<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:35447.wais]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-3
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-447 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Vice Chairman Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
______
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
Bud Albright, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, opening statement................................ 12
Barton, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 6
Boucher, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 4
Burgess, Hon. Michael C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 16
Butterfield, Hon. G.K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 13
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wyoming, prepared statement................................. 16
Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, opening statement........................... 2
Doyle, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 10
Engel, Hon. Eliot L., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, opening statement................................. 15
Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Califonia, opening statement................................ 7
Ferguson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, opening statement............................... 8
Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 11
Hill, Hon. Baron P., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, opening statement.................................. 14
Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, opening statement.................................. 11
Matheson, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, opening statement..................................... 13
Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 5
Schakowsky, Hon. Jan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 14
Solis, Hon. Hilda L., a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 11
Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 9
Sullivan, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oklahoma, opening statement................................. 9
Upton, Hon. Fred, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 3
Wynn, Hon. Albert R., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, opening statement................................. 15
Witness
Bodman, Hon. Samuel, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy........ 16
Prepared statement........................................... 58
THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room
2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Markey, Boucher, Pallone,
Eshoo, Stupak, Engel, Wynn, Green, DeGette, Capps, Doyle,
Harman, Allen, Schakowsky, Solis, Gonzalez, Inslee, Baldwin,
Ross, Hooley, Matheson, Butterfield, Barrow, Hill, Barton,
Upton, Stearns, Whitfield, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Pitts,
Walden, Terry, Ferguson, Sullivan, Murphy and Burgess.
Staff present: Sue Sheridan, Bruce Harris, Jonathan
Cordone, Chris Treanor, Seth, Alec Gerlach, Sharon Davis, chief
clerk; and Elizabeth Ertel.
The Chairman. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
The purpose of today's full committee hearing is to receive
the testimony from the Secretary of Energy regarding the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request. Mr. Secretary,
welcome to the committee.
As I explained at Tuesday's hearing, the chair is going to
follow slightly different procedures with respect to opening
statements and questions during full committee hearings. This
is going to be simply to expedite the business of the committee
and see to it that we can not only conduct the business but
also can treat all Members fairly according to clear and
understandable rules.
Now, consistent with the rules and past practices of the
committee, the chairman and the ranking member of the full
committee will be recognized for a 5-minute opening statement.
Today the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality will be recognized for 3-minute
opening statement. All other Members will be recognized for 1-
minute opening statements but they may waive their opening
statements for additional 1-minute of questioning during the
first round. The chair will recognize Members who are here when
I called the meeting to order by order of their seniority on
the full committee. Once all these Members have delivered or
waived an opening statement, the chair will recognize all
remaining Members in the order that they arrived at the
hearing. The clerks will keep a careful accounting of this
attendance to be assured that it is properly dealt with. The
chair will also recognize Members for the purpose of
questioning Secretary Bodman under the same procedures just
outlined.
The chair reminds Members, as previously noted, that
Members and staffs are invited to a briefing by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding his
recently announced fourth assessment report tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The chair suggests very strongly that Members should be here
because this is a matter that is going to receive full and
vigorous attention of this committee.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality will hold two
hearings next week on global climate change: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
to hear the views from the private sector panels and Wednesday
at 10 a.m. to examine how human activity has affected global
warning.
Before we proceed, I think most of the Members know that
our friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood, has been fighting
cancer with dignity and with courage. He has decided, however,
to decline further treatment and will be returning home to
Augusta, Georgia. His service in this House and on this
committee has been one of great distinction and great honor. My
wife Debra and I will be praying for him and his family during
this difficult time, and I know that his family would
appreciate your thoughts and prayers also.
The chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to welcome you back to the
committee to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request of
your Department. This is an important opportunity for the
committee to understand the Department's priorities and for
you, Mr. Secretary, to hear the concerns of committee members.
