Committee Reviews DOE’s FY2013 R&D Budget
(Washington, DC) – Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing to review the Administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research and development (R&D) portfolio. This includes activities within the DOE Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee Program Office. Testifying before the Committee was the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu.
“I am not particularly happy with this budget request. I think that too many worthwhile programs would be cut, while others will not be increased enough,” said Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) in her opening statement. “Still, I applaud the Administration for making tough decisions and prioritizing in a time of fiscal austerity… However, I cannot help but lament the fact that we find ourselves in this position to begin with, and I feel that Congress has to accept its share of the blame.”
She continued, “We in Congress could acknowledge the immense challenges in energy that lie before us, and have the foresight to know that increased investment across the energy technology spectrum - from basic to applied research and demonstration - will pay untold dividends for future generations. We could recognize the role that truly fundamental discovery-driven research and large user facilities play in positioning the U.S. at the center of mankind’s quest to better understand our universe. Instead, unfortunately, this Congress seems content to put DOE in a corner and tell it to figure out how to do more with less.”
The discussion ranged widely from issues such as the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, to rising gasoline prices, to the value of physics research, to the expansion of oil and gas drilling in the U.S. Democrats, in particular, questioned the Secretary about subjects such as the unique role of the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy (ARPA-E) in DOE’s portfolio, hydraulic fracturing impacts, the continuing operations at facilities such as the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the proposed Clean Energy Standard, advanced manufacturing technology development, and the Department’s Quadrennial Technology Review’s proposed shift in resources towards reducing the cost of our reliance on oil for transportation.
Democratic Members also pushed back against Republican rhetoric that President Obama’s Administration is responsible for high gas prices. During the hearing, they brought up that domestic gas and oil production is up under President Obama. They also pointed to the impact that futures speculation has on gas prices. After the hearing, Ms. Johnson said, “In reality, in the short-term, there are few options the government has to impact gas prices. Oil is a globally traded commodity dominated by nationally-owned companies that collude to control prices, which are further skewed by complex market mechanisms both here and abroad. Furthermore, the U.S. has little in the way of oil reserves that could make a substantial impact on global supply and prices. At best, we can start to develop technologies now to help reduce our demand in the future. It is foolish to act as though the President, DOE, or as we heard earlier this week, NSF can lower gas prices if they would only choose to do so.”
In addressing Republican assertions that clean energy R&D programs amounts to the government “picking winners and losers”, Ms. Johnson noted the historical role that government has played in building up the nation’s energy sector. She stated that “The very energy industries my colleagues hold out as exemplars of the free market – oil, gas, nuclear and coal - are the ones that have benefitted most from government largesse and, curiously, the ones they hold out as most deserving of continued taxpayer-funded research. From high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, to nuclear reactors developed at federal labs with federal dollars, to the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom of today, we have seen how government research can pay off. But it required decades of federal investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy… it is time to level the playing field and introduce real competition to the markets, and that is where the priorities set by this budget request come in to play. We have to find the greatest value for the taxpayer dollar, and today it is in the emerging energy technology sectors that can most benefit from government support.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article