Washington, D.C. - Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) participated in today's Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing on the FY 2008 Department of Energy Budget.  Akaka joined his colleagues on the committee in questioning President Bush's Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman, on the details of the President's budget released on Monday. 

As Hawaii has the highest electricity rates in the United States, Senator Akaka questioned Secretary Bodman about the decreased funding of renewable energy technologies, such as solar, in the new budget.  Secretary Bodman replied that the funding is enough to "accomplish that which we want to accomplish in terms of funding the development of photovoltaic technology" and pointed to increased investment in the private sector.  A 5-minute mp3 audio file of the Q&A is available at this web address:

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/akaka/akaka070207_energy.mp3

And here's an unofficial transcript:

Senator Akaka:  Mr Secretary, Hawaii has the highest electricity rates in the country, and in response, we have become one of the largest markets for solar energy in the country.  As our demand for electricity continues to rise we increasingly must turn toward renewable energy...

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman (interrupts): What's your electricity cost, if I could ask you Senator, do you know?

Akaka: You know I haven't paid my bill in Hawaii for a while.

Bodman: Forgive the question.

Akaka: It's 27 cents per Kilo...

Bodman interrupts: Per Kilowatt hour... wow...that's very high for sure.  

Akaka: Yes.

Bodman: So solar energy works.

Akaka: Solar energy is something that would certainly help the cause there. 

Bodman: Sure

Akaka: Yet the budget presented by the Secretary significantly decreases the funding for renewable energy technologies, in particular when our government should be increasing investment in new technologies like solar, the Administration has decided to keep funding flat.

My question to you is... According to the President's "Solar America Initiative," the second year of the program was expected to be funded at $175 million.  Why did the Administration decide to curb this program after only one year?

Bodman: I don't know the specific program that you refer to... but it is supposed to be flat... we've got roughly $150 million that we had asked for in 07 and we asked for the same amount in 08...

I believe that this is enough such that we can accomplish that which we want to accomplish in terms of funding the development of photovoltaic technology.  Here again, I feel it is very important to observe what is going on in the private sector.  A lot of people are coming out of the memory business in silicon valley and are starting their own P.V. (photovoltaic) businesses.  That's a major source of activity to the venture capital community in silicon valley.  At the kind prices you are talking about you'll find a lot of takers I'd think in California in terms of the industrial community there...  Between what they're doing, and what's happening in other private companies in other parts of our country, together with this $148 million, that that's... a very substantial commitment. 

Akaka:  I am pleased to see the increase of $19.5 million in the FY 2008 request for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).   The budget states that increased funding is proposed to expand research in several areas for Hydrogen, such as Hydrogen production from renewables.  Can you explain how much of the increase, across all parts of the DOE budget, is allocated to the renewable production of Hydrogen - not just the portion in EERE?

Bodman: I happen to have the figures here... in the ‘08 budget, the total is $306 million, that's how much money is in the budget that has been proposed by the President.  Of that, 2/3 ($213 million) is in EERE, and the balance is in the creation of hydrogen using nuclear energy, that's $22 million, the fossil energy is $11 million  and the science office has been focusing on almost 60 million.  And that would fall in the category of renewable energy.  All of that is up some almost $20 million from the request for last year, and is up $60 million from 06, so it's a substantial increase.

Akaka: I appreciate that.  And for the record, if you could provide what the budget proposes for the production of Hydrogen from non-renewable sources, for comparison, I would appreciate it.

Bon: I'll be happy to do it. 

More information on President Bush's budget cuts to environmental, natural resource and energy independence programs (from the Democratic party) can be found at this web address:

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-16

For your information, earlier in the hearing, Senator Akaka delivered this opening statement (sorry, no audio file available):

Senator Akaka:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I appreciate your holding this hearing so quickly after the release of the President's FY 2008 budget on Monday. 

Secretary Bodman, I appreciate the commitment of the Department to the substantial increases in renewable fuels and biomass conversion for energy.  These increases are in the right direction. Also I appreciate the continuing support for hydrogen research and development, and the attention to renewable sources of hydrogen, rather than using natural gas or other fossil fuels. 

I do have a number of questions that I will ask at the appropriate point, but for now I congratulate you on getting the budget volumes and the disk out on time, an important accomplishment! 

One comment on the overall budget, which I am sure will be echoed by other Senators in this room - it would be very helpful to have a "crosswalk" from the laws passed in the 2005 Energy Policy Act to the DOE budget structure and documents.

Thank you.

Senator Akaka also asked this question earlier in the hearing (sorry, audio file and Secretary Bodman's response are not available):

Senator Akaka:  As you may know, Senator Murkowski and I share an interest in the methane hydrates program, which was reauthorized in EPACT 2005. 

Last fiscal year the program was zeroed out, and again in this fiscal year it is not funded.

Given the President's expressed commitment to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and the expected long-term decrease in the supply of natural gas, what does it take to keep our investment going? 

What is your advice on what Congress, the National Academy, and the Department of Energy needs to do to convince the powers-that-be (OMB) that we need specific answers on the program's potential and its liabilities before giving up on such a widely available source of natural gas?                                                             

-30-