First, we are going to confront the issue of climate
change. As you know, the committee is going to endeavor to
write legislation addressing this issue, a complex and
difficult matter we are going to have to work very hard on. We
seek and we hope that we can count on the administration's
involvement, and I mean, that, Mr. Secretary. It is important
that the members of the committee understand the actions of
Federal agencies to date as well as the fiscal year 2008 budget
proposal's impact on these programs. In addition, Members need
to know the administration's position on the question of
climate change legislation and all the subtleties and issues
that are associated therewith. I have seen recent press reports
quoting you on the matter and I am sure the committee will have
questions later for you to better understand your statements
and position.
Second, the Department administers a wide variety of
statutory responsibilities that we will want to proceed on and
to discuss with you, Mr. Secretary. For example, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 included an array of statutory deadlines on
energy efficiency and conservation matters that are important
for both energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In particular, the Department does not have a strong
record in meeting appliance efficiency rulemaking deadlines.
Representatives Boucher, Markey and I have asked the Government
Accountability Office to examine this problem, and I am sure
Members will have questions for you on this matter.
Mr. Secretary, third, I would raise the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository program. This has been a program in
much disarray and the Department has estimated that it will
file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by 2008, which the Commission must evaluate for
scientific merit. If the Commission adopts this proposal or
grants approval, DOE said that it could begin accepting waste
at Yucca Mountain by 2017. None of this, however, can occur if
the Department lacks the necessary funding. As you know, Mr.
Secretary, the committee was disappointed that the
administration sent a bill to Congress last year without fully
funding the necessary reforms. These reforms would ensure that
the contributions of ratepayers to the nuclear waste fund are
preserved for their intended purpose and not dissipated for
other extraneous and conflicting purposes. Absent reform,
consumer funds are in peril and so is the program, and we all
know that a major piece of litigation is going to continue to
bother you and the Department because of the failure of the
Government to properly deal with these matters.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, you will probably be asked about
repeated security breaches at Department facilities,
particularly Los Alamos National Laboratory. This was a matter
of concern to us long years ago and seems to remain a thorny,
difficult and poorly handled problem.
Mr. Secretary, you have appeared before this committee on
prior occasions and I am satisfied that you can and will be an
honest broker. I know that you understand that the tough
questions to be asked today are part of the responsibilities of
the members of the committee and that they will support
present, past and future work of the committee. I am grateful
for the work you do at the Department on behalf of the American
people and for your appearance before this committee, and I
want you to know the affection and respect in which you are
held by the current occupant of the chair. I will note, Mr.
Secretary, that we will probably follow up with some questions
in writing which will be sent to you either by mail or other
way, and that we will be requesting your answer to these
questions so that we might have a more full record and the
record will of course remain open for the purpose of receiving
those answers.
The chair now recognizes my distinguished friend from
Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had stitches so my
shoulder is particularly sore this morning.
I want to share the chairman's remarks and echo his remarks
for the kind words and the competence, Mr. Secretary, that you
have exhibited as Secretary of the Department of Energy, a very
important spot as we look to this next year and to the final 2
years of the Bush presidency.
I for one am a strong supporter of nuclear power. I went
through the budget and looked at the nuclear waste trust fund
and saw the increases in essence from $17 billion in 2006 to
what will be nearly $20 billion in 2008, so one of the things
that I will be asking in my questions is the continued
committee of the administration to push to get this particular
facility in Nevada open, but I also want to compliment you on
the increase in alternative energy. That remains a priority not
only with this administration but certainly Members on both
sides of the aisle. We look forward to your leadership and to
your discussion this morning.
I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman.
The chair recognizes now our good friend from Virginia, the
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher. Three minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome, Secretary Bodman. We are delighted to have you with us
this morning, and I want to thank the chairman for providing
this opportunity to hear from the Secretary regarding the
Department of Energy's priorities for the fiscal year 2008
budget request, and with this hearing we can begin to focus on
what the Department's priorities are for the entire 110th
Congress.
