via waste heat recovery;
reduction of saltwater production from mature oilfields by use
of particle gel treatments; and improved management methods to
reduce water demand and enhance water reuse for hydrofracturing
operations;
--New Road Building Techniques to reduce environmental impacts to
sensitive desert terrains and ecosystems of the Western United
States during transport of oil and gas production fluids.
Cost-Effective Research and Development.--The RPSEA program
provides a unique opportunity to leverage government funding with
private sector resources. In all grants awarded by RPSEA, the recipient
is required to secure sponsorship of industry partners and to provide
matching resources for a significant percentage of the project budget.
This policy not only ensures that the research work will be directly
applicable to active oil and gas operations but leverages a relatively
small investment by DOE to achieve significantly greater economic
benefit.
The DOE Oil and Gas Research and Development Program is the only
supporter of these and other environmental management initiatives. At a
time of increasing dependence upon domestic oil and gas resources and
an unprecedented expansion of shale gas drilling activities throughout
our country, the practical environmental solutions developed by RPSEA
are critical for the continued protection of our environment and the
continued leadership of the U.S. oil industry in the arena of
environmental stewardship.
We strongly encourage the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee to
preserve and expand the funding of the DOE Oil and Gas Research and
Development Program and RPSEA so that they may continue the important
work for energy independence and environmental protection.
TABLE 1.--EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY
RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP TO RESTORE ENERGY FOR AMERICA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project title Summary information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009
Improvement of fracturing in gas shales.. Use nondamaging fracturing
fluids and light weight
proppants combined with
foams to maximize fracture
length, minimize formation
damage, minimize use of
water in fracturing and
minimize disposal of fluids
for gas shale reservoirs.
Electrical power generation from produced Identify and demonstrate
water--Field demonstration of ways to technology that will reduce
reduce operating costs of small producers. the field operating cost of
electricity and minimize
environmental impacts by
creating green electricity
using produced water and no
additional fossil fuel.
2008
The environmentally friendly drilling Combine new low-impact
systems program. technologies that reduce
the footprint of drilling
activities, integrate light
weight drilling rigs with
reduced emission engine
packages, address on-site
waste management, optimize
the systems to fit the
needs of a specific
development sites, and
provide stewardship of the
environment.
Pretreatment and water management for Evaluate the applicability
fracturing water reuse and salt of three pretreatment
production. processes to pretreat high-
total dissolved solids,
high-hardness fracturing
water, such as is found in
the Marcellus shale, for
thermal recovery of water
and a marketable salt
product for both stationary
and mobile pretreatment
facilities.
Barnett and Appalachian shale water Develop water management
management and reuse technologies. methods and technologies
that reduce demands for
freshwater, reduce
environmental impact of
brine disposal, and ensure
supplies of water for well
drilling and completion for
natural gas development in
the Barnett and Appalachian
Shale Plays.
2007
Cost-effective treatment of produced water Test a low-temperature
using co-produced energy sources for distillation unit for
small producers. produced water purification
at the wellhead, yielding
water clean enough for
beneficial uses like
drilling, stimulating, or
waterflooding.
Field site testing of low impact oil field Reduce the environmental
access roads--Reducing the footprint in impact of mature field O&G
desert ecosystems. operations and reduce the
costs and regulatory delays
associated with additional
resource development.
Identify and test new
techniques to reduce the
environmental impact of oil
field lease roads in desert-
like ecosystems.
Mitigating water production and extending Establish methods to
the life of mature oil wells and further optimize particle gel
improve particle gel technology. treatments to increase oil
recovery plus reduce water
production, by improving
waterflood sweep
efficiency. Anticipated
result will be reduction in
the water production rate
to decrease associated
environmental risks and
impact of any spills.
Paleozoic shale gas resources of the Objectives of this study are
Colorado plateau and eastern great basin, to identify and map the
Utah: Multiple frontier exploration major trends for target
opportunities. shale intervals and
identify areas with the
greatest gas potential;
characterize the geologic,
geochemical, and
petrophysical rock
properties of those
reservoirs; reduce
exploration costs and
drilling risk especially in
environmentally sensitive
areas; and recommend the
best practices to complete
and stimulate these
frontier gas shales.
An integrated framework for treatment and Develop an Integrated
management of produced water. Decision Framework to
manage and treat produced
water that has the
potential to substantially
reduce the overall costs
and enhance gas recovery
and economic viability (and
longevity) of CBM and gas
shale fields while
minimizing potential
environmental impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
Services Programs
As Chair of the Board of Directors for the National Association for
State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), I am pleased to submit
testimony in support of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) and in support of DOE's State Energy Programs
(SEP). In these difficult budgetary times, we understand that tough
decisions have to be made. However, WAP and SEP are proven, cost-
effective, measurably successful, and vital to the Nation's energy
security and energy-efficiency movements, delivering savings to low-
income Americans, businesses, and industry. In order to sustain the
infrastructure and training and technical assistance expertise and
activities begun with the funding provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), we seek a fiscal year 2012
appropriations level of $320 million for the WAP and $125 million for
SEP. These funding levels are essential to continue and improve these
outstanding programs for our citizens. Due to the close of ARRA funding
in March 2012, normally appropriated funds are even more critical to
allow the WAP network to fulfill its administrative duties and ensure
continued quality and success at the expanded ARRA level.
Some examples of the Program's accomplishments include:
--Creation and continued support of more than 15,000 full-time,
highly skilled jobs within the service delivery just in ARRA
funds, with 8,000-10,000 additional jobs from annual grant
funding, and many more in related businesses, such as materials
suppliers;
--Weatherization of an additional 650,000 homes occupied by low-
income families due to ARRA and approximately 28,000 homes
through annual appropriations, thereby reducing energy use and
associated energy bills;
--Served more than 6.7 million low-income homes since the program's
inception, with an additional 38.3 million eligible;
--Saves an estimated 35 percent of consumption for the typical home,
with savings continuing year-after-year and actual $1 savings
increasing as fuel prices increase;
--Saves $437 in first-year energy savings for households weatherized;
--Returns $2.51 for every $1 spent in energy and nonenergy benefits
over the life of the weatherized home;
--Serves as a foundation for residential energy-efficiency retrofit
standards, technical skills, and workforce training for the
emerging broader market;
--Supports communities through local purchasing and jobs created
nationwide;
--Reduces residential and powerplant emissions of carbon dioxide by
2.65 metric tons/year per home;
--Decreases national energy consumption by the equivalent of 24.1
million barrels of oil annually.
WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in the
Nation and serves an essential function by helping low-income families
reduce their energy use. The program was developed in the late-1970s as
a response to rapidly rising energy costs associated with oil shortages
created by oil embargoes. The Congress acknowledged that low-income
families were particularly vulnerable to increased energy price
fluctuations and created the program to assist those families by
reducing the cost to heat their homes. WAP was institutionalized within
the DOE in 1979 and today operates in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, five U.S. territories, and two Native American tribes.
Approximately 1,000 local agencies provide services in every political
jurisdiction of the country using direct hire crews and local
contractors to do the work. These network providers use program funds
to improve the energy efficiency of low-income dwellings, utilizing the
most advanced technologies and testing protocols available in the
housing industry. Since the Program's inception, more than 6.7 million
homes have been weatherized using Federal, State, utility, and other
monies.
WAP is still as relevant now as it was when it was formed in
response to the energy crisis 30 years ago. The savings to America's
most vulnerable citizens are significant and make a huge, immediate
difference in their lives. These families have an average energy
burden--the percentage of their income needed to pay residential energy
bills--around 15 percent of their income as compared to around 3-
percent for nonlow income households, or five times greater. And the
poorest families have a much higher energy burden than that. For
example, in the State of California, subcommittee Chairman Dianne
Feinstein's home State, there are more than 718,000 households below 50
percent of the Federal poverty level. Those families have an energy
burden of 36.5 percent--more than one-third of their income. With lower
energy bills, these families can increase their usable income and buy
other essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and
healthcare. WAP provides a positive return on investment to meet its
primary objectives of making homes warmer in winter and cooler in
summer and creating safer and healthier indoor environments.
Because of the advanced diagnostics and technology developed in
WAP, the program is the foundation for the emerging green energy-
efficiency retrofit workforce. There are approximately 25,000 jobs in
the WAP network, with many more supported in related businesses, such
as material suppliers. These jobs are good, living wage jobs, which are
more important than ever due to the economic downturn in the housing
and construction industries. Workers are highly trained and receive on-
going instruction to further develop their skills. WAP is at the core
of the larger energy-efficiency retrofit market, and its training
curricula, methods, and centers play an integral role in developing
tools and techniques and a workforce. WAP managers, trainers, and
technical experts figure prominently in the Recovery through Retrofit
Initiative, contributing their expertise to the Workforce Guidelines
for Residential Energy Efficiency Workers and playing a key role in the
development of standardized training curricula, worker certifications,
and training facility accreditations.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $5 billion over 3
years for the WAP. This investment has allowed States and local
agencies to increase significantly their efforts to weatherize 650,000
homes. WAP has created more than 15,000 new jobs across the country
since 2009, making it the 8th highest ARRA job creating program. This
figure does not include the countless jobs and businesses supported
with WAP money in the foundering housing industry during this period.
Furthermore, the network has weatherized more than 380,000 homes
through February 2011, and will reach its production goals before the
conclusion of ARRA grants.
While the ARRA invested significantly in energy efficiency and
independence, in order to sustain the program beyond March 2012 it is
critical that the WAP maintain adequate funding so the network can
continue to provide jobs and support local economies as well as promote
energy efficiency nationwide.
NASCSP urges the subcommittee to fund WAP at $320 million while
providing $125 million for SEP. The WAP remains a crucial component of
our Nation's energy future. WAP is a clearly proven investment, has
provided significant energy savings, and has helped more than 6.7
million families live in safer, more comfortable living conditions.
This is a program that has proved its worth and effectiveness for more
than 30 years. NASCSP looks forward to working with subcommittee
members in the future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency
and good jobs for millions of American families through these
invaluable national programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of
Massachusetts and chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of
funding for a variety of Department of Energy (DOE) programs.
Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $125 million
for the State Energy Program (SEP), which is equal to the
authorization. SEP is the most successful program supported by the
Congress and DOE in this area. This should be base program funding,
which allows States to set their own energy priorities while
contributing to national energy goals, with no competitive portion
which focuses primarily on DOE's internal priorities. 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. As
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) winds down over the
remainder of this year, the base SEP funds are the critical linchpin to
help States in building on these activities and expanding energy-
related economic development, much as SEP has done for 30 years. We
also support the $320 million fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). These programs are successful
and have a strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support the budget
request for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of $124
million. EIA's State-by-State data is very helpful. EIA funding is a
critical piece of energy emergency preparedness and response, and there
are significant new EIA responsibilities under EISA. NASEO continues to
support funding for a variety of critical buildings programs, including
Building Codes Training and Assistance, ENERGY STAR, the commercial
buildings initiative/Better Buildings and residential energy efficiency
at least at the fiscal year 2010 level. NASEO also supports funding for
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), at
least at the fiscal year 2010 funding level. Specific funding should be
provided for the Division of Infrastructure Security and Energy
Restoration of no less than $18 million, which funds critical energy
assurance activities. We also strongly support the R&D function and
Operations and Analysis function within OE. The industries program
should be funded at least at the fiscal year 2010 level.
Formula SEP funding provides a basis for States to share best
practices among themselves. These best practices (even without stimulus
funds) allow States to get a great deal accomplished. These types of
activities include energy financing programs, revolving loans, utility-
based programs, energy service performance contracts, etc.
In January 2003 (and updated in 2005), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) completed a study and concluded, ``The impressive
savings and emissions reductions numbers, ratios of savings to funding,
and payback periods . . . indicate that the State Energy Program is
operating effectively and is having a substantial positive impact on
the Nation's energy situation.'' ORNL found that $1 in SEP funding
yields:
--$7.22 in annual energy cost savings;
--$10.71 in leveraged funding from the States and private sector in
18 types of project areas;
--annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source BTUs; and
--annual cost savings of $333,623,619.
Energy price volatility makes the program more essential as
businesses and States work together to maintain our competitive edge.
STIMULUS FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION
We want to thank the subcommittee for the tremendous support
provided in the stimulus package for a variety of State and local
funding initiatives, including $3.1 billion for SEP, $5 billion for
WAP, $3.2 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant and $300 million for the ENERGY STAR appliance rebate program.
This is a major task. We have been working closely with DOE to
implement these programs as quickly as possible. We have had regular
calls with all the State energy officials to address implementation
questions. We have also had a series of regional conference calls among
the States, and we have seven regional coordinators helping to share
``best practices'' among the States. NASEO is sharing best practices
and providing information to officials at all levels of government in
order to more effectively coordinate this effort. We are convinced that
these funds are helping to engineer major positive changes in the U.S.
economy that will improve all sectors of the economy. NASEO believes it
is important to maintain base levels of appropriations for critical
programs, such as SEP and WAP, in order to avoid a huge decrease in
funding after a rapid stimulus increase.
With respect to ARRA spending for SEP, of the $3.1 billion
appropriated, virtually all the money is now under contract and work is
being implemented. We and DOE are working through the barriers that
slowed spending, including National Environmental Policy Act
compliance, Davis-Bacon wage rates, Buy-American clauses, historic
preservation, lead paint requirements and general procurement issues.
It is important to stress that the key figures are the ``commitment''
and ``contracted'' amounts, because that is when people get hired and
work commences. States generally do not pay until projects are actually
completed and milestones are met. We do not pay-up front in most cases.
In economics jargon, the Federal spending figure is actually a lagging
indicator. Of the ARRA funds dedicated to SEP and Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant, more than $1 billion has been dedicated to
energy financing programs in cooperation with the private sector. This
has the greatest long-term potential.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. We have previously supplied to
subcommittee staff examples of programs implemented under ARRA. Here
are a few representative examples.
Alabama.--The State has dedicated $25 million for an energy
revolving loan fund for business and industry, and has dedicated
millions for energy efficient school retrofit grants. The Walker County
school project alone is saving $146,000 per year in energy costs with a
$300,000 SEP investment.
Alaska.--SEP-supported projects include the Village End-Use
Efficiency Measures project, which assisted 31 remote villages. In the
last year, more than 400 projects are now being implemented in order to
reduce the terribly high-energy costs in these villages (they have
historically paid, at a minimum, more than six times the national
average for electricity costs).
California.--The State is implementing a comprehensive residential
and commercial ($18.8 million) building retrofit program, an energy
finance program for municipalities, and State building retrofits
through revolving loans (more than $25 million), clean-energy business
financing, low-interest loans for local governments and ``Green Jobs''
workforce training ($20 million). Jobs associated with the residential/
commercial program total 1,200. The Energy Technology Assistance
Program is creating more than 700 jobs.
Hawaii.--This State is focused on energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects intending to supplement existing efforts. For example,
promotion of ENERGY STAR upgrades for hotels, technical assistance to
develop green buildings and other energy efficient buildings, have been
two major projects. Funds have supplemented the public benefits
program, the county energy efficiency efforts and alternative fuel
efforts. Electric vehicle development, including infrastructure
expansion, has also been a focus.
Illinois.--The SEP-supported Green Industry Business Development
Program is supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency component
manufacturers and manufacturers of recycled content products. One of
the State's many school projects installed a geothermal heating and
cooling system in four, Rantoul schools, which resulted in 145 local
jobs and important training.
Iowa.--This State has committed substantial funding to municipal
energy-efficiency projects and green jobs initiatives. A good example
has been Sun Prairie Vista Court Apartments where more than $110,000 is
being saved annually and the owner contributed $1.7 million. They have
also instituted an energy loan program. Funding has supplemented
programs and projects conducted under the State-funded Iowa Power Fund.
The energy office has also been very involved in preserving propane
supplies to respond to emergencies.
Kentucky.--$14 million has been dedicated to the Green Bank of
Kentucky for energy efficiency financing for public buildings by
utilizing revolving loans. In addition, funds were provided for an
advanced energy efficient battery initiative, commercial office
building energy efficiency retrofits, industrial facility energy
efficiency retrofits, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR, utility smart
grid activities, and $10 million for energy efficiency in K-12 schools.
The school districts are targeting more than $14 million in savings for
the program. The partnership with the University of Kentucky is also
providing funds for ``circuit riders'' to work across the State on
energy projects.
Louisiana.--$25.7 million has been committed to energy efficiency
retrofits in higher education buildings; $15.7 million is dedicated to
retrofits of commercial buildings and energy efficiency for new and
existing homes; and $10 million has been committed to renewable energy
development. Their Home Energy Rebate Option (HERO) program provided
energy-efficiency rebates of more than $1 million in 3 months for more
than 400 homeowners. The commercial rebates are as high as $5,000 per
facility.
Maine.--The State's SEP-supported project fund helped match funding
for Tex Tech (sports equipment manufacturer) in North Monmouth, that
allowed the purchase of new biomass equipment saving $400,000 in fuel
costs and retaining 40 local jobs. The State's new home energy
efficiency retrofit program has now begun and is implementing
residential retrofits.
