Energy Subcommittee Examines Research at DOE Energy Innovation Hubs
(Washington, DC) – Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Energy Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the research at the Department of Energy’s Energy Innovation Hubs. The Hubs program started five years ago and employs a unique model of multidisciplinary partnerships across national laboratories, universities, and businesses to address key barriers to clean energy technologies.
The directors for each Hub testified before the Committee: Dr. Harry A. Atwater, Director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP); Dr. Jess Gehin, Director of the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL); Dr. George Crabtree, Director of the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR); and Dr. Alex King, Director of the Critical Materials Institute (CMI).
Ranking Member Alan Grayson (D-FL) of the Energy Subcommittee said in his opening statement, “Today’s hearing is well-timed. Two of the four existing Energy Innovation Hubs are up for renewal this year, while the others are just beginning… This hearing will provide Members an important opportunity to further understand what must be done to ensure the success of existing, and future, Hubs. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide authorizing legislation for the important work being performed at each Energy Innovation Hub.”
Ranking Member Grayson introduced a bill, H.R. 1870, to authorize the Hubs program, establishing merit-based rules governing the selection, scope, and composition of the Hubs. The bill was included as a provision in H.R. 1898, the version of the America Competes Reauthorization Act that was co-sponsored by every Democratic Member of the Committee. In addition, Ranking Member Grayson’s bill was accepted as an amendment on the floor to the Republican Competes bill. More information on both versions of the Competes Reauthorization can be found here.
The Members discussed the research and goals of each of the Hubs and the opportunities these potential technologies have to provide clean energy sources and spur economic growth. Members raised important questions related to the formation and operation of Hubs, as well as the potential for Hubs to exist beyond the planned ten-year maximum period.
Ranking Member Grayson said, “We need to develop a plan for Hubs that reach the end of their second five-year contract. Presently, the Department is indicating that Hubs will conclude work after a maximum of ten years. I support this guidance in principle, because it fosters a sense of urgency within Hubs to define and achieve goals as expeditiously as possible. But what happens when a Hub has been extraordinarily successful? Maybe there should be some process through which, according to a merit-based review system, that Hub is permitted to continue pursuing promising research and profound new discoveries.”
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) asked the witnesses whether it makes sense to draw an artificial line between basic and applied research, and whether Hubs are a good example of how they are often inseparable. Witnesses agreed this creates a false choice which has hindered U.S. research and development efforts in recent years. They emphasized that scaling up new technologies beyond the lab bench often requires more of what some would characterize as fundamental research, not less, and that involving industry in carrying out early-stage research can significantly accelerate the path to achieving a Hub’s technical and cost targets.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article