I am particularly interested today in hearing about the
budget request for coal and for clean coal technologies
including carbon sequestration. The advancement of carbon
sequestration technologies is essential to ensuring that coal,
which is our nation's most abundant energy resource, can
continue to play a vital role in the national fuel mix at a
time of a carbon-constrained economy, and so having a clear
understanding of the status of carbon sequestration
technologies and what the Department intends to do in order to
advance those technologies to the point where they can be
commonly utilized is very important to us.
In addition, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary
regarding the administration's efforts with regard to
implementation of the loan guarantee program for alternative
transportation fuels that we authorized as a part of EPACT
2005. To date, there have been no loan guarantees issued under
the program and I understand that the continuing resolution
which is currently pending includes an appropriation of $7
million to administer the program and provides the potential to
guarantee up to $4 billion in loan guarantees. In addition, it
is my understanding that the Department's fiscal year 2008
budget includes a request of $9 billion for loan guarantees as
well as $8.4 million to operate the administrative office.
While I think it is encouraging that we see this movement, I am
concerned about the pace of this program and the fact that we
haven't seen guarantees put forward to date and would welcome
your comments about why that hasn't happened and what you
foresee happening in the near term.
I very much look forward to a discussion of these and other
matters that are of importance to our Nation's security and
again I thank the Secretary for joining us here this morning
and thank the chairman for providing this opportunity. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Ms.
Cubin, 1 minute.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive my opening
statement so that I have an extra minute for questioning.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes now the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 1 minute.
Mr. Terry. I will waive.
The Chairman. The gentleman waives also. The chair
recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Murphy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as our
Nation looks towards energy independence, it is very important
that we look at our energy security, our economic security, our
national security and note how they are closely intertwined. In
this budget, there is a number of things which I am pleased
with that is going to help us move towards some of that energy
independence and security with moves towards such things as
nuclear technology and looking at how that is helpful as a
clean energy source.
I must admit though that I continue to be very concerned
about some of the cuts and what is going on with clean coal
technology, particularly as it may relate to some of our
national energy technology labs. One is located in my district.
I think it is very important to recognize that while parts of
the world may only have a few decades left of oil resources, we
have over a couple centuries left of coal and we need to be
working towards ways that we can work at having clean coal
technology and maintain those investments. We have abundant
coal throughout the Nation and as needed for our manufacturers.
Our manufacturers are also concerned that when it comes to
natural gas and coal used for energy that by having the higher
costs for that, we are in a position where we are driving more
jobs out of our Nation unless we reach some answers to that. So
I am hoping as we go through this some of the issues that we
can work towards are increasing some of that funding for
research for clean coal technology, eliminating emissions for
the sake of our health but also for the sake of our jobs and
our Nation, and I am pleased to have this time and I welcome
and I am looking forward to the Secretary's comments on these
issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone, for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This budget proposal
seems to be at odds with the administration's recent promises.
During the State of the Union, the President referred to the
serious challenge of climate change and suggested an initiative
to reduce our dependence on oil, and these are certainly noble
goals but I am afraid the reality doesn't match the rhetoric.
If the President were serious about clean energy, perhaps he
wouldn't slash energy efficiency and renewable energy funding
by 18 percent from current levels. Perhaps he wouldn't zero the
entire geothermal and hydropower programs or sharply reduce
critical energy saving programs like weatherization assistance,
and if he realizes the serious challenge of climate change, he
wouldn't propose an alternative fuel standard that has no
mechanism for limiting carbon emissions, meaning that it could
actually exacerbate global warming.
The President should simply do the right thing and support
mandatory controls on carbon emissions, and I am still the
optimist and I hope that the President can live up to his
rhetoric.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman
and the chair recognizes now my good friend and colleague from
Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, Mr.
Secretary. It is always good to have a friend before the
committee.
We are here to review the fiscal year 2008 budget of the
Department of Energy. I will note that in the last several
years since you have been the Secretary, it is my opinion that
the Department's performance has improved and I want to
congratulate you on that. We do want to keep the trends going
in the right direction, given the state of the energy markets
both in our country and overseas. That is not an easy job.