Mississippi.--$17 million was dedicated for energy efficient public
buildings, including retrofits, performance contracting, and building
energy codes; $10 million was allocated for renewable energy projects,
smart meters on public facilities and support for community college
workforce training. An additional $10 million was slated for businesses
to implement energy efficiency or renewable energy upgrades. The
Mississippi Job Protection through Energy Economic Development Program
has provided grants to 55 companies for energy retrofits, with annual
savings of almost $4 million. One example is the Laurel Machine and
Foundry Company, where they are savings almost $100,000/year, and the
company said that without these funds they would have closed and 32
employees would have lost their jobs.
Montana.--$22.3 million has been allocated to State universities,
community colleges and other State facilities for energy efficiency
projects; 89 projects are underway. The Montana Veterans Nursing Home
in Columbia Falls has been the beneficiary of one of these projects,
allowing the State to be repaid in only 3 months for the energy-
efficiency upgrade, including cost share. Additional funds have been
dedicated to renewable energy demonstration projects, including CORE
Wind Power for a 3 MW facility in Ronan, Algae Aqua Culture
Technologies for biomass projects, the biodiesel blend project in the
Hi-Line area and a Chester-based oilseed processor project.
New Jersey.--$7 million has been committed to fund solar
installations on multi-family buildings; $4 million for residential
energy efficiency financing; $4 million for multi-family energy
efficiency loans; $17 million for municipal energy efficiency
incentives; $6 million for State building energy efficiency; and an
additional $15 million for grants and loans for energy efficiency and
renewable energy applications. Recently, 430 home energy retrofits were
completed under their Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program.
Rhode Island.--Funds have been provided for a green building
initiative in State facilities, a commercial/industrial energy
efficiency initiative, building code upgrades and energy efficient
transportation:
--$8.4 million has been allocated for renewable energy loans;
--$2.3 million has been allocated for a residential energy-efficiency
initiative with approximately $7.5 million in leveraged funds
projected.
Larger (utility-scale) renewable projects received $5 million.
Sixty-nine renewable energy projects were funded in the past year
alone.
South Carolina.--In 2010, the South Carolina Energy Office awarded
grants to 12 nonprofit organizations, colleges, and governments to
reduce energy costs and implement alternative energy projects. The
Columbia College solar water heating systems for the dormitories are
one example of this initiative. Other projects include solar absorption
cooling at Claflin University, solar water heating for Central Electric
Power Cooperative customers and solar projects for Furman University.
South Dakota.--$20.5 million has been dedicated to a State
revolving loan for public buildings, with $3 million for a limited
number of grants. Thirty-six projects are underway and activities
include energy-efficiency retrofits, LEED ratings, on site generation,
etc. The 100-year-old State capitol building was retrofitted, saving $2
million per year for that project alone.
Tennessee.--The State committed substantial resources to a
comprehensive solar development program; 108 grants totaling $9 million
have been awarded to a variety of solar projects, leveraging $24
million in private funds. These projects includes both consumer
projects as well as manufacturing development. The State has also
expanded its energy efficiency programs.
Texas.--$137.8 million has been allocated for public sector
building energy efficiency, including revolving loans for schools,
hospitals, municipalities, public colleges, etc., $52 million has been
allocated for a competitive renewable energy grant program.
Transportation efficiency programs have also been funded. Fifteen
cities and one county recently installed energy efficient streetlights
(with $7.8 million in SEP funds) that use one-thirtieth of the energy
of the old technology. In Beaumont alone, 62 of the 168 traffic signals
were replaced with energy-efficient technology.
Washington.--More than $20 million was allocated for an energy
efficiency and renewable energy loan and grant program, including a $2
million grant to Port Townsend Paper Corp. for a biomass project that
is supporting 398 full- and part-time jobs and leveraged $53 million in
other funds. More than 10 times the amount of available funds was
requested by potential recipients. Additional funding of $5 million was
provided for energy-efficiency credit enhancements (supporting $50
million in total project expenditures). Community-wide residential and
commercial energy efficiency pilots received $14 million in grants.
Other projects include an ``electric highway initiative establishing
recharging locations on I-5, support for a 7.5 MW wind turbine at the
Grays Harbor Paper mill in Hoquiam in cooperation with the Grays Harbor
PUD and a $1 million project for a wood-fired boiler at Forks Middle
School in the Quillayute Valley Schools district.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydropower Association
The National Hydropower Association (NHA) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement regarding hydropower research and
development (R&D) funding priorities for the fiscal year 2012
appropriations budget cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHA is a nonprofit, national trade association dedicated to
promoting the Nation's largest renewable resource and advancing the
interests of the hydropower and new ocean, tidal, conduit and in-stream
hydrokinetic industries and the consumers they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHA requests $100 million in the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Waterpower Program to support initiatives across all hydropower
technology sectors. The types of technologies covered are conventional
hydropower, including pumped storage, as well as marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies that access energy in ocean waves,
tides, and the flowing water in rivers and man-made channels.
A $100 million funding level, split equally between the
conventional and MHK programs, is necessary to support a national goal
to double U.S. capacity of renewable hydropower and the research needed
to increase production and create more than 1.4 million cumulative new
jobs all across the country. Investment in hydropower R&D will drive
innovation across the economy and maintain American competitiveness and
create jobs.
Taking maximum advantage of our Nation's hydropower infrastructure
by increasing efficiencies at existing hydro facilities and adding
capacity at nonpowered dams are two near-term steps in the long-term
effort to expand hydropower resources. However, development of some of
this capacity requires necessary and needed R&D investment (both short
and long term) in order to advance the state of the technology, study
potential impacts, understand the extent of the developable resource,
and more.
In particular, Government funding is needed at the front end when
private investments would not recoup the full value of the resulting
social good. This is especially true in the case of basic R&D
initiatives, where under-investment is prevalent.
HYDROPOWER'S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION
As America's leading renewable electricity resource, hydropower
currently provides approximately 7 percent of our Nation's electricity
supply and two-thirds of America's renewable electricity.\2\ In
addition, hydropower is positioned to meet 20 percent of President
Obama's goal of 80-percent clean energy by 2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on 2009 generation data. Energy Information
Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/
table1_1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to the future, NHA believes hydropower can double its
contribution to the Nation's electricity portfolio, providing
affordable, reliable, and sustainable baseload electricity through the
responsible development and expanded use of conventional hydropower,
pumped storage and new technologies, both MHK and conduit applications.
Support for this forecast is evident. With approximately 100,000 MW
of installed capacity today, recent studies have determined that 60,000
MW of growth is possible by 2025 alone. Right now, there are projects
with more than 88,000 MW of capacity before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). Applications for DOE Waterpower program
funding opportunities in the past far outnumbered available funds--both
for new MHK and conventional technologies. For example, in 2010 DOE
awarded $32 million to seven projects to pursue upgrades to existing
facilities, although dozens more projects submitted applications.
In addition to the new generation this development will bring
online, hydropower projects provide a host of ancillary services to the
grid and environmental benefits. Hydropower facilities can quickly go
from zero power to maximum output, making them exceptionally good at
meeting rapidly changing demands for electricity throughout the day. In
fact, because of its ability to be quickly dispatched, and its
blackstart capability, hydropower was key in restoring power to the
grid during the 2003 Northeast blackout. From a clean air perspective,
hydropower generation in 2009 avoided more than 196 million metric tons
of carbon emissions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to EPA Carbon Equivalencies Calculator http://
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDROPOWER'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS SPAN ALL INDUSTRY SECTORS--
CONVENTIONAL, NEW HYDROKINETIC TECHNOLOGIES AND PUMPED STORAGE
To realize the opportunity to increase hydropower generation that
will strengthen our economy, environment and renewable energy supplies,
continued and expanded funding support is needed to develop and deploy
novel technologies, improve operational procedures, and provide
rigorous analysis. Under a fully funded DOE Water Power program, all
involved interests will have better access to information on the
potential extractable energy from rivers and coastal waters; and
technical support to harness this renewable resource through
sustainable and cost-effective electric generation.
Funding to support these goals should be directed to:
Technology Development and Demonstration.--Improving hydropower
technologies is the most important function of the Water Power program.
Through previous funding, increases in efficiency and decreases in
environmental impact have been realized. This investment must continue.
New materials R&D and testing of better small- and low-head hydro
technologies would bring down the costs of converting existing
infrastructure for electricity generation and result in important
upgrades and modernization of existing powerplants. Along these lines,
initiatives that may be pursued include (but are not limited to):
--Deployment support for projects, both MHK and conventional hydro;
--Feasibility studies to identify additional low-cost, advanced-
technology opportunities (Hydro Advancement Project); and
--Development of operational tools, standard methods, and best
practices to maximize generation at existing and new
facilities.
Resource Assessment/Environmental.--Innovation in the hydropower
industry also goes beyond creating new technologies. The DOE program
plays an important role in gathering baseline industry data, developing
updated resource assessments and new growth analyses, studying project
operations for maximization of both energy and environmental values, as
well as studying new issues that may affect the industry--from
potential effects of climate change on operations to addressing the
energy storage needs to maintain a secure and functioning electric
grid. Another key role for DOE is to determine the potential capacity
on existing infrastructure. The work on the National Hydropower Assets
Assessment Program is one example of a valuable tool that needs
continued support. Also, the creation of a data clearing house of
studies and funding for operations benchmarking would enable both the
conventional and MHK industries to better forecast and model data and
demonstrate the cost effectiveness of projects.
Additional activities include:
--Identify resources and address technology/policy needs to maximize
medium- to long-term opportunities;
--Integrate resource assessments and cost curves with key pumped
storage and small hydro technology needs to identify critical
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) drivers; and
--Provide market analysis to accurately quantify and monetize
hydropower ancillary services.
Regulatory Analysis.--In addition to these areas, hydropower
development faces a comprehensive regulatory approval process that
involves many participants that includes FERC, Federal and State
resource agencies, local governments, tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, and the public. The system strives to promote
development while protecting important environmental values. However,
it can also contain redundancies and inefficiencies that unnecessarily
slow the deployment of clean renewable hydropower and delay much-needed
environmental enhancements and benefits. At a time when we need all the
renewable, affordable, and reliable energy we can get, the United
States needs an updated regulatory process that gets projects off the
drawing board and puts people to work in a more efficient way. To
support these efforts, programmatic funding could:
--Engage regulators and environmental stakeholders to reduce license
time and cost;
--Align energy generation and environmental priorities across river
basins to facilitate development; and
--Generate data to more accurately correlate generation with
environmental impacts.
ASSOCIATED FUNDING SUPPORT FOR HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAMS OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NHA is also working in partnership with Federal agencies to
identify and pursue smarter and more efficient processes to develop
hydropower projects on Federal facilities. A new Memorandum of
Understanding signed recently by COE and FERC demonstrates an on-going
and active commitment to work together and identify current challenges
and opportunities to increase hydropower development.
In this vein, NHA also calls for support of COE's own efforts to
operate, maintain and upgrade its existing hydropower projects. NHA
specifically supports the work COE is doing under its Hydropower
Modernization Initiative (HMI) to develop a long-term capital
investment strategy. One significant feature of the HMI is the Asset
Investment Planning Tool, which was designed to:
--analyze the condition of critical components and the consequences
of failure;
--determine the value of additional hydropower and its cost;
--quantify risk exposure for capital investments; and
--create 20-year funding scenarios to allow for timely and cost-
effective rehabilitation or replacement of hydropower
facilities and their components. To assist the Federal
Government in rehabilitating aging equipment, COE also is
pursuing increased use of non-Federal funds.
CONCLUSION
Unlocking the vast hydropower potential of our rivers, oceans,
tides, and conduits requires funding the R&D initiatives that make
innovative ideas a reality. The DOE Water Power program is an important
source of support for the researchers, scientists, and developers
working to grow hydropower's contribution to our country's clean-energy
resources. Continued investment in this program is crucial to ensuring
that innovative new technologies come to market and are able to
generate the clean electricity America needs.
And the hydropower industry itself is doing its part to support
investment in new technologies and project improvements. Among the
hundreds of millions of dollars invested each year in environmental
enhancements at hydro facilities, companies are supporting the
development of a new generation of turbines that improve fish passage,
generate more power, utilize water more efficiently, and improve the
oxygen content of the water released downstream of a facility, among
many other inventive technological and operational advancements.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Dear subcommittee members: I am appealing to you to help deter the
proposed budget cuts to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy
Research and Development Program. My specific concern is for the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and its programs (such as
Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, NETL), which will be affected
by the proposed cuts. The NETL provides the sustenance for important
programs in research, education, and technology transfer.
The NETL is the only U.S. National Laboratory dedicated to fossil
energy technology. It funds a wide range of energy and environmental
research and development programs that will benefit the United States
for years to come. The NETL truly plays a crucial role in keeping
oilfield research alive in the United States, increasing in importance
in recent years as research activities within the oil industry decline
drastically. Major companies have dramatically reduced their research
capabilities while the independent oil and gas producers have virtually
none. It is possible that the United States could lose its leadership
role in oil and natural gas research and technology unless the oil and
gas programs of the NETL can be maintained.
It has been proposed that NETL's Natural Gas/Oil Technology program
will be reduced in fiscal year 2011-2012. If this comes to pass,
research programs both here at New Mexico Tech and all over the country
could be severely impacted. Research conducted at American colleges and
universities to increase domestic oil and natural gas production, to
assist independent oil and natural gas producers, and to provide
education and training in the newest technologies, will suffer. Efforts
to provide technology transfer to the independent oil and natural gas
producers of our oil and gas-producing States will likewise be
drastically curtailed.
The independent producers of the United States are now responsible
for most domestic oil and gas production, as the major oil companies
have increasingly sold their domestic oil assets to independents.
Research sponsored by the DOE through such entities as NETL is the only
significant source of unbiased technical research and development for
these companies. As research at the National Laboratories, and the
petroleum engineering departments and research institutes all over the
United States will be severely impacted without this funding, service
companies cannot fill the void created by this loss of research effort.
Thus, one of the most strongly affected groups will be the
independent oil and gas producers of the United States, who are now the
backbone of the domestic industry. For many years, the NETL has
supported enhanced oil recovery research in support of our Nation's
independent producers, as well as natural gas research and technology.
The lack of NETL-funded energy research may not be significant to major
oil companies, but it will certainly burden these local, relatively
smaller, independent oil and gas producers.
Another facet of technology transfer that must not be overlooked is
information. The information most needed by small producers are:
--production data;
--well information;
--surface leasing information; and
--many user-friendly software packages.
DOE funding enables outreach groups affiliated with universities to
offer these data free online. This in turn allows small producers to
substantially reduce their overhead, thus enabling them to compete in
the oil and gas industry.
Finally, if oilfield research is discontinued, the vast amounts of
residual oil remaining to be recovered in United States oilfields (more
than 300 billion barrels) will be abandoned. Most of this cannot be
recovered without the technological breakthroughs currently being
sought through research funded by NETL. Reduced domestic oil production
could potentially compromise our Nation's economic growth and security,
forcing more and more reliance on imports.
In conclusion, science and industry have looked to the NETL for
many years to help provide solutions for the survival of domestic oil
and gas production. The continued existence of many of our research
organizations and academic departments depends on continuation of
Federal funding in order to carry out their multiple missions of
education, technology transfer and research, which will ultimately
benefit the Nation. Loss of the NETL's oil and gas research funding, on
the other hand, will damage these missions and ultimately diminish our
pre-eminence.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) supports the
administration's request for fiscal year 2012 funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) ($1.038 billion) and the following
Department of Energy (DOE) programs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is the industry's policy
organization, whose broad mission is to foster the beneficial uses of
nuclear technology in its many commercial forms. Its membership, more
than 350 corporate members in 17 countries, includes every U.S. utility
that operates a nuclear powerplant as well as international utilities,
plant designers, architect and engineering firms, uranium mining and
milling companies, nuclear service providers, universities,
manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions, and
law firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Water Reactor/Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical
Support.--$67 million.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--$155 million.
Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program.--$21.3 million.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--$97 million.
Integrated University Program.--$45 million.
Next-Generation Nuclear Plant.--$49.5 million.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program Office.--$36 billion
in new loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects.
In addition, the nuclear energy industry strongly opposes
legislation to impose a proposed tax on electric consumers for the
uranium enrichment facility decontamination and decommissioning fund.
ENSURING A STRONG NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
An independent, credible regulatory agency is required for public
confidence in commercial nuclear energy facilities. During the next few
years, NRC will be challenged to continue its inspection and licensing
activities while analyzing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and
determine what changes, if any, may be necessary in NRC requirements.
Continuity and stability of the five-member commission during this
critical time will be essential to ensure NRC staff and licensees have
clear guidance on implementation of the lessons learned. NRC functions
most effectively when it has a full complement of five commissioners,
and the nuclear energy industry believes the Congress' highest priority
should be ensuring that vacancies on the Commission do not occur.
