The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2009 Research and Development Budget Proposal

Opening Statement By Chairman Nick Lampson

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on the FY09 Department of Energy budget request and future directions for energy R&D.  

The obstacles we face in energy and sustainability are of unprecedented scale and complexity.  The Senate and House are working on legislation to institute a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.  We are still heavily dependent upon non-renewable energy supplies that are located outside our borders.  We will only meet these challenges through aggressive and sustained support of research and development.     

That said I understand the difficult task of balancing priorities for energy R&D in an unfavorable budget climate.  In general, I believe the Administration’s budget request for DOE is a reasonable one.  The Administration has proposed increases for a number of important energy R&D programs.  However, I believe we need more invested in other areas that hold the great promise for diversifying our energy supplies – energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.   

The budget request for the Office of Science is consistent with our efforts in the America COMPETES Act and the Democratic Innovation Agenda to increase investments in basic energy R&D.  It was unfortunate that Congress was forced to make significant cuts to the FY08 basic research budget to avoid the President’s veto, and I hope that a bipartisan commitment to ensuring our country’s future prosperity will help to avoid a repeat of this situation in the year ahead.

I am pleased that this budget supports a restoration of funding for the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fusion project, as well as research towards a proposed International Linear Collider.  It is important for us to honor our international commitments.  The credibility of the United States as a reliable partner in future international research projects will be significantly undermined if these corrective actions aren’t taken. 

The picture for applied energy programs is not quite as good as the one for basic research.  The budget request for Energy Efficiency and Renewable programs is 27 percent below the appropriation for this year.  While there are some notable proposed increases, there are some reductions that take us in the wrong direction. 

The cheapest, cleanest energy we will ever find is the energy we don’t use.  Therefore, I cannot understand why the Administration has once again elected to eliminate the Weatherization Assistance program.  We should be looking for more ways to encourage deployment of products and technologies that increase energy efficiency.

We should also provide increased support for solar and wind energy.  If we are to expand the energy supplied by these renewable sources we will need sustained increases in funding for these programs. 

In the U.S. industry is responsible for one-third of all energy consumed, with the majority of that attributable to the heavy manufacturing sector that is struggling to stay competitive in an increasingly global marketplace.  The Administration’s proposal to decrease funding for the Industrial Technologies Program is baffling especially in light of its record of success. 

On the positive side, I am pleased to see the proposed increase for R&D in biomass and biorefinery systems.  The increased investment in R&D for cellulosic ethanol production is essential if we are going to meet the targets we have set for bio-based fuels. 

I am also pleased to see the Administration’s proposal to increase funding for the Geothermal Technology Program after the Administration proposed closing out this program just a year ago.  The proposed funding level of $30 million is still far short of the $95 million authorized in the 2007 Energy Act, but at least we are now moving in the right direction.

There is much in this budget proposal we can agree on, but not on everything.  What most troubles me is the Administration repeatedly ignoring the law by withholding funds and trying to repeal programs that Congress has authorized and funded. 

Specifically I am talking about the oil and gas research project funded in Section 999 of EPAct 2005.   The Administration should take the time to understand this program and see the potential in research collaborations between universities and small, independent producers, and let them do their work.  We cannot flip the switch overnight, and it is essential to develop and utilize new technologies that will enable us to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

Finally, I must note the absence of ARPA-E in the budget request.  What the Department proposes in its place – a smattering of small inter-disciplinary projects and a half-hearted reworking of the technology transfer policy – simply will not suffice as a substitute for implementation of this program.  

I have noted just a few items in this diverse budget proposal.  Energy is essential to our way of life.  We must do all we can to ensure the Department of Energy has the resources to accomplish the monumental task of guiding us to a future with a more diverse energy supply that has fewer environmental impacts.  R&D investments are the key to that future.  I hope the Administration will work with us to secure a budget for DOE that will accomplish these goals.

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us this morning.  I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Witnesses

Panel

1 - Mr. Steve Isakowitz
Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy Department of Energy

2 - Mr. Mark E. Gaffigan
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team Government Accountability Office Government Accountability Office
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Mr. Arthur Bienenstock
President American Physical Society American Physical Society
Download the Witness Testimony