There are two issues before this Congress that seem to be
converging at the same time. One is the perennial issue of
energy security. The other is what is now called global warming
or climate change. Energy security has preoccupied this
Congress and our country since the Department of Energy was
created back in the 1970's. Global warming is becoming a larger
and larger issue for the public each day. It also has not only
policy significance but political significance. This may be the
year that we have a meeting of those two issues at the same
time. Because of the mission of the Department and Energy and
its expertise, the Department is going to be right in the
middle of that. I hope the Energy and Commerce Committee, is
also going to be in the middle of it since we are the committee
of the Congress with the greatest depth and greatest amount of
experience on both sides of the aisle.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave your Department greater
responsibilities for energy efficiency, electricity
transmission and security, nuclear power, clean coal
development, renewable energy, hydrogen and of course oil and
gas. All of the Energy Policy Act authorities are central to
the debate on energy security and global warming. The President
has announced plans in his State of the Union address this year
to have a goal of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by
2017 and wants to reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over the
next 10 years. Again, your Department is right in the middle of
those initiatives.
The challenge ahead is daunting. It is going to take
leadership and vision to successfully manage all of these
programs and initiatives to ensure a bright future for America.
The President's budget is a road map but just that, a road map,
to show how we can balance priorities and get the job done. I
certainly hope that we can work together on the President's
budget and with this committee to help make some of those plans
realities.
We need more energy here in the United States, not less. We
expect that our electricity production is going to increase by
50 percent to meet the growing demand over the next 15 to 20
years. That is average of 2 to 3 percent a year. That is just
to supply the current demand for a growing job-creating
economy. That is not a bad thing that our electricity demand is
increasing. It is a good thing because United States is the
most productive economy in the world. As we use more energy, we
produce more goods and services, not just for the United States
of America but for the entire world economy.
On the transportation side, we know that in the short term
we are going to have to import more oil and there are things
that we could do in this committee, in fact, this committee has
done some of those things in the last Congress that would
increase the fuel efficiency. Hopefully the bill that passed
this committee and passed the House but didn't pass the Senate
might be a bipartisan vehicle for increasing fuel efficiency
standards in this Congress. It is my view that every source of
energy that makes any sense at all should be reviewed and see
if we can enhance it, make it more efficient, make it more
available for the consumers of the United States. I think the
United States has the ability to produce more energy. I think
it can do it in an environmentally affordable and
environmentally safe way. If we have more energy at affordable
prices that is produced in an environmentally safe fashion, we
are going to have a stronger economy and more opportunities for
our citizens.
Again, Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here and we
look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Eshoo, for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome
to the committee.
While there is much that I don't agree with in the
administration's approach to energy policy, I do want to
commend you and DOE Undersecretary for Science, Dr. Ray Orbach,
for the commitment you have made to funding science at DOE in
the last two budgets, and it is very important for our country
and I would like to start out on a very positive note by
recognizing this. I think this is exactly the kind of
investment that my constituents in Silicon Valley, leaders as
you know in academia and high technology have been calling for
for years in order to maintain our Nation's economic and
technological leadership. So I want to commend you for that.
Speaker Pelosi and many of my colleagues worked on an
effort that we will bringing forward in the Congress called our
innovation agenda, and in that proposal we call for doubling
the budget for the Office of Science as well as the National
Science Foundation and other agencies. These are really
nonpartisan issues. Therefore, there should be a bipartisan
effort and I hope that we can work together on it.
I also agree with the administration's call for reducing
our dependence on foreign oil by embracing alternative fuels.
What I have very serious concerns about are the fuels that the
administration plan considers alternatives which I believe will
undermine air quality and the effort to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
So thank you for being here, I look forward to working with
you.
The Chairman. The time of the distinguished gentlewoman has
expired. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Shimkus, for 1 minute.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive.
The Chairman. The gentleman has waived. The chair
recognizes now the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Ferguson, for 1
minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FERGUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing, and I appreciate the Secretary for being here
with us today.