The industry supports fiscal year 2012 funding at the NRC's
requested level of $1.038 billion, which is a $28.7 million decrease
below its fiscal year 2010 funding levels. The industry remains
concerned, however, at the steep escalation in agency budgets and
staffing levels over the last decade, from 2,763 staff in fiscal year
2001 to 3,981 staff proposed in fiscal year 2012, and from $487 million
in fiscal year 2001 to more than $1 billion proposed in fiscal year
2012. The industry recommends, therefore, that any additional
Fukushima-related work be funded by re-allocating resources and
achieving greater efficiencies, without compromising safety oversight
of existing plants and ongoing licensing activities on license renewal,
power uprates, reactor design certifications, combined construction and
operating licenses and small modular reactor licensing issues. The
industry believes the NRC can absorb additional analysis of the
Fukushima accident without diverting resources from other programs. If
the NRC cannot do so, the commission should explicitly provide the
subcommittee with the specific resource needs and what the agency can
do to accommodate new activities within its current budget.
The industry applauds the continued oversight of the NRC by the
Congress to prioritize agency actions. The agency has made some
progress, but should continue to achieve greater transparency in its
budgeting to reveal planned staffing and resource needs by individual
divisions. This is particularly true concerning the defense and
national interest programs funded by the taxpayer in appropriated
funds. In any one year, NRC should ensure that these programs are
funded at the entire 10 percent of available funds. A firewall should
exist between fee and fee-relief sources of funds so the user fee is
not used as an additional source of funding for appropriated programs.
This would demonstrate to the Congress, the public and the industry,
which pays 90 percent of the NRC's budget, that the budget fairly
reflects those activities that are licensee-specific.
Once again, the administration has proposed terminating the
Integrated University Program, which supports the Nation's universities
and community colleges. This program is unique in supporting important
nuclear science and engineering research and workforce training. It is
a vital program that provides financial support for students and junior
faculty. The program is managed jointly with DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy and DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration and has been
authorized by the Congress. NEI supports $15 million for NRC to
continue its participation in the program in fiscal year 2012 and
recommends that NRC fund the program at that level, not at the $11.5
million it has proposed for fiscal year 2011.
DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES
DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy fiscal year 2012 budget as proposed
by the administration is lower than what was appropriated in fiscal
year 2010. NEI supports the fiscal year 2012 budget as it continues the
new initiatives for the Office of Nuclear Energy requested in fiscal
year 2011. NEI believes that the following programs deserve support and
represent the highest priorities for the nuclear energy industry:
Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program.--$21.3 million;
Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical
Support.--$67 million;
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--$97 million;
Integrated University Program.--$45 million; and
Next-Generation Nuclear Plant.--$49.5 million.
The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is designated as the lead lab
for nuclear energy. INL maintains an extensive research infrastructure
and workforce that will become even more vital for postaccident
analysis and response to the radiological clean-up at Fukushima
Daiichi.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND TAX UNDUE
BURDEN ON CONSUMERS
The administration's fiscal year 2012 budget calls for legislation
to reinstate the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning
fund, with a proposed tax on electric consumers of $200 million a year
for 10 years. Electric utilities have already paid twice for
decommissioning and decontamination at uranium enrichment plants that
were originally operated by the Energy Department--first as part of the
price for uranium enrichment services from the facilities and again
under provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Under the 1992 law,
the tax on utilities was to end after 15 years or the collection of
$2.25 billion, adjusted for inflation. The utilities paid this amount
in full as specified by law. NEI will continue to oppose this proposal
in legislation and appreciates the support of the subcommittee in
rejecting this proposal in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011.
INTEGRATED USED FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Government has an obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
to dispose of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and defense
applications. The industry believes licensing should be completed.
Also, numerous State and local governments and the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners are actively opposing DOE's
withdrawal of the application for the Yucca Mountain repository at NRC
and in the courts. The project should proceed and be funded so that the
technical review of the license application is completed. The industry
opposes the fiscal year 2012 budget request by the NRC to terminate the
licensing proceeding. We urge the subcommittee to request a specific
plan and resources required for continuing the Yucca Mountain licensing
process, assuming the courts rule the application cannot be withdrawn.
Given that it has been terminated, consumer payments into the
Federal Nuclear Waste Fund should be suspended for the period of time
for which there is no waste management program against which to assess
costs. The industry supports a three-part integrated used fuel
management strategy that includes:
--on-site storage at reactor sites and development of centralized
storage at volunteer locations;
--research, development, and demonstration of advanced fuel cycle
technologies; and
--development of a permanent repository.
NEI supports the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future to develop recommendations on how the Nation should
manage used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and looks
forward to reviewing the draft report scheduled for release this
summer.
Given the importance of this report, the subcommittee should
encourage the commission to complete its work as soon as possible.
The nuclear energy industry consistently has supported research and
development of the advanced fuel-cycle technologies proposed in the
Fuel Cycle Research and Development program ($155 million). DOE's plans
should be adjusted based on its review of the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Commission that the Congress accepts.
INDUSTRY SUPPORTS $36 BILLION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
The nuclear industry appreciates the support provided by the
subcommittee for the DOE loan guarantee program for nuclear energy
plants and uranium fuel-cycle facilities. NEI urges members to maintain
the appropriated funds for projects under development for fiscal year
2011. The administration has requested an additional $36 billion in
loan volume in fiscal year 2012. This would provide sufficient loan
volume for projects already in due diligence at DOE, and would provide
certainty to other projects in the development pipeline that financing
support will be available. Absent some certainty that financing will be
available, companies may slow development of these projects.
Loan guarantees for nuclear energy projects are not a subsidy and
there is no cost to the taxpayer. The use of loan guarantees will lower
the overall cost of nuclear energy projects, ultimately reducing the
cost of electricity to consumers. Companies granted loan guarantees by
DOE for nuclear energy projects must pay a premium for use of the
program, plus cover all administrative costs.
Budget scoring is not required for nuclear energy loan guarantees,
because simply approving loan ``volume'' is not an appropriation. It
simply authorizes the agency to issue loan guarantees up to that
amount. For most loan guarantee programs, in which the Federal
Government pays the cost of the loan guarantee, the 1990 Federal Credit
Reform Act (FCRA) requires authorization of loan volume in an
appropriations bill. However, the Government Accountability Office
determined that the clean energy loan guarantee program authorized by
the 2005 Energy Policy Act should not be subject to this FCRA
requirement, because the companies receiving the loan guarantee pay the
cost to the Federal Government of providing that guarantee--not
taxpayers.
NEI continues to believe that the clean-energy loan guarantee
program, although essential, is not yet a workable financing platform,
and urges the subcommittee to exercise its oversight responsibilities
on implementation by the executive branch, particularly on the issues
of the credit subsidy cost that project sponsors are expected to pay.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP
NEI supports DOE's budget request of $6 billion for the
Environmental Management Office.
______
Prepared Statement of NuScale Power, Inc.
Dear Madam Chairman and ranking member: On behalf of NuScale Power,
Inc. of Corvallis, Oregon we request that the subcommittee approve the
President's budget request of $67 million for small, modular reactors
(SMRs) within the Office of Advanced Reactor Research Development and
Demonstration. This request includes both the research portion for
advanced SMRs, but especially the commercialization cost-share portion
for up to two light water reactor SMR designs.
SMR technologies build on a rich history of American innovation and
world-class nuclear design, manufacturing, and operations. The
President has recognized the need for nuclear power as part of a
comprehensive energy, environment and employment strategy for this
country, including new financial incentives. NuScale is ready to
deliver:
--NuScale Power uses a one-third-scale test facility on the Campus of
Oregon State University to document critical tests required to
comply with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design
certification and licensing. The next phases of regulatory
approval are costly in the United States and require Federal
support.
--Since last year NuScale Power has conducted extensive discussions
with various government operations centers managed by both
Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense. We are in
the process of scoping both research and deployment
opportunities that have the potential to benefit the Federal
Government directly by lowering the facilities' long-term costs
and reducing their greenhouse gas impacts as an electric power
consumer.
--NuScale Power is constructing a full-scale control room simulator
to specifically address digital instrumentation, control, and
human factors analysis that will be integrated in all of the
next-generation nuclear plants, regardless of size. NRC staff
has visited Corvallis to review these plans and provide input.
--As confirmed by a panel of independent experts whose work was
presented to the NRC in September 2009, NuScale Power has
achieved safety margins that are 10 times safer than the next
generation of large nuclear plants. This translates into
improved public safety and better financial risk management by
using scalable technology.
--NuScale Power's inherently safe technology has received
considerable attention since the natural disaster and ensuing
nuclear incident in Japan. We have developed a 9-page ``safety
illustration'' that can be viewed on our Web site. It shows how
our reactor and spent-fuel pool might have responded to similar
events. From what we know now, the results are very positive.
--Finally, in addition to the President's leadership in requesting
funding for research, development, and demonstration of SMRs,
NRC and its staff have also continued to provide the on-going
licensing support efforts in their own separate budget request.
In an NRC briefing held on March 29, 2011, NRC staff outlined
for the Commission the planned approach to licensing SMRs.
Staff concluded by saying, ''It's not a matter of whether we
can license these plants but how we best proceed.'' This was
encouraging to us, and is a positive sign that the Congress can
move forward with taxpayer dollars to support the licensing
efforts.
Our company experienced a temporary financial setback earlier this
year, but we are receiving considerable interest in new funding from a
consortium that includes American manufacturers, fabricators,
suppliers, constructors, and investment firms. We have advised DOE that
we will be in a position to compete for Federal cost-sharing dollars as
early as fiscal year 2011 if the program is approved by the Congress.
NuScale Power wants to thank you and your subcommittee members for
the support you have provided SMRs thus far. We look forward to
continued work with you and your staff.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Newton Hill, Jr., Former President/Owner
of Hill Equipment Corp.
ONE-HALF OF 1 PERCENT OF THE ENERGY IN THE OCEAN WAVES IS ENOUGH TO
PROVIDE THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
I wish to introduce and obtain a grant for my wave-and-tide
actuated renewable energy pump.
USE AND DISCLOSURE OF DATA
This abstract includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the
Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed--in whole or
in part--for any purpose other than to evaluate this abstract in
particular U.S. Patent Application continuation-in-part (CIP) 12220244.
However, if an award is made as a result of--or in connection with--the
submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to
duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the
resulting award. This restriction does not limit the Government's right
to use information contained in this data if they are obtained from
another source with restriction.
Patent application CIP No. 12220244 is a continuation of U.S.
Patent Application 10/600701. Patent Application 10/600701 was ready
for issuance until this CIP was filed.
I will explain my way of harnessing the energy in the ocean waves.
You simply hang a great ballast weighted piston on a chain or cable
attached to a float or ship. As the float or ship rises and falls the
ballast-weighted piston located at or near the sea floor and enclosed
in a pipe is raised and lowered, causing a pumping action that then can
be converted into any form of energy you want. All other attempts up to
this time, involve mounting fragile and/or complex structures at or
near sea level to do the work. This gives you the task of dealing with
changing tides and wave conditions and systems that do not hold up in
the adverse conditions of the ocean. If you place the ballast weighted
piston inside a tube, say going up 100 ft. high from the ocean floor,
in say 200 ft. of water, you now have a simple, robust pump with an
approximate vertical 100 ft. tide and wave range of operation.
Alternatively, to use the same example, a hole could be drilled or
excavated 100-200 feet deep in the ocean floor and the cylinder is
placed in this hole. The pump, under this arrangement, then can be
brought right up to the shoreline if needed.
The initial steps are:
Phase I
Provide feasibility studies, which will include modeling.
Build a laboratory/shop model prototype pump.
Determine how much energy can be captured by my invention off the
shores of the United States and its possessions.
Determine how much energy can be captured by my invention off the
shores of other countries.
Determine the best design for the buoy or float and other
components. Wave action is the result of molecular excitation and for
practical purposes extends about 15 feet below the surface.
Selection of materials for buoy, pump cylinder, and piston.
Submit results to the Department of Energy for justification of
additional funding.
Phase II
Build a hydroelectric power generating pilot plant approximately
one-third the size of a full-scale electric powerplant capable of
generating approximately 20 MW. This will be a permanent installation,
will feed power into the power grid and be used to test any future
modifications before they are put into general use. The renewable
energy pumps will be placed in holes drilled in the ocean floor and/or
on the ocean floor bed. The water they pump will be delivered to an
enclosed dammed area and thence run through turbines to create
electricity as the water flows back to the sea.
Phase III
Build a full-scale hydroelectric powerplant with accompanying pumps
and dam based on the experience of phases I and II.
I have determined five additional significant uses for this pump:
Seafood Farming.--Pump water to a levied area and raise fish or
shrimp, etc. When ready for harvest, you would let the water
out and scoop up the fish or shrimp by hand or mechanically,
eliminating the need for shrimp and fish trawlers, while
guaranteeing a harvest or catch every time. This is similar to
what is being done in some South American countries now, using
their high tides to capture the water behind levees, and is the
reason these countries can compete here in the United States
with local fishermen.
Land Reclamation From the Sea, Etc.--Again, a levee would be
thrown up with the pump on the ocean or sea side. The suction
would run under the levee and excavate the water behind the
levee, leaving dry land.
There Exists ``Dead'' Areas in the Sea, Depleted of Oxygen.--
Pumps could be placed in these areas to circulate oxygen
enriched sea water in and eliminate the ``dead'' areas.
Oil Contaminant Reclamation.--At surface level, a containment
barrier, as is used today, would be put in place. A skimmer
funnel would be placed inside the containment area just below
the surface, its' suction leading back down to one or more
pumps. The contaminants could be pumped up to a Tender where
further skimming would transpire. A final phase may be
introducing the oil/sea water mix into boiling brine. The water
would be absorbed into the brine and the difference in the
specific gravity between oil and brine will allow for a clean
cut in removing the oil. Alternatively, the contaminants could
be moved to a refinery or pumped to a levied area on shore for
further processing, containment, confinement, and removal. A
similar process, but with the suction at the bottom of the
ocean, can be developed for crude such as Bunker ``C'', which
have a tendency to remain on the seabed floor and eventually
wash ashore in balls of oil/sea water contaminants.
Make the Deserts Bloom.--Pump the ocean water over or tunnel
through mountain ranges, such as the Sierra Mountains on our
west coast, spread the ocean water out on the desert floor.
Hydroelectric power would be created, first to provide booster
pumps, if needed, to assist moving the water over the
mountains, then on the downside, the energy would again be
reclaimed in the form of hydroelectric power, etc. The
resultant evaporation from the desert floor would form clouds
and the prevailing winds would carry the moisture eastward,
causing rain to fall, ``Making the Deserts Bloom'', as the
clouds meet the Rocky Mountains. If this proves feasible on our
western deserts, then Morocco with the Atlas Mountains and the
Sahara should become a top priority for me and the world to
relieve the economic and political tensions building there and
affecting us, bringing stability to that portion of the world.
The Sahara is equal or larger in size than the entire United
States. Hydroelectric power would again be created. Salt water
basins could be created to concentrate and extract minerals
from the sea as well as removing man made pollutants from the
world's oceans. The world populations demand for potable or
fresh water and food is projected to exceed the entire amount
of fresh water and food available by the year 2020, making this
the most important task to achieve as it will alleviate this
projected problem. When fully deployed, the additional moisture
added to the atmosphere will act like a ``radiator'' for the
Earth, moderating the Earth's climate as well as providing a
cleansing effect on the atmosphere by way of ``washing'' more
pollutants out of the air.
BACKGROUND OF INVENTOR
Richard Newton Hill, Jr., hereafter called ``inventor'', attended
UCLA, majoring in physics and the Georgia Institute of Technology,
majoring in chemical engineering. The inventor went to work as an
oilfield roughneck, drilling for oil on offshore drilling rigs in the
Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana for about 5 years then worked
another 5 years as a sales engineer selling construction, marine,
industrial and oilfield equipment in the Louisiana and gulf coast
regions. In 1967, the inventor launched his own business, Hill
Equipment Corp., selling, repairing, fabricating and inventing
equipment for the construction, marine, industrial, aerospace and
oilfield industries, including the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Michoud, New Orleans, Louisiana for the
manufacture of the NASA space shuttle.
The inventor is currently writing three books, has filed outside
witness testimony with the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies regarding allegations of the
sabotage of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy. This and related information can be viewed
at the inventor's Web sites--www.sabotagecolumbia.info and
www.sabotagecolumbia.com.
The inventor is well versed in the technical feasibility of his
invention' and there is nothing proposed that is not now technically
feasible.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics
We are Dr. Lloyd Nicholas Trefethen, president, and Dr. Reinhard
Laubenbacher, vice president for Science Policy, of the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). On behalf of SIAM, we are
submitting this written testimony for the record to the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and
computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
SIAM has more than 400 institutional members--colleges, universities,
corporations, and research organizations. SIAM members come from many
different disciplines, but have a common interest in applying
mathematics in partnership with computational science toward solving
real-world problems.
First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and its
support for mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong
U.S. economy, workforce, and society. DOE was one of the first Federal
agencies to champion computational science as one of the three pillars
of science, along with theory and experiment, and SIAM deeply
appreciates and values DOE activities.
Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2012 and beyond. In
particular, we request that you provide the Office of Science with
$5.42 billion, the level requested in the fiscal year 2012 budget
request. SIAM is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and the Congress this year, but we note that, in the
face of economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science,
and engineering create and preserve good jobs and help to maintain U.S.
pre-eminence in innovation, upon which our economy depends.