I am pleased to see the President's budget reflects some
investments in renewable energy. In my home State of New
Jersey, the market for solar power is one of the fastest
growing solar markets in the country. In 2001, our State began
offering 70 percent rebates on solar power installation. Five
years later, some 2,000 homes and businesses have taken
advantage of this program and there continues to be a long
waiting list. I am particularly proud that Halls Warehouse
Corporation, which is a company in South Plainfield, New
Jersey, in my district has recently completed installing 8,000
solar panels on top of their refrigerated warehouses. It is the
largest roof-mounted solar electric system in the Nation and it
is expected to save this particular company $600,000 a year in
energy costs and reduce C0\2\ admissions by 24,000 tons over
the next 30 years. Now, I realize the importance of making
solar energy systems more accessible to homeowners--we have
talked about this a little bit--and businesses as well. That is
why in the last Congress I introduced the Clean and Green Solar
Tax Credit Act which would extend the solar tax credits that
were in our Energy Policy Act. I plan to expand upon this and
reintroduce it in this Congress, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Stupak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome
to the committee. As the new chairman of Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee, I look forward to working with you
and your staff. The subcommittee has already held an important
hearing on the security at the Los Alamos National Lab and I
appreciate your continued cooperation and assistance in this
issue.
For the past several years Americans have paid record-high
prices to fill up their cars and heat their homes from industry
to agriculture, businesses continue to struggle with wide
energy price fluctuations. As the President has stated in
several of his State of the Union speeches, we remain
dangerously dependent on foreign energy sources. Unfortunately,
I see nothing or very little from the President's 2008 budget
that will change this any time soon. The President's budget
drastically cuts proven programs such as LIHEAP, weatherization
assistance, building efficiency programs and vehicle
technologies. These cuts place the burden of the high energy
prices on lower-income Americans and small businesses. The
Federal Government should be investing in these programs as
well as wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy
sources to help Americans with high energy prices now.
Unfortunately, the President's budget seems focused on
increasing Federal handouts to his friends in big oil,
increasing the funding for fossil fuel energy up by 33 percent.
We can do better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair now recognizes our good friend and colleague, Mr. Pitts,
for 1 minute.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Chairman, I waive.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes our good friend and
colleague, Mr. Sullivan, for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot
to say but I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here
today and I think this is an important time in energy policy in
this country.
We have a lot to do, and I am for a lot of alternative
fuels, I support them, I am going to continue to support them.
I think it is exciting that we are doing that, but we can never
forget about domestic production of oil and gas. We are never
going to be able to totally eliminate the use of gas and oil.
We need to make sure too, I think it is important we do all we
can with secondary recovery, going in drilling domestically on
the outer continental shelf offshore, doing all we can here
domestically, and I think too that a lot of people, especially
on the left, think that the oil and gas industry is bad, people
are like J.R. Ewing that are in it, and that is not true. They
don't all go out drinking at lunch and drive a Cadillac with
horns on it. They are good people. Mainly the domestic oil and
gas that is produced in the United States is done by
independent producers and they are like small-business people,
and I think that they need to be recognized more and they are
not, and there is always a lot of byproducts that come from oil
and gas that need to be talked about, and I guess what I am
trying to say is, sir, that we need to have some kind of
educational effort out there maybe in the Department of Energy
and other places as well that can educate us on this important
issue. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
DeGette, for 1 minute.
Ms. DeGette. Colorado, Mr. Chairman. I will waive my
opening.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman passes. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Capps,
for 1 minute.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, and I will waive my opening
statement.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman waives. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle,
for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
After declaring us addicted to oil in his State of the
Union address, I was disappointed last year to see that the
President did not provide you with the additional resources
required to break this addiction. Sadly, we see this trend
continue this year, even after the President has declared that
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that
will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. Once
again, the President has said the right thing and then
delivered a budget that will produce the exact opposite result.
Mr. Secretary, I find it incredible that your entire budget, a
budget that it tasked with breaking our so-called addiction to
oil, is a mere $24.6 billion. That is barely more than what we
spend in Iraq every 3 months. I can only imagine the
breakthroughs that your Department could achieve if the
President actually backed up his rhetoric with real new funding
designed to make our country truly energy independent. I
appreciate the tough position you are in as you attempt to
defend this bait-and-switch but we need to provide substantial
new funding as I believe this will do more to change our
foreign policy, protect our environment and strengthen our
economy than any other action we could possibly take her in
Washington.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now our good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Pitts, for 1 minute. The gentleman has waived. The chair
recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Burgess, for 1 minute.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
time, I will submit for the record and leave time for
questions.
The Chairman. Very well. The gentleman waives. The chair
recognizes now the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman, for
1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two observations.
First on Charlie Norwood, unfailingly courteous, optimistic, a
ray of sunshine and hope. He is missed in this Congress and on
this committee.
Second, on the need for courage as we confront the threat
of global warming, which may prove an even bigger challenge
than the threat of terrorism. Mr. Secretary, this budget is far
too timid and will do far too little. Hopefully this committee
will not be timid and will show the kind of courage Charlie
Norwood exemplifies. I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Harman yields back. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening.
The Chairman. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Schakowsky. The chair recognizes now the distinguished
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Solis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.
Secretary.
In the district I represent in California, gas prices have
increased by 104 percent. In January our temperatures plunged
during the worse freeze in 9 years, driving up heating costs
and foodstuffs. Revenue at 71 percent of small businesses in
California have decreased as a result of increased energy costs
but the budget before us today fails again to deliver stability
for these working families, growth for small businesses and a
health environment for future generations. Only 5 percent of
the overall Energy Department's budget is dedicated, by the
way, to clean renewable technology, weatherization programs are
cut by 41 percent, and assistance programs for low-income
families are cut by $200 million. The budget fails to address
disproportionate impact on global warming, especially on low-
income communities and communities of color. Mortality rates
associated with global warming could increase twelvefold just
in the Latino community. The rate of infectious diseases will
climb, exacerbating impacts for the uninsured. The price of
foodstuffs will increase, impacting the large Latino workforce
in California. Latinos gathered, as you know, last September to
report on the National Latino Congresso. I would ask that we
may consider----
The Chairman. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Inslee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I
wanted to explore with you later some schizophrenia in the
budget and the two items I mention, and one is the clean coal
research which I support. I think it is good research. We
should find out if we can sequester CO\2\. But the problem is
because the President refuses to accept the regulation on
carbon, we may spend a billion dollars in taxpayer money and no
one will ever deploy a clean coal plant because why would you
ever do it when you can put your carbon dioxide into the Bush
plan for free and unlimited amounts up the stack. That is
schizophrenia. The second issue is, you have money in for
alternative fuels but you include coal to liquids which doesn't
save us anything in any realistic amount in carbon dioxide.
So you have got two major schizophrenias going on in here
and I look forward to discussing that with you because if we
are going to get serious on CO\2\ reductions, we need
consistent policies that will match the research with the
deployment. I look forward to that. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair now the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green,
for 1 minute.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to reserve
my time and also just join in all our colleagues in your
comment about our colleague, Charlie Norwood, in his illness.
The Chairman. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
I was pleased that President Bush in his State of the Union
address spoke so candidly about his goals for improving
American's energy policy including increasing production of
renewable fuels, modernizing fuel economy standards and
investing in new technologies such as cellulosic ethanol. Our
President even changed course, acknowledging to the National
that global climate change must be taken seriously. However,
his ambitious words fail to come across in the budget that we
have before us. The budget lacks any proposals for curbing
emissions. At the same time, the budget proposes a decrease in
funding for an energy-efficiency and environmentally sound
power source, wind. With the focus so strong on renewable
energy sources, I wonder why the administration is proposing
cuts to its investment in wind power.
Mr. Secretary, the spotlight is really on us right now. It
is time for us to lead by example and show that we are
committed to addressing energy efficiency and global warming.