THE ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN MEETING ENERGY CHALLENGES
The Nation faces critical challenges in energy, including in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, improved use of fossil fuels and nuclear
energy, future energy sources, and reduced environmental impacts of
energy production and use. As DOE and the research community design a
long-term strategy to tackle these issues, the tools of mathematics and
computational science (theory, modeling, and simulation) have emerged
as a central element in designing new materials, predicting the impact
of new systems and technologies, and better managing existing
resources. Already, mathematical and computing researchers in
universities, national laboratories, and industry are providing
insights that propel advances in such fields as nanotechnology,
biofuels, genomics, climate modeling, and materials fabrication.
To tackle many of these challenges, DOE must be able to understand
complex systems such as the U.S. power grid, the dispersion of nuclear
radiation after a disaster, and the Earth's climate system. These and
other complex systems have high levels of uncertainty, lack master
plans, and are susceptible to breakdowns that could have catastrophic
consequences. Understanding complex systems helps mitigate these risks
and facilitate the development of controls and strategies to make
systems more efficient.
These issues were addressed in a May 2008 report by an independent
panel of mathematicians that reviewed the challenges and strategic
plans of all units of DOE in order to better define the goals for the
DOE Applied Mathematics Program, which is located within the Office of
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) in the Office of
Science.\1\ In light of the broad need for complex systems
understanding, the panel recommended that DOE focus on three strategies
for addressing the gaps in our understanding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applied Mathematics at the U.S. Department of Energy: Past,
Present and a View to the Future. A Report by an Independent Panel from
the Applied Mathematics Research Community, May 2008. Available on line
at http://brownreport.siam.org/Document%20Library/Brown_
Report_May_08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Predictive modeling and simulation of complex systems.
--Mathematical analysis of the behavior of complex systems.
--Using models of complex systems to inform policy makers. (This
includes advancing the mathematics that supports risk analysis
techniques for policy-making involving complex systems that
include natural and engineered components, and economic,
security, and policy consequences.)
While progress has been made in these areas since the 2008 report,
further research is necessary to fully understand these systems and
address our energy challenges.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
Activities within ASCR play a key role in supporting research that
begins to fulfill the needs described above. Particularly critical
programs include: the Applied Mathematics program, the Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program, and programs to
maintain the pipeline of the mathematical workforce. SIAM supports the
$466 million requested for ASCR for fiscal year 2012. SIAM appreciates
that the requested increase for fiscal year 2012 is more balanced among
ASCR programs and not entirely directed to investments in computing
hardware as it was in the fiscal year 2011 request. Without investments
in algorithm research, software development, and partnerships between
mathematicians, disciplinary researchers, and computer and
computational scientists, we cannot realize the full benefit of new
high-performance computers or effectively develop the next generation
of such computers.
The applied mathematics and computational science and engineering
work supported by the Applied Mathematics Program is a necessary
element for many of the flagship efforts of the Office of Science and
other units of DOE. Therefore, partnerships within the Department are
critical for applying mathematics to key challenges in effective
creation and use of a variety of energy sources. SIAM supports ASCR
plans to initiate new partnerships with other DOE offices such as the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of
Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Environmental Management. SIAM also
supports the proposed activity on uncertainty and climate change within
the Biological and Environmental Research Office, which will help to
quantify the uncertainty in the predictions of current climate models,
as well as the proposed activity on Computational Materials and
Chemistry by Design within the Basic Energy Sciences Office.
SUPPORTING THE PIPELINE OF MATHEMATICIANS AND SCIENTISTS
Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
engineers is a major step that the Federal Government can take to
ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the United States.
Currently, the economic situation is negatively affecting the job
opportunities for young mathematicians--at universities, companies, and
other research organizations. It is not only the young mathematicians
who are not being hired who will suffer from these cutbacks. The
research community at large will suffer from the loss of ideas and
energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early
career researchers bring to the field, and the country will suffer from
the lost innovation.
Maintaining the pipeline of the mathematical workforce with
programs that fund research and students is especially important
because of the foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and
computational science play in sustaining the Nation's economic
competitiveness and national security, and in making substantial
advances on societal challenges such as energy. DOE programs support
the educational and professional development of the researchers who
will, at universities, companies, and the national laboratories, tackle
the research problems (such as the complex system modeling described
above) needed to change energy usage in this country. These young
mathematicians and computational scientists are the drivers and
employees of the clean-energy economy.
Within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the
Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program is a highly
successful and model program that enables students to receive robust
training in mathematics and also learn to interface with a wide variety
of other fields. We request that strong support for this program
continue, as well as ongoing support for postdoctoral fellows at DOE
national laboratories and universities. In addition, we endorse DOE's
proposed continuation in fiscal year 2012 of the Office of Science
Early Career Research Awards and Graduate Fellowships programs.
FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS
Before concluding, we want to make a brief comment on the
resolution of appropriations for fiscal year 2011. The 18-percent cut
proposed for the Office of Science for the remainder of fiscal year
2011 in H.R. 1 would devastate research that is critical for the
country's energy and economic future while costing thousands of jobs at
national laboratories and research universities across the country.
SIAM urges you to provide at least the fiscal year 2010 level of
funding for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2011.
CONCLUSION
The programs in the Office of Science, particularly those discussed
above, are important elements of DOE's efforts to fulfill its mission.
They contribute to the goals of dramatically transforming our current
capabilities to develop new sources for renewable and low-carbon energy
supplies and improve energy efficiency to ensure energy independence
and facilitate DOE's effort to increase U.S. competitiveness by
training and attracting the best scientific talent into DOE
headquarters and laboratories, the American research enterprise, and
the clean-energy economy.
We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
support of the DOE Office of Science and the actions you have already
taken to enable DOE and the research and education communities it
supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake the
activities that contribute to the health, security, and economic
strength of the United States. The DOE Office of Science needs
sustained annual funding to maintain our competitive edge in science
and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that you continue
your support of these critical programs.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on behalf of SIAM and look forward to providing any
additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of Southern Company Generation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Southern Company
operates the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Carbon Capture
Center (NCCC) (http://nationalcarboncapturecenter.com) at the Power
Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, Alabama for DOE's
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several industrial
participants.\1\ The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal
power generation research and development (R&D) facility in the world
and has fulfilled this expectation. NETL responded to the need for
cost-effective carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technologies by
establishing the NCCC which is collaborating with technology developers
world-wide in accelerating development of lower-cost CO2
capture technology for application to coal-fueled powerplants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current PSDF participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power,
Luminant, NRG, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Inc., and Rio Tinto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the Senate for its past support of the NCCC
and request the subcommittee's continued support of the DOE's Fossil
Energy R&D core budget at recently enacted levels of $404 million per
year. The Obama administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request of
$291 million per year for DOE coal R&D is inadequate to provide the
robust Fossil Energy program needed to enable development of a range of
advanced technologies necessary to assure continued use of coal. At a
time when our country's economy is recovering, we need to assure
continued utilization of domestically produced, low-cost, coal-based
power generation. DOE's Fossil Energy R&D efforts have produced
significant results to advance coal-based power. DOE's core R&D
budgets, combined with investments by the private sector assure a
sustainable technology base on which to address the environmental and
economic challenges facing continued coal utilization. The continued
operation of the NCCC in partnership with DOE will benefit the Nation
by responding to the need for developing cost-effective CO2
capture technology for coal-fueled power generation by teaming with
technology developers funded through the DOE Fossil Energy program and
accelerating the progress of those technologies toward commercial
deployment by testing and evaluation at the NCCC.
The NCCC offers a flexible applied R&D test facility which provides
commercially representative flue gas and syngas and the necessary
infrastructure in which developers' technologies are installed and
tested to generate data for performance verification under industrially
realistic operating conditions. This effort can bridge gaps between
fundamental R&D and large-scale commercial demonstration and provides
for a seamless transition for promising CO2 technologies to
migrate from laboratory into commercial applications. The DOE program
for CO2 capture in coal-fueled powerplants is divided into
three areas:
--postcombustion capture for conventional pulverized coal plants;
--pre-combustion capture for coal gasification powerplants; and
--oxy-combustion processes which produce a more CO2-rich
flue gas than conventional combustion for easier CO2
capture.
The NCCC's CO2 capture efforts address all three areas.
Southern Company also supports the goals of the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmaps developed by DOE, EPRI, and the Coal Utilization
Research Council (CURC). These Roadmaps identify the technical,
economic, and environmental performance that advanced clean-coal
technologies can achieve over the next 20 years. Over this time period,
coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to more than 50
percent (compared to the current fleet average of 32 percent) while
producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective
technologies for CO2 management.
SUMMARY
The United States has historically been a leader in energy
research. Adequate funding for fossil energy research and development
programs, including environmental and climate change technologies will
provide our country with secure and reliable energy from domestic
resources while protecting our environment. Current DOE Fossil Energy
Research and Development programs for coal, if adequately funded, will
assure that a wide range of electric generation options are available
for future needs. The Congress faces difficult choices when examining
near-term effects on the Federal budget of funding energy research.
However, continued support for advanced coal-based energy research is
essential to the long-term environmental and economic well being of the
United States. Prior DOE clean-coal technology research has already
provided the basis for $100 billion in consumer benefits at a cost of
less than $4 billion. Funding the administration's budget request for
DOE coal R&D and long-term support of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap
can lead to additional consumer benefits of between $360 billion and
$1.38 trillion.\2\ But, for benefits to be realized, the critically
important R&D program in the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap must be
conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-Based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector'', May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
NCCC. The fiscal year 2012 funding for the NCCC needs to be about $45.4
million to operate (and modify as needed) the facilities to test
technologies that are critical to the goals of the DOE Carbon
Sequestration Technology Roadmap and to the success of the development
of cost-effective climate change technologies that will enable the
continued use of coal to supply the Nation's energy needs. Any budget
cuts (for example from $404 million to $291 million per year) in the
DOE Fossil Energy Core R&D budget could proportionately impact the
NCCC. A key feature of the NCCC is its flexibility to test new carbon
capture technologies for coal-based power generation systems in an
integrated fashion. The NCCC can evaluate solvent, sorbent, and
membrane CO2 capture technologies as they are integrated
into actual syngas (from gasification) or flue gas from actual
powerplant operations. Integrated operation allows the effects of
system interactions, typically missed in un-integrated, laboratory-
based, component development programs, to be understood. Testing at the
NCCC allows the maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a
technology to be investigated at a cost that is far lower than the cost
of commercial-scale testing. The NCCC is large enough to produce data
to support commercial-scale demonstration plant designs, yet small
enough to be cost-effective and adaptable to a variety of technology
research needs. Moreover, by operating a unique, but central R&D test
facility, available to all CO2 technology developers,
redundancy in testing sites and equipment is minimized and cost-
effective use of R&D funds is achieved. The major accomplishments at
the NCCC/PSDF to date and the current test program planned by DOE and
the NCCC's industrial participants are summarized below.
PRIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The PSDF test-bed has operated successfully for many years in
support of DOE's advanced coal program. The two significant
achievements were in a gasifier suitable for use with low-rank fuels,
and hot gas filtration to improve energy efficiency. These two
technologies have progressed to commercialization with integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) powerplant being built at Kemper
County, Mississippi, and Dong Guan, China. Skilled staff from
disciplines essential for a successful research program has gained
experience by designing and operating the test equipment and by working
with vendors to develop and improve their technologies. The NCCC/PSDF
has developed testing and technology transfer relationships with more
than 50 vendors to ensure that test results and improvements developed
at the NCCC/PSDF are incorporated into future plants. In some
instances, testing has eliminated technologies from further
consideration. Such screening is valuable in that it concentrates R&D
effort on those technologies most likely to succeed and is an essential
part of managing the DOE's financial resources. Major subsystems tested
and some highlights of the test program at the NCCC/PSDF include:
--the transport reactor;
--Advanced particulate control systems;
--Filter Safe-Guard Device; and
--Coal feed and ash removal subsystems:
--Syngas cooler enhancements; and
--Sensors and controls automation improvements.
These components were integrated into a Transport Integrated
Gasification (TRIGTM) system and successfully tested at the
NCCC/PSDF. The TRIGTM process is now being scaled-up for
commercial deployment. However, the pilot-scale test components remain
in place and form the basis of a highly flexible, unique testing
infrastructure to enable pre-combustion (i.e., Gasification based)
CO2 capture technologies to be evaluated.
NATIONAL CARBON CAPTURE CENTER CURRENT TEST PROGRAM
Building on success with TRIGTM, the NCCC/PSDF facility
has now refocused its mission on supporting the development and scale-
up of cost-effective, commercially viable carbon capture technologies
for coal-fueled powerplants through collaboration with the DOE and
third-party technology developers. Most of the current CO2
capture technologies are being developed at laboratory- or bench-scale
under ideal conditions. Continued R&D under realistic field conditions
are needed to validate laboratory results and identify technical issues
that are not present under ideal conditions. In collaboration with
technology developers, the NCCC makes available coal-derived syngas and
flue gas to carry out applied R&D on components or small pilot-scale
systems to bridge gaps between fundamental R&D and large-scale
commercial demonstration and provides for a seamless transition for
promising technologies to migrate from laboratory into commercial
applications.
The NCCC is a unique applied R&D test facility that consists of two
major sets of infrastructure to support CO2 capture
technology development. One is the existing pilot-scale coal
gasification facility that produces syngas for pre-combustion
CO2 capture technology evaluation and the other is the newly
constructed Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Center (PC4) which enables
testing of capture technologies on flue gas from an adjacent pulverized
coal powerplant. Both are readily adaptable to test a variety of
technologies at multiple scales, providing data for scale-up to
commercial applications. This flexibility in conjunction with real-
world operating conditions, allows the NCCC to support developers in
advancing the CO2 capture technologies that are critical to
continued use of coal for power generation. Jointly with the DOE, NCCC
has developed a Technology Screening Process which is a key evaluation
tool to assess and prioritize technologies for testing at the facility.
This process also ensures that final technology selection will form a
balanced portfolio that promotes the advancement of both near-term and
long-term candidate technologies.
Postcombustion.--Today's postcombustion capture technology is
estimated to increase the cost of electricity (COE) by up to 80
percent.\3\ For both new and existing powerplants, postcombustion
capture technology must be made more efficient and cost-effective by
reducing parasitic power and capital cost requirements. In
postcombustion capture, CO2 is separated from the flue gas
in a conventional coal-combustion powerplant downstream of the
pulverized coal boiler. Many postcombustion capture technologies need
to be proven and integrated in an industrial powerplant setting.
Activities at the NCCC for postcombustion capture technology include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants,
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final
Report''; NETL, May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Center.--This test facility is
being built to accommodate tests of a wide-range of capture
technologies from flue gas. The test facility includes three
major test areas:
--a pilot solvent test unit to test developers' next-generation
CO2 absorption solvents;
--a second test bay to support evaluation of fully integrated test
systems supplied by technology developers; and
--a bench-scale test area to accommodate up to four small test
skids of emerging, advanced technologies such as sorbents
or membrane systems.
Pilot Solvent Test Unit.--This facility is designed and
construction and commissioning were recently completed. Testing
is underway with a reference solvent and will begin later this
year on alternative advanced solvents with potential
improvements in loading capacity, kinetics, or lower heats of
regeneration.
Advanced Technology.--Compact membrane contactors and solid phase
CO2 sorbents, currently being investigated by DOE-
NETL and private companies, will be assessed and installed.
NCCC will provide such technologies a scaled-up testing
platform as development progress warrants.
Pre-Combustion.--In pre-combustion capture, CO2 is
separated from the syngas produced by a coal-gasification process,
prior to the combustion of the syngas in gas turbine for power
generation. CO2 capture for IGCC is estimated to increase
COE greater than 35 percent.\3\ Reducing parasitic power and capital
cost requirements is also needed for development of efficient and cost-
effective pre-combustion technology. R&D activities at NCCC for pre-
combustion capture technology for application to gasification-based
power generation include:
Advanced CO2 Capture Systems.--New solvents and gas-
liquid contacting devices are being assessed on syngas. New
CO2 separation technologies (sorbents or membranes)
are being scaled-up and tested based on fundamental R&D
progress by third-party developers.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--Water Gas Shift (WGS) catalyst
test results have been conducted which reveal that parasitic
steam consumption can be reduced, which in turn increases the
net power output of an IGCC plant and reduces COE with
CO2 capture. Results have been supplied to catalyst
suppliers and findings are being implemented at a commercial
IGCC plant currently under construction. Testing of various WGS
catalysts will continue.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--New advanced syngas cleanup systems are
being tested for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid,
ammonia, and mercury to near-zero levels.
Oxy-Combustion.--The NCCC is also evaluating the potential benefits
of oxy-combustion CO2 capture using the pressurized
transport reactor operating in oxygen combustion mode. Preliminary
screening studies have been conducted with favorable results. Detailed
system studies, modeling, and additional economic analysis are being
conducted to evaluate the commercial feasibility of this technology.
Gasification.--In developing a cost-effective advanced coal
powerplant with CO2 capture, all process blocks within the
powerplant must be optimized in addition to the capture block.
Including CO2 capture in an advanced coal powerplant will
increase the plant COE, so opportunities to reduce cost in every part
of the process will be explored. With highest priority being given to
low-cost CO2 capture process development, projects that
reduce overall capital and operating costs will also be included in the
NCCC test plan to partially offset incremental cost increases from
CO2 capture addition. These cost reduction projects include
technology development for syngas cleanup, particulate control, fuel
cells, sensors and controls, materials, and feeders.
CONCLUSION
The collaboration among DOE Fossil Energy core R&D, technology
developers, and private industry supported National Carbon Capture
Center is making great strides toward advancing the next generation of
CO2 capture technologies. These technologies hold the
promise of reducing the costs of CO2 capture to levels
necessary to assure that affordable, reliable coal-based electric power
can be produced for America's economy, while also meeting all of the
environmental challenges associated with coal use. The Congress should
sustain the DOE Fossil Energy R&D budgets at historical levels.
______
Prepared Statement of Symbiotics
On behalf of America's independent power producers and hydropower
developers, I respectfully request the full appropriation in fiscal
year 2012 of funds authorized in section 242 and section 243 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58). Full funding for the
Hydroelectric Production Incentives and Hydroelectric Efficiency
Improvements authorized in Public Law 109-58 is critical for getting
new hydropower projects into production.
Currently, there are numerous projects across the United States
that are under construction, or nearing the construction phase, that
would be eligible to receive these important incentives if they are
appropriated for fiscal year 2012. These projects need the incentives
to remain competitive for private financing. Without these production
and efficiency incentives, many of the projects under development will
become uneconomical and may never be built.
As you may know, the provisions in section 242 and 243 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 were critical in facilitating the financing
necessary to make many hydroelectric projects economically feasible
while pursuing the permitting processes. The subsequent appropriation
of these funds would enable developers across the country to complete
their projects. This would allow for the production of clean
electricity that would be more cost effective than other forms of
renewable energy including wind and solar. Furthermore, it would help
our Nation achieve energy independence and foster significant new job
creation.
Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, appropriation of
section 242 and 243 funds was unnecessary because no projects existed
that were capable of utilizing them. Now, hydropower developers and
producers are far enough in the development process that these funds
could be used. In fact, the hydropower projects that are currently
being developed represent the first new nonmunicipal hydro projects to
come on line in more than two decades. Full appropriation of section
242 and 243 funds would provide the critical assistance to get these
vital projects into production.
Symbiotics appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record.
______
Prepared Statement of Technology International, Inc.
The development and acceptance by the industry of technology
development designed to minimize drilling risks needs to be supported
by the United States Government to assure the safety of offshore
drilling, especially in the deep water Gulf of Mexico.
Surface seismic surveys provide the initial reservoir information
for well planning deepwater wells. Seismic techniques are increasingly
being developed to better image potential drilling hazards, such as
unstable shallow gas pockets and abnormal high pressures ahead of the
bit using so-called ``look-ahead'' seismic. Accurate, high-resolution
seismic data often are not available for critical deepwater development
projects because of inherent limitations of surface seismic technology
and difficulties in getting an accurate characterization of formations
where salt layers are present. Using borehole seismic technology
throughout the drilling process can play an important role in
generating more accurate, higher-resolution seismic data for reducing
the often substantial risks and uncertainty associated with deepwater
drilling.
Borehole seismic systems with a surface noise source and a downhole
receiver are currently commercially available. However, these systems
are expensive, cumbersome to deploy, have difficulty working in a salt
environment, they do not provide the ability to ``look ahead of the
drill bit'', and the information available at the surface for real-time
decisionmaking is constrained by the bandwidth of the measurement while
drilling communications link, making this type of seismic while
drilling (SWD) less practical in deep Gulf of Mexico applications. SWD
with a downhole noise source, currently not available, could
effectively overcome these limitations. Seismic while drilling would
help reduce uncertainty and risk, and improve safety in the deepwater
well construction process.
A workshop sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) funded
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) included
invited 125 industry experts, selected based on their individual
technical qualifications. The workshop was held on July 22, 2010, at
the Houston Area Research Council facility in Houston, where a diverse
group of technologies that would help minimize drilling risks were
identified and evaluated. Afterwards, a poll was taken of the workshop
participants to identify those technologies that would be of greatest
value for Gulf of Mexico drilling in deep water and should be the
industry's highest priority. Two areas selected as highest priority to
prevent another Gulf of Mexico well blowout were early detection of gas
influx and better SWD data. Looking ahead of the bit, SWD using a
downhole source is practical, and will, after sufficient funding
becomes available, provide real-time seismic images used to accurately
determine pressures ahead of the drill bit. The availability could be
accelerated if DOE were to provide ``emerging technology funding'' to
RPSEA to make ``look ahead'' seismic technologies available to the
deepwater operators within 12-18 months.
______
Prepared Statement of the Universities Research Association, Inc.
Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of Universities Research Association, Inc.
(URA), I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the administration's
fiscal year 2012 budget submission for the Department of Energy (DOE).
URA, a nonprofit organization comprised of 86 member universities,
serves together with the University of Chicago through the Fermi
Research Alliance, LLC, as the DOE contractor for the management and
operation of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). I
write to express our grave concern for the future of fundamental
research in the physical sciences in light of the proposed 2012 budget.
Scientific research is critical to innovation, which is fundamental
to job creating, economic growth, and global competitiveness. Studies
have demonstrated unequivocally double-digit percent returns on the
Nation's investments in fundamental discovery research. Once in an
unquestioned lead role across all fields of research, we now face
significant competition from other countries, like China, that have
understood the importance of investment in science and technology for
economic growth.
The President continues to place a priority on DOE in his fiscal
year 2012 budget request, proposing $29.5 billion which represents an
increase of $3.1 billion (11.8 percent) more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. Within the President's proposed overall freeze on
nonsecurity discretionary spending, this is a significant commitment by
the administration. For DOE, as the Nation's premier funding agency for
the physical sciences, it is welcome news that the President proposes
$5.42 billion for the basic research carried out by the DOE Office of
Science. The President would increase funding for fundamental research
by about 9 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 level.
However, the lack of balance within the research programs of the
Office of Science is troubling. For example, the President proposes a
24-percent funding increase for the Office of Basic Energy Sciences; a
22-percent increase for the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research; and a 21.5-percent increase for Advanced Scientific Computing
Research. In contrast, High Energy Physics is essentially frozen at the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level ($797.2 million, an increase of $6.4
million or 0.8 percent), and Fusion Energy Sciences is reduced below
the fiscal year 2010 funding request to $399.7 million (a reduction of
$18 million or 4.3 percent).
This is a particularly critical time for High Energy Physics as
Fermilab, the Nation's only national laboratory devoted to research in
particle physics, transitions from the highly successful running of the
Tevatron Collider to new projects at the Intensity Frontier of particle
physics. The Tevatron will shut down at the end of fiscal year 2011, as
originally planned, now that the Large Hadron Collider in Europe has
become the focus of research at the Energy Frontier. Fermilab is ready
to begin new experiments that will put the United States at the
forefront of studies of neutrinos, a key area of study to understand
the Standard Model and how the universe began. The delay in completing
the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bills, in turn, has delayed the
start of the new undertakings critical to the future of the laboratory.
High Energy Physics has blazed the path of international
cooperation on large scientific projects with scientists collaborating
on the planning, design, construction, and operation of facilities all
over the world. The field hosts thousands of researchers each year at
the various experiments and serves as a premier training ground for
American university students to develop the next generation of
scientists, engineers, and technicians to carry out discovery science
and innovation. High Energy Physics, and Fermilab in particular, has
long reached out to K-12 students to engage their interest in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, which are
important to the future economic competitiveness of the Nation.
The America COMPETES Act, reauthorized by the Congress only this
past December, affirms a bipartisan commitment to double the science
budgets of DOE and the National Science Foundation over the next 10
years. The current budget situation is indeed critical. But the growth,
prosperity, and employment increase needed to deal with it over the
long term are not achievable without the vibrant economy made possible
through the innovation and research in which the physical sciences play
a key role.
As a university-based organization in partnership to operate and
manage Fermilab, we urge the subcommittee to support funding for High
Energy Physics within an overall balanced research program in the basic
physical sciences within the Office of Science. We urge that the
subcommittee approve, at a minimum, the President's request for High
Energy Physics and specifically that it approve the $56 million
associated with the planned new experiments at Fermilab.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in Earth sciences research
and education, I submit this written testimony for the record of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. UCAR is a consortium of 76 research universities that
manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation and the university
community.
This Nation must deal with critical national and global energy
challenges. At a time when we need more research, technological
innovation, and solutions, I am deeply troubled by the level of cuts
that the U.S. House of Representatives has proposed for DOE in fiscal
year 2011, especially the truly destructive cuts proposed for the DOE
Office of Science (DOE OS), whose basic research is among the most
valuable and cross-cutting in the world. While I understand that the
Congress faces difficult budget choices in reining in a growing
deficit, it would be a mistake for the Congress to balance the budget
on the back of DOE's research and development. I urge the subcommittee
to fund the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the DOE OS at $5.42
billion and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
at $3.2 billion.
DOE programs and initiatives in science and education directly
support university and laboratory communities, funding the work of
preeminent scientists in our field. Without DOE support, our capacity
to understand and advance numerous fields of science, including the
atmospheric sciences, would be seriously compromised. DOE is central to
the country's economic and technological world leadership and to our
ability to secure an economically and environmentally sustainable
future for ourselves and our children. This is why the bipartisan
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended
that, even amidst major agency spending cuts, the Nation must continue
to ``expand high-value research and development in energy and other
critical areas''.
With the following, I highlight several science research and
education programs that represent DOE's critical contributions to
American leadership in science and technology.
CLIMATE AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) within
DOE OS makes fundamental contributions to the Nation's premier Earth
system models and data analysis infrastructure that provide the
scientific foundation for future decisionmaking on environmental
change. Without them we would not know the level of risk that cities,
States, and businesses face from long-term weather trends and what
societal preparation and adaptation might be needed.
In particular, BER provides indispensable support to the Community
Earth System Model (CESM), a joint DOE-NCAR effort that is a
comprehensive and sophisticated model for analyzing Earth's past,
present, and future. CESM is a major contributor to national and
international assessments of environmental change. And while CESM is
housed and managed at NCAR, it is an open-source climate model,
involving scientists across the Nation and around the world in making
contributions and improvements.
Thanks in part to BER support, CESM and the Nation's other climate
models are becoming more realistic, incorporating more precise and
complex natural and human processes that are shaping the global
climate. For example, the Climate Science for Sustainable Energy Future
program, a joint effort between NCAR and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, is embedding the socioeconomic and energy technology
components of integrated assessment models into the CESM model in order
to better understand how the planting of biofuel crops will affect the
atmosphere, soil, water, and agriculture. These new capabilities will
allow the climate science community to address societally relevant
questions in a way that has not been possible in the past.
New in fiscal year 2012, BER-supported scientists will study
methods to rapidly integrate new sub-models, datasets, and other model
components into global Earth system models. Another focus will be
enabling Earth system models to effectively use future computer
architectures, such as the new IBM Blue Gene/Q being commissioned at
Argonne National Laboratory. BER scientists will also expand arctic
climate research activities and develop new observation capabilities
for clouds, aerosols, and the terrestrial carbon cycle in this globally
important and climatically sensitive region. A new Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility site to be developed in
the Azores will provide critical long-term observations for marine
clouds and aerosols. Such new research efforts strengthen existing BER
atmospheric process studies and modeling and are critical for the
advancement of this scientific field.
In order to develop more accurate, increasingly realistic, and
higher-resolution Earth system models, with better environmental
predictive capabilities for businesses and communities, I urge you to
fund BER within the DOE OS at the requested $717.9 million for fiscal
year 2012.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
Also within DOE OS, Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
delivers leading-edge computational and networking capabilities to
scientists nationwide, enabling advances in computer science and the
development of specialized software tools necessary to answer major
scientific questions being addressed by OS and the larger university
community.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with Earth system model development.
Representing the complex processes and interactions of the Earth's
systems, while efficiently harnessing the enormous amount of computing
power necessary, requires very advanced software engineering, computer
science, and numerical techniques. Because the climate simulations
using the CESM (described above) are too computationally intensive to
be run at NCAR alone, they are outsourced to the DOE's Leadership
Computing Facilities. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a new 2.33
petaflop system is available to the scientific community, and Argonne
National Laboratory (ALCF) has proposed building a 10 petaflop IBM Blue
Gene/Q supercomputer next year. The fiscal year 2012 request supports
continued operations of existing supercomputing systems as well as the
new ALCF 10 petaflop system.
DOE's computing capacity is essential to the country. Each major
upgrade unlocks reams of new detail and data on the characteristics of
our current and future Earth system. A failure to maintain and continue
to upgrade these Leadership Computing Facilities would seriously
undermine the steady progress of the scientific enterprise in this
area.
The results of this research and other research like it are brought
to the broader scientific community through the Scientific Discovery
through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program. SciDAC facilitates the
transfer of basic research into computational science applications
through direct partnerships between applied mathematicians and computer
scientists.
I urge you to fund ASCR within DOE OS at the President's full
fiscal year 2012 budget request of $465.6 million.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
DOE OS's education programs, such as the Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program, are essential to maintaining
U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM). WDTS supports, educates, and trains the Nation's STEM workforce
and facilitates the development of the knowledge and expertise that
will prepare us to address future energy and environmental challenges.
WDTS has launched the DOE OS Graduate Fellowship Program to support
U.S. graduate students pursuing degrees in areas of basic science and
engineering. The goal of the program is to encourage talented students
to pursue research-focused graduate studies in physics, chemistry,
biology, mathematics, computer science, engineering, and environmental
science.
Programs like WDTS have produced tens of thousands of leading
scientists, engineers, and technicians who have dedicated their careers
to working on the great challenges of the day, including climate
change, while pursuing answers to many of the most important scientific
questions in physics, chemistry, biology, environmental and atmospheric
science, and other areas of basic science. Their work will be critical
to our Nation's continued leadership in the 21st century.
I urge you to fund the WDTS program within the DOE OS at the
President's full fiscal year 2012 budget request of $35.6 million.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Federal investment in the scientific research and technology
development involved with renewable energy is one of the most important
investments we can make in our Nation's future and our ability to build
resilience to economic and environmental challenges. Renewable energy
conveys numerous cross-cutting benefits to society, including reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, driving innovation in the energy
economy, decentralizing the energy market, providing new high-tech
jobs, reducing the human toll on the environment, and improving air
quality and public health outcomes.
Our national research universities, along with DOE laboratories and
an emerging private sector, are driving the country's growth in
renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of new technologies. One
example of such collaboration includes an expanding NCAR partnership
with DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the regional
utility company, Xcel Energy, to develop sophisticated wind energy
forecasts for operational use. These provide critical information to
select the most productive locations for new wind turbine farms, better
integrate wind-generated electricity into the power grid, and make
critical decisions about powering down traditional coal- and natural
gas-fired plants when sufficient winds are predicted. To reduce the
costs of integrating wind and solar energy into the electrical grid and
to make renewable energy more cost effective, significant improvements
in weather forecasting technologies are required and additional weather
observations are needed in the lower atmosphere.
Given the critical importance to the Nation of developing
economically and environmentally sustainable technologies for producing
energy, I urge the subcommittee to fully fund the fiscal year 2012
budget request of $3.2 billion for EERE.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee in advance for
supporting, through DOE, basic and cutting-edge scientific research and
for promoting education and workforce development in the environmental
and other Earth sciences. By doing so, you are advancing the Nation's
economic recovery and sustaining our global scientific leadership.
______
Prepared Statement of West Virginia University
This testimony is submitted on behalf of West Virginia University
on topics including fossil energy coal, oil, and natural gas research
and development programs; Office of Electricity Programs; and new
initiatives. In our testimony, we make the following recommendations
for fiscal year 2012 appropriations:
--Restore the fuels program to $20 million for coal conversion
research.
--Restore the fuel cells program to $50 million.
--Support both modeling and simulation, and experimental research
programs for coal systems.
--Restore funding for oil and natural gas programs, and increase
budget to $80 million.
--Do not repeal section 999 program in Energy Policy Act (EPAct)
2005.
--Maintain core Coal Research Program at $404 million.
--Initiate programs in water availability, energy security, and rare
earth minerals.
INTRODUCTION
Both the Department of Energy (DOE) Strategic Plan and the DOE
Quadrennial Technology Review Framing Document cite a projected long-
term dependency of our Nation on fossil fuels for electric power and
transportation fuels. Time frames of 25 years and longer are considered
in these projections. It is imperative that the United States place
strategic importance on the use of our Nation's coal, oil, and natural
gas resources to meet our energy needs. This testimony is directed
toward key programs in coal, oil, and natural gas research.