The President's words alone are not enough. I only hope that we
will be able to correct the shortcomings that we have
highlighted today and address the real problems before it is
too late. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the distinguished gentlewoman has
expired. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Matheson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
Three specific points I want to raise. First, the
significant budget increase for RRW is concerning. The
rationale for RRW used to be aging plutonium pits. As we just
heard in December, the pits are fine for at least 100 years, so
I have to question DOE's rationale in attempting to move
forward on new nuclear warheads that we might have to test at
some point.
Second, Senator Reed and I have been working on legislation
calling for interim onsite nuclear waste storage at nuclear
power plants. Dry cask storage, which wasn't even on the table
back when Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, combined with the Federal Government taking title of the
nuclear waste, is likely a better option than throwing good
money after bad with respect to Yucca Mountain.
And third, I am still very concerned about the Moab uranium
tailing pile. I see huge budget numbers in the Department's
budget for programs that don't seem nearly as urgent, so I have
to question how DOE can say that the budget can provide the
$500 million it will likely take to clean up 16 million tons of
radioactive mill tailings sitting on the banks of the Colorado
River. The alternative would be a 20- to 25-year schedule. That
is a difficult timeline for people at Utah, Arizona, Nevada and
California. These are all critical issues and I look forward to
hearing from you during the question period.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for coming forward today and giving us the benefit
of your testimony.
I am not so sure that the American people really understand
our need for energy independence. I know that is not the case
in my congressional district, and so I want to encourage the
Department to have a more aggressive campaign to educate the
American people on the seriousness of this issue.
I am also concerned, Mr. Secretary, about the Department's
proposal to cut by 40 percent the funds for weatherization
programs. I represent a poor district in eastern North Carolina
and we are vitally concerned about that particularly when we
are spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. Low-income people in my
district are suffering from unbearable heating costs and your
decrease, if it is true, will exacerbate this problem. I hope
my statistics are wrong, but if not, please take care of our
citizens who are cold.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Barrow, for 1 minute.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive opening
statement.
The Chairman. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes
now the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARON P. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for joining us here today.
The budget before us today is an ambitious one. I would
like to concentrate on provisions that are important to my
constituents in Indiana, specifically the Twenty in Ten
gasoline initiative that aims to reduce our gasoline usage by
20 percent in the next 10 years. As you know, Indiana currently
has the resources to produce fuel and electricity from crops,
coal and biomass. Our citizens will remain a leader in reducing
United States' dependency on foreign oil and oil in general by
continuing to research and develop methods to produce clean
energy from our homegrown resources. I look forward to hearing
details of how you propose to accomplish this lofty goal
through law or regulatory changes and how we can work together
to ensure its success.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the distinguished gentlewoman from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Chairman Dingell, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here.
The President's budget for the sixth time in a row to me
shows that the President favors tax cuts for the wealthy above
meeting basic human needs like heating and home weatherization
assistance and seriously combating climate change by reducing
carbon emissions. In my view, this is a dangerous budget. The
President's budget cuts LIHEAP, which helps low-income families
pay their heating and cooling bills, by $1.4 billion and it
slashes weatherization assistance grants which help low-income
households make their homes more energy efficient by 40 percent
below last year. Based on the President's proposal, 40 percent
fewer families will receive weatherization assistance next
year. For Chicago, the cost of those cuts will be human lives.
Already at least one person has died due to the deep freeze
that gripped Chicago this week. At minus 30 degrees wind chill,
people die if they don't have adequate heat. The cold snap we
are currently experiencing has been responsible for at least 13
deaths already across the country. Each cut, more people at put
at risk. So Secretary Bodman, I look forward to hearing from
you and what the administration have to say about those cuts as
well as the flat funding of energy efficiency, renewable
energy. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The
chair now the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Let me begin by echoing the sentiments of my colleagues on
the subject of weatherization. I too am concerned about the 41
percent reduction that has been proposed. We have a waiting
list in Maryland, and this was before the budget was put out so
that we are very concerned.