FUELS PROGRAM
Consider transportation fuels. Patrolling oil transit routes adds
an estimated $80 billion annually to our defense costs. In 2008, we
spent $388 billion on imported petroleum products, 57 percent of our
balance-of-trade deficit. Production of liquid transportation fuels
from a mixture of 60-percent coal and 40-percent biomass could provide
3 million barrels per day of gasoline equivalent by 2020. A coal-plus-
biomass fuels program would create new jobs through increased coal
production that could reach to upwards of 50 percent from our current
levels. Coal-to-liquid plants located in widely dispersed geographic
locations would support additional jobs and reduce the risks of supply
interruptions from events such as major hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico. These plants would bolster our national, energy, and economic
security through utilizing and producing indigenous fuels. Coal-plus-
biomass fuels meet the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2007
regarding their CO2 footprint, compared to conventional
petroleum, and have been shown to be net sinks regarding CO2
emissions (National Academy of Sciences, 2010).
We recommend restoring funding for the fuels program to a level of
$20 million for coal conversion research using feedstocks such as coal
and biomass for the production of liquid transportation fuels,
chemicals, and synthetic natural gas. Funding should be directed toward
simulation modeling and pilot plant testing on eastern, mid-content,
and western coals, biomass characterization and feeding, and
transformational research to reduce the energy penalty costs of
conversion processes and plant capital costs, which are currently a
deterrent to building a coal fuels and chemicals industry.
FUEL CELLS PROGRAM
Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) operating on coal-based syngas can
form a key component of the administration's goal of having 80 percent
of our Nation's electricity generated by clean-energy technologies.
SOFC technology can be deployed in both central station and distributed
generation modes. A successful collaboration of government and industry
under the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) is reducing the
cost of SOFC. The SECA fuel cell program is a critical element of
fossil energy's technology portfolio. Integrated gasification fuel cell
(IGFC) systems are highly efficient with near-zero atmospheric
emissions of CO2 and air pollutants, and use minimal amounts
of water compared to traditional pulverized coal power generation
systems. We disagree with the administration's recommendation to defund
the fuel cell program and recommend continuation at a level of $50
million.
MODELING AND SIMULATION
The emphasis on computational modeling in the DOE program is
attractive for evaluating new concepts at scales ranging from molecular
interactions through system simulations. Information gained from
modeling will be useful in moving new concepts from scientific research
discoveries into scalable component technologies, with added benefits
of attendant time and cost savings afforded by performing numerous
inexpensive computer experiments versus numerous costly laboratory
experiments. However, experimental research is an integral part of
modeling and simulation in that experimental data are essential for
validating the predictions of model studies. Modeling is also useful in
directing attention to targeted areas where further engineering
research is needed to solve operational problems. With successful
modeling, we can reduce development times for scaling up promising
technologies by factors of 10-to-15, versus a more conservative scale-
up program in which the size of the system is increased by factors of
3-to-5, for example.
Industrial research often discovers unanticipated mechanisms in
pilot and commercial-scale field research on actual systems that are
not/cannot be predicted from modeling alone or laboratory-scale
research. It is essential that the DOE Coal Program continues to
support pilot-scale and commercial-scale experimental and demonstration
research to allay the valid concerns of technology developers who must
invest billions of dollars to prove the cost and performance viability
of new systems. Close collaboration between computer modelers and
industrial developers is recommended to ensure the effective use of
funding in both the modeling and experimental aspects of developing and
deploying new technologies.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS PROGRAMS
We recommend restoration of the Oil and Natural Gas Programs in the
Office of Fossil Energy at a funding level of $80 million for fiscal
year 2012. We further recommend maintaining the program on offshore and
unconventional onshore oil and natural gas research funded under
section 999 of the EPAct.
Shale Research.--National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)-
developed technologies for directional drilling and hydraulic
fracturing of formations can be applied to produce the plentiful
natural gas reserves of the Marcellus and similar shale formations.
Much work remains to be done, however, to validate estimates of how
much gas can be recovered, to develop the geological sciences needed to
understand these underground reservoirs, to effectively treat produced
water, to protect groundwater supplies, and to allay the concerns of
residents affected by drilling and fracking operations. We recommend
that $40 million be directed to shale gas research programs and to
related technology transfer programs to provide information on
environmentally safe drilling practices. The Utica shale formation is
also a national resource for which little is known and research on this
formation is also recommended. With the administration's focus on using
natural gas for transportation fuels in addition to current markets for
chemicals production and home applications, it is necessary to ensure
adequate supplies of natural gas since existing wells will deplete at
approximately the same rate that Marcellus shale production is
increasing, according to Environmental Protection Agency projections.
Oil Research.--Funding of $25 million is recommended for advanced
oil research to support programs such as the large-scale storage of
carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery applications, and the
development of new resources such as the Baaken shale and similar
formations that are now commercially viable, which is accredited to the
new drilling technologies. Research should be directed toward pilot
tests, noncore studies, and advanced research and development for next-
generation technologies.
Methane Hydrates Research.--The remaining $15 million in our
recommendation should be directed toward continuation of the methane
hydrates program within the Office of Fossil Energy. This resource is
extensive and will provide a needed supplement to our natural gas
resource base if it can be successfully developed.
Section 999 Program.--DOE Secretary Chu recently met with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act committee providing guidance to the
section 999 Offshore and Unconventional research program funded by
royalties from offshore production of oil and natural gas. He asked
that the program direct some of its activities to ensuring the safety
of offshore drilling operations to avoid events such as the Macondo
well accident of the past year. The section 999 program also provides
support for small operators by funding collaborative research with
national universities and for technology transfer programs. The past
and present administrations have recommended that this program be
repealed. We request support of the subcommittee in not repealing this
program, especially in view of the need for increased safety in
offshore drilling operations.
CORE FOSSIL ENERGY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The United States needs a strong core program of scientific
research in fossil fuels. We recommend maintaining the core Coal
Research Program at $404 million annually in addition to supporting the
oil and natural gas program at the $80 million level discussed above.
Fossil fuels are mainstays of our national energy demand for the
foreseeable future. Our economic prosperity and national security are
linked through investment in scientific research. More than one-half of
our economic growth since World War II can be traced to science-driven
technological innovation. Today's investments in fossil energy research
will lead to tomorrow's discoveries that will build a better America.
NETL, as a fossil energy field laboratory, has a long history of
support for external entities such as industry and universities. As a
national laboratory, NETL must also increase its level of program
support for onsite scientific research. Significant past
accomplishments include the drilling technologies described above and
materials developed to reduce criteria pollutants from coal-based power
systems. Present activities include developing excellence as a
computational modeling and simulation center and serving as a regional
engine for economic development through programs with local
universities to stimulate advanced research that leads to spin-off
industries under programs such as the Regional University Alliance
(RUA). Within the funds provided, NETL should be encouraged to continue
these scientific research and economic development programs.
Core research programs should be expanded through the designation
of additional funding to include an enhanced focus on water-related
issues. Ground water contamination from Marcellus shale production can
be addressed under the Oil and Natural Gas Programs described above.
Additional funding should be identified to address a broader array of
water issues associated with energy production. Powerplants need to
reduce the amount of water both used and consumed in their operations.
These needs are especially acute in areas of water shortages, such as
the arid Western States. Production of fuels and chemicals will require
additional water supplies. Coal conversion plants in China are
producing liquid transportation fuels at a ratio of three barrels of
water per barrel of fuel, a level we can attain in the United States
through the investment of core research funds.
ENERGY SECURITY
Fossil energy contributes approximately 70 percent of the
electricity to the national grid. We recommend the programs in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) include
components addressing the role of fossil energy in maintaining energy
supply. Analytical tools should be developed to monitor energy supply
and reduce risks from upsets in the fuel supply chain and energy
production infrastructure. The role of the Office of Fossil Energy in
the Future Smart Grid should be integrated into planning and analysis
activities. Programs currently at NETL in areas such as energy
efficiency of appliances can be used as a base to develop the next
generation of ``smart grid ready'' appliances. We recommend an
enhancement of the Office of Fossil Energy's role in energy security
areas, given its expertise in these areas.
RARE EARTHS
Advanced materials will increasingly rely on rare earth elements.
The Office of Fossil Energy has a long history of extraction expertise,
tracing back from its origins as a part of the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
and its work in coal cleaning and advanced separations technology that
can be applied to helping ensure a supply of rare earth minerals
through improved recovery and processing technologies. We recommend
that the DOE engage the Office of Fossil Energy in programs to maintain
our supply of rare earth elements.
______
Prepared Statement of Wilkes University, College of Science and
Engineering
I am writing to provide support and a recommendation for the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to fund a Department of
Energy (DOE) research program on Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing and Shale Gas Development on Drinking Water Resources and
Environmental Systems (e.g., streams and rivers). I am an aquatic
ecologist and Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at Wilkes
University (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania). In the interest of
transparency, I also need to point out that I am a principal
investigator on a 1-year water quality research project with DOE
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Morgantown, West
Virginia, at will be addressing short-term (1 year) concerns regarding
surface water quality, watersheds, and aquatic ecology relative to
selected sites and Marcellus gas development in northeastern and
northcentral Pennsylvania; our project will also provide information
based on the best science to the people in the region.
It should be noted that I am not opposed to shale gas development
in Pennsylvania (or elsewhere), but do believe this development needs
to proceed with the necessary protection of public health and
environmental safeguards for natural resources that are important to
the State economy and quality of life (hunting, fishing, boating and
canoeing, recreational use of natural areas, tourism, etc.). These
safeguards of environment and public health must be based on good
science (i.e., research that is sorely needed at present),
comprehensive scientific data relative to regionally unique geology,
ecology, and hydrology, and best engineering and industrial operations
and practices by the energy companies.
It has been my impression over the past year as a participant in
various meetings, conferences, coordination with DOE, and exchanges
with energy representatives that some of the leaders in energy
development (e.g., Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy) are trying to
implement best operational and engineering practices. Nevertheless, an
independent research program by Federal agencies such as DOE is
necessary for evaluating the outcome and appropriateness of these
practices. Energy companies, concerned with community issues of safe
drinking water and protection of aquatic resources, may be operating
with good intentions, but there is no comprehensive research effort by
a Federal agency to test and evaluate proposed best industrial
practices (e.g., centralizing water reuse facilities, testing private
drinking water wells beyond current regulations, providing equipment
for environmental monitoring of water quality) on their actual
effectiveness to protect human and environmental health. In short,
there is little to no impartial, science-based validation of proposed
best practices before they are widely implemented.
I wish to make the following points in my testimony:
--the important role that DOE must play in such a research program;
--the need for new research on shale gas development due to the
unique geology and hydrology of the Appalachian region (i.e.,
methods developed for Texas and Alaska do not necessarily apply
in Pennsylvania or New York);
--relationship of DOE research to Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) research plan on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
alone; and
--the benefits of a broad-based research program to gain public
acceptance, avoid lawsuits and extreme costs of clean-up, and
avoid wide-scale public rejection.
role and relevance of a department of energy research program for shale
GAS DEVELOPMENT
The DOE National Laboratory System (including NETL) is ideally
suited to address issues of public health and environmental integrity
of natural resources from a holistic perspective. DOE is the primary
Federal agency conducting research on technology to support commercial
development of energy resources and is charged with promoting the
energy security needs of our country. Almost all of the DOE national
labs have a unique capability for environmental research. Before coming
to Wilkes University in 1991, I spent 7 years as an environmental
research scientist at DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (with
EG&G Idaho, the prime contractor) and over a 2-year period, I was a
research data facilitator for seven national labs from coast to coast.
I am familiar with this research mission of the DOE national labs and
know that its current research budget for the environmental aspects and
potential impacts from shale gas development is very limited. The
advantage that DOE has is its interdisciplinary approach to energy
research, cost effectively matching technology with best engineering
practice, to best protect human health and environmental integrity.
UNIQUE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE APPALACHIAN REGION
Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is not a new technology and it
has been used in other regions of the United States. However, the
geology and hydrology of the Appalachian region of the Marcellus Play
differs considerably from these other regions (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma,
and Alaska) where hydrofracing has been implemented with considerably
less public concern about human health and the environment. Based on
the experience of Wilkes University faculty geologists and hydrologists
in northeastern Pennsylvania, our region is extremely variable and
complex in its geology and groundwater hydrology. There are localized
faults and fractures in various geologic and hydrologic structures that
can affect quality of water supply even without the disruptive effects
of drilling. In addition, Pennsylvania has one of the highest rural
populations in the United States and many people rely on private
drinking water wells. Furthermore, there are no State standards for
casing and most private wells in Pennsylvania do not have casing, or at
best have inadequate casing. Only good data, designed to ask the
appropriate research questions, will avoid the ensuing problems of this
unusual but critical set of circumstances:
--local and regional faults and fractures in various geologic strata;
--complex geology and hydrology;
--high rural populations; and
--lack of standards on well casings.
Without an organized Federal research program in this regard, the
public outcry and resistance will only increase. Clean-up costs where
obvious accidents may occur could be enormous. An ounce of prevention
(good research and data on the effectiveness of best practices) is
worth a pound of cure.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S RESEARCH TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESEARCH PLAN
At this time, it appears that the Congress has provided some modest
research funds for EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan that was
posted for peer review by its (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/
uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm) Science Advisory Board on
February 8, 2011. While this plan is a good start, it is inadequately
funded for research and monitoring over the necessary longer time
period of gas development, and it is focused totally on drinking water.
Also, EPA is a regulatory agency, and its research will take that
direction. In contrast, if funding is available (i.e., via this
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development) to DOE, then this
agency's unique interdisciplinary mix of technological research with
outstanding research expertise in environmental and ecological systems
would complement EPA's expertise and regulatory focus. In short, DOE is
well-positioned to support both technological advances and improvements
to gas development and to assess its performance and outcome for
effectiveness with research on critical environmental and ecological
endpoints.
BENEFITS OF A SHALE GAS RESEARCH PROGRAM TO THE PUBLIC
Recent articles in the New York Times and the Philadelphia Enquirer
highlight the growing distrust of the public regarding public health
and protection of natural resources--for example see: (http://
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1&ref=us) and (http://
www.philly.com/philly/news/20110403_Shale-
gas_regulation_near_river_divides_Pa_.html?viewAll=y&c=y),
respectively. In some cases, public reaction amounts to fear of the
unknown; in other cases, significant environmental or public health
concerns are real and valid. Nevertheless, the concern by the public
(and the scientific community) can only be addressed by an adequate
research program aimed at an integrated approach to groundwater
concerns (including drinking water wells), and the ecological health of
streams and rivers, and natural areas (e.g., issues with forest and
wildlife habitat fragmentation). The DOE national laboratory system is
well suited to take on this challenge in an effective fashion and work
with other Federal agencies in a collaborative fashion.
RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons, I strongly recommend that the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development fund critically needed DOE research to
help ensure public health and to safeguard environmental and ecological
resources. A minimum DOE research budget of $10 million a year for at
least 5 years is recommended. Thank you for considering my testimony.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the APS Four Corners Power Plant
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Aurora Water
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the BHP Navajo Coal Company
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
the BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Farmington
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
This testimony is in support of funding for the title II Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The Congress has designated the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), to be the lead
agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and
the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the Congress when
Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2012 to implement the needed and authorized program.
Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
damage in the United States and Mexico.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) finds
this unacceptable. BOR has requests for funding of many very cost-
effective proposals through its Basinwide Program that far exceed this
funding level. In the judgment of the Forum, this amount is
inappropriately low. Water quality commitments to downstream United
States and Mexican water users must be honored while the Basin States
continue to develop their Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause about $353 million in
quantified damage in the United States with significantly greater
unquantified damages. Damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the program needs
to be accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President in
the past.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and BOR has a backlog of proposals. BOR
continues to select the best and most cost-effective proposals. Funds
are available for the Colorado River Basin States' cost sharing for the
level of Federal funding requested by the Forum. Water quality
improvements accomplished under title II of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of water delivered to
Mexico. Although the United States has always met the commitments of
the International Boundary and Water Commission's (Commission) Minute
No. 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the United States
section of the Commission is currently addressing Mexico's request for
better water quality at the International Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when BOR can improve irrigation delivery systems at the same time
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program is working
with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation systems.
Through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program, adequate on-
farm funds appear to be available and adequate BOR funds are needed to
maximize the effectiveness of the effort. These salinity control
efforts have secondary water conservation benefits at the point of use
and downstream at other points of use.
OVERVIEW
In 2000, the Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized for this
program by $100 million. BOR has received cost-effective proposals to
move the program ahead and the Basin States have funds available to
cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was originally
authorized by the Congress in 1974. The title I portion of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
United States made, through Minute No. 242, to Mexico concerning the
quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II
of the act established a program to respond to salinity control needs
of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with
the mandates of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially,
the Secretary of the Interior and BOR were given the lead Federal role
by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate funding for
the title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. The Congress revised the act in 1984. That revision, while
leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the
Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the USDA and to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The Congress has charged the administration with implementing
the most cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per
ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that
concept as the Basin States cost share 30 percent of Federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement salinity control activities for which they are
responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress to support the implementation of the
program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant
to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in
1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed-upon plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
JUSTIFICATION
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with BOR's portion of the Plan of Implementation. In July 1995,
the Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The
amended act gives BOR new latitude and flexibility in seeking the most
cost-effective salinity control opportunities, and it provides for
utilization of proposals from project proponents, as well as more
involvement from the private as well as the public sector. The result
is that salt loading is being prevented at costs often less than one-
half the cost under the previous program. The Congress recommitted its
support for the revised program when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The
Basin States' cost sharing up-front adds 43 cents for every Federal
dollar appropriated. The federally chartered Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Advisory Council, created by the Congress in the
Salinity Control Act, has met and formally supports the requested level
of funding. The Basin States urge the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee to support the funding as set forth in this testimony.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress
to appropriate funds requested by the administration to continue to
maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed
and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the
Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the
Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a
deep aquifer through an injection well. However, the only means of
disposing of the brine collected is this injection well. This well has
a limited life expectancy. Funds are needed now to allow for planning
of alternatives as the end of the life expectancy of this injection
well is approached. The continued operation of this project and the
Grand Valley Unit will be funded primarily through the Facility
Operations activity.
The Forum also supports funding to allow for continued general
investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the
administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place,
properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of Denver
Water, I am writing to request your support for continued funding in
fiscal year 2012 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water,
power, and environmental interests. I request your support for an
appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of $6,248,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dolores Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jicarilla Apache Nation
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, I am writing to request your support for
continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two
successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States
of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal
agencies and water, power and environmental interests. Jicarilla Apache
Nation has been a participant in the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program since its inception in 1992, and I want to
stress that the continuation of the Program is of the utmost importance
to the Nation and the economic viability of the region. Therefore, I
request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statements of the Lower Brule Rural Water System; Oglala Sioux
Rural Water Supply System; Rosebud Rural Water System; and the West
River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System
FISCAL YEAR 2012 REQUEST
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request $26.238
million in appropriations for construction and $11.754 million for
operation and maintenance (OMR) activities for fiscal year 2012, a
total request of $37.992 million:
FISCAL YEAR 2012 TOTAL REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................ $26,238,000
OMR..................................................... 11,754,000
---------------
Total............................................. 37,992,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction request includes $0.960 million for Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) oversight, and the operation, maintenance, and
replacement (OMR) request includes $1.447 million for BOR oversight.
CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction request
Project area fiscal year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core....................................... ( \1\ )
Distribution............................... $10,848,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Supply...... 5,475,000
Rosebud Rural Water Supply..................... 9,915,000
------------------------
Total.................................... 26,238,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Complete.
As shown in the table below, the project will be 89 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2011. Construction funds remaining
to be spent after fiscal year 2011 will total $49.568 million within
the current authorization (in October 2010 dollars). Additional
administrative and overhead costs of extending the project, additional
construction costs, and inflation at 3.89 percent over the next 2 years
will increase remaining project costs to $83.217 million after fiscal
year 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal construction funding (October 2010 $464,669,000
dollars)...............................................
===============
Estimated Federal construction funding spent through $415,101,000
fiscal year 2011.......................................
===============
Percent spent through fiscal year 2011.................. 89.33
===============
Amount remaining after 2010:
Total authorized (October 2010 dollars)............. $49,568,000
Adjusted for extension to fiscal year 2013 and other $78,607,000
costs..............................................
Adjusted for annual inflation....................... $83,217,000
Completion fiscal year (Statutory fiscal year 2013; 2013
Public Law 110-161)....................................
Years to complete....................................... 2
Average annual required for fiscal year 2013 finish with $41,609,000
re-authorization.......................................
Average annual required for fiscal year 2013 finish $26,238,000
without re-authorization...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 3.89 percent for
pipelines, primarily due to a 7.7-percent reduction in 2009 during
recession. The increase in pipeline costs last year was 6.17 percent.
Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed (see chart
below). Assuming average 3.89-percent inflation in construction costs
over the remaining 2 years, average funding of $26.238 million is
required to complete the project within the existing authorization, and
$41.609 million is required to complete the project if re-authorized to
finish the project as planned.
The extension of the project from 2008 to 2013 did not provide for
budgeting of BOR oversight, administration and other ``overhead''
costs, which will total $27.157 million by the end of 2013. These costs
have been and will be incurred at the expense of construction elements,
and a $29.039 million re-authorization of the construction ceiling is
needed to recover those overhead costs, due primarily to the slow pace
of budgeting by the administration. The administration's budget for
construction for fiscal year 2012 is $16 million, far less than the
$26.238 million needed, and threatens to extend the project beyond 2013
with continued increases in overhead costs and depletion of funds that
would otherwise be applied to finishing construction.
The request will create an estimated 210 full-time equivalent (FTE)
construction jobs and 94 OMR jobs in an area of the Nation with the
lowest per capita income and deepest poverty.
Poverty is the harbinger of the severe healthcare crisis facing the
Indian people in the Northern Great Plains. The present value of extra
costs of healthcare during the lifetime of each 24,000 members of the
Indian population in the Mni Wiconi Project is estimated at $1.12 to
$2.25 billion (in 2010 dollars). The costs are based on extraordinarily
high rates of mortality due to heart disease, cancer and diabetes. The
Mni Wiconi Project has the direct effect of employing part of our
unemployed and underemployed Indian population and creates the
necessary infrastructure for more employment in indirect commercial and
industrial development. This will reduce poverty, mortality and the
national cost burden of Indian healthcare.
OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Core System
The Oglala Sioux Tribe has completed the core system. The
completion of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core
system was an historic milestone and permits greater focus in remaining
years of the project on completion of the distribution systems.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will receive significantly more
water from the OSRWSS core system in fiscal year 2011. Major segments
of the main transmission system will be completed across the
Reservation and connect many of the larger communities with safe and
adequate drinking water. OSRWSS pipelines now deliver water from the
Missouri River to the communities of Georgetown, Wanblee, Crazy Horse
School, Lakota Fund Housing and Potato Creek Community and the large
number of rural homes between the communities. The communities of
Hisle, Kyle, Manderson, Red Shirt, Porcupine and Wounded Knee can be
served with Missouri River water by the end of 2011.
Fiscal year 2012 will be another historic year, but considerable
work remains to distribute the water supply throughout the reservation.
More than 40 percent of the project's population resides on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, and only 78 percent of the distribution
system will be complete at the end of 2011. The reservation public
received its first Missouri River supply in 2009 after waiting 15 years
for construction of core facilities to the Reservation.
Project funds in fiscal year 2012 will continue building the on-
reservation transmission system. Funding will be used for transmission
and service line development east of Pine Ridge Village between
Wakpamni, Batesland, and Allen and south toward the Nebraska State
line. This area has been deferred in the past due to funding
constraints. The supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
facilities will be installed with state-of-the-art electronic
equipment.
As set forth above, activity on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in fiscal year 2012 continues to focus on constructing the transmission
system that serves as the ``backbone'' of the Project on the
Reservation from the White River in the northeast corner of the
Reservation to Pine Ridge Village. The tribe will continue to focus on
the disinfection requirements to blend Missouri River water and high-
quality groundwater without creating harmful contaminants. State-of-
the-art designs are being implemented for water quality control, and
the Project will serve as a model for other projects requiring these
facilities.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of
other sponsors.
WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System (WR/LJ RWS) projects for
fiscal year 2012 include standby generation facilities, conversion of
community water systems, storage reservoirs, SCADA, and cold storage
additions.
The upper Midwest and specifically the Mni Wiconi project area
regularly experience power outages as the result of winter weather
conditions. Regulatory authorities in South Dakota have recommended
standby generation as the result of statewide power outages experienced
during the winters of 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. BOR has concurred in the
addition of standby generation to the Mni Wiconi plan of work. WR/LJ
has outlined a 3-year standby generation project schedule.
The WR/LJ project includes four areas in which area ranchers are
served by a common well of limited capacity and unacceptable water
quality. The construction of WR/LJ facilities to serve them as
individual members of WR/LJ will provide the pipeline capacity and
water quality meeting Mni Wiconi project design standards.
Water storage needs include an elevated tower in the Reliance
service area, a ground storage reservoir in Mellette County and
supplemental storage in the Elbon service area.
SCADA capability provides accurate and efficient transmission of
data and allows remote control of pumping and storage facilities. The
WR/LJ SCADA system will be completed using the requested funding.
Storage facilities at the Murdo and Philip operations centers will
complete the building components of the WR/LJ project.
Previous Federal appropriations to the Mni Wiconi project have made
possible the delivery of much needed quality water to members of the
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS and to the livestock industry in the project
area. This would not have been possible without State and Federal
assistance.
ROSEBUD SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM--FISCAL YEAR 2012
Funding for fiscal year 2012 will be used to complete two major
projects begun in fiscal year 2011 and further work on the Rosebud
Sioux Rural Water System (RSRWS or Sicangu Mni Wiconi) distribution
system. In fiscal year 2011 work began on the water supply for the
Rosebud Adult Correctional Facility (ACF). The ACF is a major project
that will be constructed in 2011 and in operation in August 2012. The
intent of locating the facility on Rosebud is that incarcerated
individuals are closer to the family and culture and the recidivism
rate will be lower and the local economy also benefits. The Mni Wiconi
Project is responsible for delivering water to the ACF and providing
adequate volumes to meet peak demands. An elevated storage tank appears
to be the only feasible option available.
The other major project initiated in fiscal year 2011 requiring
fiscal year 2012 funds is the Sicangu Village Supply Project. Because
of unexpected quality and quantity limitations of the aquifer in
southern Todd County, high-quality surface water from OSRWSS will be
conveyed by a transmission pipeline to a new elevated storage reservoir
at Sicangu Village. The elevated reservoir is currently under contract
and will be completed this summer. Sicangu Village is an expanding
housing area and the local wells cannot meet demands of expansion. The
transmission line and elevated reservoir will provide a reliable supply
of high-quality water to the development corridor along Highway 83
between Mission and Sicangu Village. It was hoped that this area of the
Rosebud Reservation would not need to be connected to the Mni Wiconi
Project because of the presence of the Ogallala aquifer. The estimated
demands for the area were, however, included in system planning and it
now appears this foresight was beneficial because portions of the
aquifer have high nitrates and other areas are not as high yielding as
originally thought.
Distribution system projects will extend service to two schools in
southern Todd County and meet domestic needs in other areas of the
Primary Service Area (Todd and Mellette Counties). It was hoped to
connect the Lakeview and Littleburg schools to the system in fiscal
year 2011, but fiscal year 2011 funds are not sufficient. The wells
that supply water to both of the schools have high nitrates. The Mni
Wiconi Project will ensure that future generations on the Rosebud
Reservation, both Indians and non-Indians alike, will be supplied with
water that meets safe drinking water standards.
The other distribution system expansion planned for 2012 is the
completion of the East Todd Project. The initial phase of this project
was completed by the Tribal Force Account Program in late 2009 and
rights-of-way have now been obtained to undertake the remainder of the
project. This project also serves an area where water quality has been
declining due to elevated nitrate levels.
The ongoing effort to connect rural homes to transmission and
distribution lines will also continue in 2012. This work is undertaken
through the Tribal Force Account Program. The Force Account Program not
only provides a reliable source of high-quality water to rural homes,
it also provides employment to numerous tribal members and helps
circulate dollars on the reservation thereby stimulating the local
economy.
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT
The Sponsors will continue to work with BOR to ensure that their
budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain, and replace
respective portions of the core and distribution systems. The Sponsors
will also continue to manage operation, maintenance, and replacement
expenses to ensure that the limited funds can best be balanced between
construction and OMR. Unfortunately the administration's budget for
fiscal year 2012 ($10.058 million) is under-stated for the first time
in the history of the project. The project needs $11.754 million. BOR's
budget for 2012 will cause the project to fall into a state of
disrepair and will threaten the considerable investment of the United
States from 1994 to date.
The project has been treating and delivering more water each year
from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre as construction
is advanced in the Rosebud, WRLJ and Oglala service areas. Completion
of significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted in more
deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for sufficient
funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning system
throughout the project has grown as the project has now reached 89-
percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace with
the system that is placed in operation.
The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) is essentially complete
with all major components such as the water treatment plant, booster
stations, and tanks/reservoirs in full operation. As a result, LBRWS's
operation and maintenance portion of the budget has reached a baseline
amount to which only slight adjustments along with inflation should be
made each year. The portion of the LBRWS OM&R budget that is somewhat
variable is the Replacement Additions and Extraordinary (RAX)
maintenance items. LBRWS will continue to work with BOR and the other
sponsors to prioritize their needs and ensure that their system is
operating to the standards that have been established over the past
several years. With that in mind, the LBRWS request for OMR for fiscal
year 2012 is $1,550,000.
The RSRWS expanded significantly in 2010 and surface water now
reaches Todd County. To accomplish this, two additional high-capacity
pumping stations were added to the system. The new pumping stations
increase operational costs for both energy, maintenance and personnel.
In addition, energy costs increases have significantly impacted Rosebud
for electrical costs and vehicle expenses. With the oldest parts of the
system in service for 15 years replacement costs covered under RAX are
also becoming more significant. RAX funds must be included in the Mni
Wiconi Project appropriations because they are not funded through BOR's
RAX program.
OSRWSS will incur unanticipated core OMR expenses in fiscal year
2012 to replace valves, remove sludge at the water treatment plant and
supplement American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for
chlorine booster stations and generators/transfer switches. The
unanticipated costs are $661,000, which will improve facilities that
benefit all project sponsors.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2012 in the
amount of $11.754 million.
FISCAL YEAR 2011 OMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $3,380,000
Distribution........................................ 3,100,000
Lower Brule............................................. 1,550,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 2,277,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,447,000
---------------
Total............................................. 11,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY
Public Law 100-516, the Mni Wiconi Project Act, provides that:
``. . . United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that
adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic,
environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the . . .
Indian Reservation[s] . . .''
The field staff and the Regional Office of BOR have been extremely
helpful in advancing this project, but there has been concern that BOR
mid-managers and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are making
unilateral decisions that harm the trust relationship. The following
are specific instances:
--BOR has re-distributed funds allocated to the Oglala Sioux Tribe to
West River/Lyman Jones without the urging of West River/Lyman
Jones to further BOR performance objectives. While OSRWSS has
consistently carried funds over from one fiscal year to
another, there has never been an instance or a threat of an
instance of not spending funding appropriated in a given year
in that year or the year that follows. The rate of completion
of the OSRWSS project is decelerated and the rate of other
projects has been accelerated without the urging of recipients
of re-distributed funding;
--To our complete satisfaction on construction, BOR has yielded to
the leadership of the Indian and non-Indian sponsors to permit
their collaborative development of annual construction funding
allocations and budgets. On the other hand, BOR has imposed its
structure and budget specifics in lieu of Indian leadership on
the formulation of annual OMR allocations and budgets;
--OMB has budgeted funds to BOR for its Rural Water Program without
separation of construction and OMR accounts, and the
constraints on the total budget have fallen heavily on the
funds available to complete construction. OMR budgeting has
been held relatively constant with higher percentages of
construction completion, and construction budgeting has
decreased. The fixed level of OMR funding has constrained the
activities needed on the Indian distribution systems. The
construction budget is diminishing at a time when acceleration
of construction is needed to deliver the benefits of the
project to the Indian people. At a minimum, the construction
budget should be a priority and should be held at a level
needed to complete the project on the statutory schedule in
2013 while providing an adequate OMR budget;
--Mid-levels managers have often view the project as a BOR project,
rather than as an Indian project as provided by Public Law 100-
516, and their vision is affected.
Improvement of the relationship and performance has been observed
over the last year as BOR has responded to this concern.
______
Prepared Statement of Matthew H. Mead, Governor, State of Wyoming
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support and assistance in insuring continued funding for
the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These two successful
ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies
and water, power and environmental interests. Wyoming joins the other
participating States and non-Federal partners in requesting your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of $6,248,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper
Colorado Region. Recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility, I must
also point out, with respect to the fish recovery programs, that it
will cost the program participants including, Wyoming, much more in
terms of Endangered Species Act (ESA) costs if these programs do not
continue.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are national
models of collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
endangered species while meeting water use and water development
demands in compliance with the Federal ESA, State law, and interstate
compacts in the Intermountain West.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 2,160 Federal,
tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
occurring pursuant to their authorization in Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. On behalf of the citizens of Wyoming, I thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012
funding to ensure BOR's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Statement of the New Mexico State Engineer and the New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission
SUMMARY
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2012
appropriations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program of
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The
Congress designated BOR to be the lead agency for salinity control in
the Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act of 1974, and reconfirmed BOR's role by passage of Public Law 104-
20. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for fiscal year 2012 to
implement the authorized salinity control program of BOR. Recent years
have followed a trend of inadequate funding for the needs of the
program. An appropriation of $17,500,000 for BOR's salinity control
program is necessary to restore the program to the level needed to
protect water quality standards for salinity and to prevent unnecessary
levels of economic damage from increased salinity in water delivered to
the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River. In addition, funding for
operation and maintenance of existing projects and sufficient general
investigation funding is required to identify new salinity control
opportunities.
STATEMENT
The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the Basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. The salinity standards for the
Colorado River have been adopted by the seven Basin States and approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency. While currently the standards
have not been exceeded, salinity-control projects must be brought on-
line in a timely and cost-effective manner to prevent future effects
that could result in unnecessary damages from higher levels of salinity
in the water delivered to the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by the
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), a body comprised of
gubernatorial representatives from the seven States. The Forum was
created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean
Water Act and to provide the States with information necessary to
comply with sections 303(a) and (b) of the act. The Forum has become
the primary means for the Basin States to coordinate with Federal
agencies and the Congress to support the implementation of the salinity
control program for the Colorado River Basin.
BOR studies show that quantified damages from the Colorado River to
United States water users are about $353 million per year. Unquantified
damages are significantly greater. Damages are estimated at $75 million
per year for every additional increase of 30 milligrams per liter in
salinity of the Colorado River. Control of salinity is necessary for
the States of the Colorado River Basin, including New Mexico, to
continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado
River.
Timely appropriations for the funding of the salinity control
program are essential to comply with the water quality standards for
salinity, prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States,
and protect the quality of the water that the United States is
obligated to deliver to Mexico. The Basin States and Federal agencies
agree that increases in the salinity of the Colorado River will result
in significant increases in damages to water users in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. Although the United States has always met the
water quality standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under
Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC), the United States through the United States section of IBWC is
currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality water.
Continued strong support and adequate funding of the salinity control
program is required to control salinity-related damages in the United
States and Mexico.
The Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
in July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program
authorized by the Congress by the amendment has proven to be very cost-
effective, and the Basin States are standing ready with up-front cost-
sharing. Proposals from public and private sector entities in response
to BOR's requests for proposals and funding opportunity announcements
have far exceeded available funding appropriated in recent years. Basin
States cost-sharing funds are available for the $17.5 million
appropriation request for fiscal year 2012. The Basin States' cost-
sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave BOR additional spending authority for the
salinity control program. With the additional authority in place and
significant cost-sharing available from the Basin States, it is
essential that the salinity control program be funded at the level
requested by the Forum and Basin States to protect the water quality of
the Colorado River. Some of the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities occur when BOR improves irrigation delivery systems
concurrently with on-farm irrigation improvements undertaken by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP). The Basin States cost-share funding is available for
both on-farm and off-farm improvements. The EQIP funding appears to be
adequate to accomplish the on-farm work. Adequate funding for BOR's
off-farm work is needed to maintain timely implementation and
effectiveness of salinity control measures.
Maintenance and operation of BOR's salinity control projects and
general investigations to identify new cost-effective salinity control
projects are necessary for the continued success of the salinity
control program. Investigation of new opportunities for salinity
control is critical while the Basin States continue to develop and use
their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The water-
quality standards for salinity are dependent on timely implementation
of salinity control projects, adequate funding to maintain and operate
existing projects, and sufficient general investigation funding to
determine new cost-effective opportunities for salinity control.
Continued funding primarily through BOR's Facility Operations
activity to support maintenance and operation of the Paradox Valley
Unit and the Grand Valley Unit is critically needed. General
Investigation funding through BOR's Colorado River Water Quality
Improvement Program needs to be restored to a level that supports the
need for identification and study of new salinity control opportunities
to maintain the levels of salinity control needed to meet water quality
standards and control economic damages in the Lower Colorado River
Basin.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to BOR for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, plus adequate funding
for operation and maintenance of existing projects and adequate funding
for general investigations to identify new salinity control
opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony by the Forum's Executive
Director, Don Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and the
recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the federally
chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Boards of Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
and Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, I am writing to request your support for continued funding in
fiscal year 2012 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392.
These two successful, ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal, cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts. The past support of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I
thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure BOR's
continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of PNM Resources, Inc.
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, I am writing to request your support for
continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two
successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States
of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, the Southern Ute Indian
Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Federal agencies and water, power, and
environmental interests. The tribe requests your support for an
appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of $6,248,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. The tribe thanks you for the subcommittee's past support and
requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to
ensure BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: We are writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
We request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. Thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure BOR's
continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico, Office of the State
Engineer, Santa Fe
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support and assistance in insuring continued funding for
the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These two successful
ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal
agencies and water, power, and environmental interests. The State of
New Mexico requests your support for an appropriation in the
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2012 of $6,248,000 to
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper
Colorado Region.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are national
models of collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
endangered species while meeting water use and water development
demands in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA),
State law, and interstate compacts in the Intermountain West.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 2,160 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nationwide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
occurring pursuant to their authorization in Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. On behalf of the citizens of New Mexico, I thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012
funding to ensure BOR's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of The Navajo Nation
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: The Navajo Nation is
an active participant in, and strong supporter of, the San Juan River
Recovery Implementation Program. On behalf of the Navajo Nation, I am
writing to request your support for continued funding in fiscal year
2012 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized
by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative
partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and
environmental interests. I request your support for an appropriation
for fiscal year 2012 of $6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with
the President's recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-
sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. The Navajo Nation thanks the subcommittee for its past
support and requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012
funding to ensure BOR's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: The Board of the
Tri-County Water Conservancy District is writing to request your
support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law 106-
392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
We request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. We thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
District
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Utah Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming Water Association
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am writing to
request your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to BOR within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tenneessee:
Opening Statement of.........................................
126........................................................
Questions Submitted by.....................................119, 188
Statements of................................................ 3, 93
Altira Group, LLC, Prepared Statement of the.....................
224............................................................
American:
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................
224........................................................
Gas Association, Prepared Statement of the...................
226........................................................
Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
229........................................................
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..........
230........................................................
Society:
For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............
232....................................................
Of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the..................
235................................................
Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the..........
237................................................
Wind Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the...........
238........................................................
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Prepared Statement of............
241............................................................
APS Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the..........
308............................................................
Aurora Water, Prepared Statement of..............................
308............................................................
BHP Navajo Coal Company, Prepared Statement of the...............
308............................................................
Board of:........................................................
Commissioners, Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared
Statement of the...........................................
201........................................................
Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, Prepared
Statement of the...........................................
202........................................................
Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of the...
203........................................................
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., Prepared Statement of...........
241............................................................
Bryant, Dr. Steven, Prepared Statement of........................
255............................................................
Castle, Hon. Anne, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..............
18.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
19.........................................................
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, Prepared Statement
of the.........................................................
243............................................................
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
309............................................................
Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of Energy......................................................
125............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
130........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
128........................................................
City of:
Farmington, Prepared Statement of the........................
309........................................................
Morro Bay, California, Prepared Statement of the.............
205........................................................
Coal Utilization Research Council, Prepared Statement of the.....
245............................................................
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Prepared
Statement of...................................................
4..............................................................
Colorado:
Oil & Gas Association, Prepared Statement of the.............
248........................................................
River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the..
309....................................................
District, Prepared Statement of the......................
311....................................................
Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the....................
312........................................................
Connor, Hon. Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior.....................................
25.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
27.........................................................
Questions Submitted to.......................................
77.........................................................
Cook, Dr. Donald, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
91.............................................................
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......
235............................................................
Cummins Inc., Prepared Statement of..............................
249............................................................
D'Agostino, Hon. Thomas P., Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
and Administration, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy...........................................
91.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
97.........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
95.........................................................
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil...................................
1..............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
6..........................................................
Questions Submitted to.......................................
59.........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
5..........................................................
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of..............................
312............................................................
Diesel Technology Forum, Prepared Statement of the...............
251............................................................
Dolores Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the....
312............................................................
Donald, Admiral Kirkland, Deputy Administrator for Naval
Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy......................................................
91.............................................................
Edison Electric Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............
256............................................................
Electric Drive Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
258............................................................
Energy:
Committee of ASME's Technical Communities, Prepared Statement
of the.....................................................
259........................................................
Efficiency Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..............
261........................................................
Environmental Council of the States, Prepared Statement of the...
199............................................................
EnviroScience, Inc., Prepared Statement of.......................
206............................................................
Executive Committee of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Users Organization, Prepared Statement of the..................
262............................................................
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the......................................
265............................................................
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 91, 125
Questions Submitted by..................................65, 77, 112
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
266............................................................
Gas:
Technology Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
268........................................................
Turbine Association, Prepared Statement of the...............
271........................................................
GE Energy, Prepared Statement of.................................
273............................................................
Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
Questions Submitted by.........................................
192............................................................
Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the..
313............................................................
GSI Environmental Inc., Prepared Statement of....................
276............................................................
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by.............................................................
180............................................................
Harrington, Anne, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy...........................................
91.............................................................
Hill, Jr., Richard Newton, Former President/Owner of Hill
Equipment Corp., Prepared Statement of.........................
290............................................................
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
196............................................................
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........
207............................................................
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the...............
313............................................................
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
Submitted by..............................................75, 89, 178
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by...................................................59, 75
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by.........................................
180............................................................
Little River Drainage District, Prepared Statement of the........
218............................................................
Lower Brule Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the........
213............................................................
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by.............................................62, 123, 192
Mead, Matthew H., Governor, State of Wyoming, Prepared Statement
of.............................................................
318............................................................
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement
of the.........................................................
209............................................................
Missouri River Association of States and Tribes, Prepared
Statement of the...............................................
212............................................................
Moss Landing Harbor District, California, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
215............................................................
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
63.............................................................
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by..............................................59, 89, 172
Murray, Reed, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion
Act
Office.........................................................
18.............................................................
National:
Association:
For State Community Services Programs, Prepared Statement
of
the....................................................
278....................................................
Of State Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the.....
280....................................................
Hydropower Association, Prepared Statement of the............
283........................................................
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....................
219............................................................
Navajo Nation, Prepared Statement of the.........................
323............................................................
New Mexico:
Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of the......
319........................................................
Institute of Mining and Technology, Prepared Statement of the
285........................................................
State Engineer, Prepared Statement of the....................
319........................................................
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of the.........................................................
320............................................................
NuScale Power, Inc., Prepared Statement of.......................
289............................................................
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
286............................................................
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Prepared Statement of the
313............................................................
Ohio Lake Management Society, Prepared Statement of the..........
216............................................................
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Prepared Statement of the......
321............................................................
PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of.......................
321............................................................
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
76.............................................................
Rosebud Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the............
313............................................................
San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............
321............................................................
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Prepared
Statement of the...............................................
292............................................................
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......
235............................................................
Southern:
Company Generation, Prepared Statement of....................
294........................................................
Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................
322........................................................
Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
322............................................................
State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, Santa Fe,
Prepared Statement of the......................................
322............................................................
Stockton Port District, California, Prepared Statement of the....
216............................................................
Symbiotics, Prepared Statement of................................
297............................................................
Technology International, Inc., Prepared Statement of............
298............................................................
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
Submitted by.................................................117, 183
Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the.
323............................................................
Universities Research Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
299............................................................
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................
300............................................................
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Prepared
Statement of the...............................................
324............................................................
Utah Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the..........
324............................................................
Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert L., Chief of Engineers,
Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense--Civil..............................................
13.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
14.........................................................
Questions Submitted to.......................................
65.........................................................
Ventura Harbor, Ventura Port District--California, Prepared
Statement of the...............................................
222............................................................
West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................
313............................................................
West Virginia University, Prepared Statement of..................
302............................................................
Wilkes University, College of Science and Engineering, Prepared
Statement of...................................................
305............................................................
Wyoming Water Association, Prepared Statement of the.............
324............................................................
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 58
America's Great Outdoors Initiative and Civil Works Recreation... 11
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 12
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.................................... 9
California-Specific Questions.................................... 73
Coastal Restoration and Protection--Louisiana Coastal Area....... 61
Completion of the Levee System for the Greater New Orleans Area.. 59
Construction Program............................................. 15
Dam Safety....................................................... 67
Direct Program................................................... 14
Dredging Needs on the Mississippi................................ 61
Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Corps of Engineers Operations 16
Emergency Response............................................... 17
Fiscal Year 2012 Discretionary Funding Level..................... 7
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund....................................11, 65
Infrastructure Recapitalization.................................. 10
Inland Waterway Trust Fund.......................................11, 62
Investigations Program........................................... 14
Levee:
Certification................................................72, 75
Vegetation................................................... 70
Lower-Priority Programs.......................................... 12
National Defense................................................. 17
New:
Investments in Fiscal Year 2012.............................. 9
Starts....................................................... 69
Operation and Maintenance Program................................ 15
Panama Canal..................................................... 76
Planning:
Improvements................................................. 11
Program Modernization........................................ 16
Proposed Legislation............................................. 16
Reimbursable Program............................................. 16
Research and Development......................................... 17
Small Ports...................................................... 68
Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Program Budget....................... 14
Veterans Curation Project........................................ 12
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 171
Advanced Cable and Conductors Program (Formerly High Temperature
Superconducting Program)....................................... 177
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 189
Biofuels......................................................... 180
Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste.......................... 189
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds..................................... 178
Cleanup Budgets for the Nuclear Weapons Complex.................. 199
Contracts Management............................................. 190
Coordination of Power Marketing Administrations and the
Department of Energy Policy.................................... 186
Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012 Program Office Highlights.. 138
Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at Homestake. 155
Deepwater Offshore Wind Technologies............................. 159
Distributed Wind...............................................182, 184
Energy Research and Subsidies.................................... 151
Enriched Uranium Tails at Paducah................................ 147
Environmental:
Impact of Fracking........................................... 151
Management................................................... 172
Fiscal Responsibility............................................ 132
Fossil Energy.................................................... 192
Fracking......................................................... 158
Fuel Cells....................................................... 183
Geothermal Funding............................................... 162
Global Energy Race............................................... 150
H-Canyon......................................................... 193
High-Priority Experiments........................................ 156
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request................ 132
Hydrogen......................................................... 194
Technologies................................................. 145
And Fuel:
Cell Technologies........................................ 176
Cells.................................................... 182
Leading in the Global Clean-Energy Economy....................... 131
Loan:
Guarantee Program............................................ 172
Credit Subsidies......................................... 167
Guarantees for Advanced Technology Automobiles............... 157
Mechanical Insulation Program.................................... 187
Mississippi River Level.......................................... 157
Nuclear:
Energy and Energy Security................................... 153
Fuel Rods and Dry Cast Storage............................... 170
Safety and Security.......................................... 132
Oak Ridge Cleanup................................................ 189
Office of Environmental Management Budget and Nuclear Cleanup.... 164
Rural Implementation............................................. 186
Savannah River Site Pensions..................................... 195
Science Labs..................................................... 191
Small Modular Reactors........................................... 169
Solar:
Energy Technology Program.................................... 177
Technology Prices/Subsidies.................................. 146
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage....................................... 166
State Environmental Agency Directors Support Fiscal Year 2012
Funding Appropriation for U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear
Cleanup Work................................................... 199
Strategic Petroleum Reserve....................................154, 192
Supporting Groundbreaking Science................................ 131
Water Power Program.............................................. 174
Western Area Power Administration Transmission................... 184
Yucca Mountain................................................... 163
Nuclear Waste................................................ 154
National Nuclear Security Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 112
Export Control Regulations....................................... 119
Four-Year Effort................................................. 115
Implementing the President's Nuclear Security Agenda............. 98
Improving the Way National Nuclear Security Administration Does
Business....................................................... 99
Investing in the Future.......................................... 97
Material Consolidation........................................... 116
Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho National Laboratory............... 120
Small Modular Reactors Program................................... 122
Technological Surprise........................................... 116
Uranium Downblending............................................. 122
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 58
Administrative Cost Savings and Management Efficiencies.......... 31
Aging Infrastructure............................................. 80
Allocations Without Earmarks..................................... 39
Bay-Delta Interagency Plan....................................... 82
CALFED........................................................... 85
California Bay-Delta Restoration Fund............................ 32
Cedar Rapids, Iowa............................................... 52
Central:
Utah Project Completion Act.................................. 24
Valley Project Restoration Fund..............................32, 84
Chickamauga Lock................................................. 35
Climate Change................................................... 81
Continuing Authorities Program................................... 47
Fiscal:
Responsibility............................................... 21
Year 2012 Planned Activities................................. 32
Funding:
Decisions.................................................... 50
Harbor Deepening............................................. 45
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.................................... 33
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2012 Request for Water and Related
Resources...................................................... 28
Hydropower....................................................... 23
Imperial, Coachella, and Metropolitan Water...................... 87
Indian Water Rights:
Settlement................................................... 77
Settlements.................................................. 31
Inland Waterway Trust Fund....................................... 36
Investing in the Future.......................................... 21
Kennebec River................................................... 43
Lake Powell/Lake Mead............................................ 87
Levee Certification..............................................42, 52
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project........................ 40
Mni Wiconi....................................................... 79
Needs Assessment................................................. 79
Odessa Subarea Special Study..................................... 89
Operation and Maintenance........................................ 80
Passaic River Basin.............................................. 49
Policy and Administration........................................ 31
Principles and Guidelines........................................ 80
Quagga Mussel.................................................... 88
Rural Water......................................................79, 89
San Joaquin River Restoration.................................... 86
Fund......................................................... 32
Secure Water..................................................... 81
South of Delta Water Allocations................................. 83
Title XVI Program................................................ 82
2010 Accomplishments............................................. 20
Upper Mississippi River Navigation............................... 53
Water and Related Resources...................................... 28
Yellowstone Intake Diversion Dam................................. 42
-