I also want to say that although the administration
maintained its commitment on hydrogen fuel cells, it did not
maintain its commitment on the transition programs. We talk
about energy independence, but if we don't have market
transition programs that would create markets for these new
technologies, they don't work.
Third, I would like to mention the issue of the loan
guarantees again for new technologies. That program was
significantly delayed. I hope we will expedite this process so
that the companies that are trying to provide new technologies
will be able to benefit from a program that we passed more than
18 months ago. I thank you and relinquish the balance of my
time.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from New York,
Mr. Engel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
I too was happy to hear the President's words at the State of
the Union but we heard those words last year and nothing was
done, so I hope this time we back up the words with action. We
need action to make our vehicles more fuel-efficient, action to
help provide our motorists with clean alternative fuels and
actions to help commercialize plug-in hybrid technology.
Congressman Kingston and I in a bipartisan fashion have
introduced H.R. 670, the Drive Act, to achieve these goals. We
have got about 80 or 90 bipartisan cosponsors. We shouldn't
wait for the perfect bill. We think this is the perfect bill
but we should act on this now, and we need the administration
and you, Mr. Secretary, to help us push it because this is
something that the American people need. We need to help
American automakers transform their fleets to run on biofuels.
We need to act now to transform our fuel infrastructure to
allow electricity and renewable fuels to power our vehicles and
we need to make dramatic strides to make us energy-efficient,
and we need to pass H.R. 670, the Drive Act, and I hope you put
your influence and the administration's influence behind it,
and I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair notes that that concludes the opening statements. Other
statemetns will be accepted for the record.
[The prepared statements of Mrs. Cubin and Mr. Burgess
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
I represent a State where the budget depends largely on our
Nation's energy policy.
Wyoming accounts for approximately 40 percent of all coal
mined in the United States. We are in the top five onshore
natural gas-producing States, eighth in crude oil production,
and first in both trona and uranium. Wyoming truly is the
``energy breadbasket'' of our Nation.
However, Wyoming also has an unmeasured potential for
renewable and clean-burning fuels, and I want to compliment the
Department of Energy on submitting a budget proposal that
promotes new science and technology, as well as better
utilization of renewable resources.
At least one coal-to-liquids facility is already moving
forward in my State, which will bring to market roughly 13,000
barrels per day of refined, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
southeastern Wyoming corridor is one of the most favorable
locations for wind power development in the country. These are
the types of energy projects we should be incentivizing at both
the State and Federal levels.
We live in a time when our national energy policy has a
direct effect on the safety and prosperity of our Nation. I
look forward to hearing the Secretary's thoughts on how this
budget helps achieve those vital goals.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today.
One of my most important responsibilities as a Member of
Congress is to ensure that my constituents' tax dollars are
being spent wisely. It is for that reason that I look forward
to the ongoing debate about our national funding priorities.
Secretary Bodman, thank you for appearing before us this
morning. As we begin the fiscal year 2008 appropriations cycle,
it will be helpful to hear from you about the President's
budget request for the Department of Energy.
I am especially interested to hear your testimony regarding
the President's Proposed ``Twenty in Ten'' Initiative, as well
as the oil and natural gas research programs that have been
zeroed out in the President's proposed Budget.
Secretary Bodman, thank you again for appearing before us
this morning. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we recognize you for your
statement. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL W. BODMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
Secretary Bodman. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. Let
me begin by noting the good relationship that I have enjoyed
with the chairman and the ranking member over the last couple
of years and I hope that we can strengthen that because we have
a lot before us, as I have just listened to the views of so
many members of this committee. I too would like to take note
of the absence of Mr. Norwood. He has become a friend of mine
during my brief tenure here, and I miss him.
As you heard in the State of the Union address, the
President announced several new energy initiatives that will
shape our Department's work over the coming 2 years. The
President announced a goal of reducing our gasoline usage by 20
percent over the next 10 years, the so-called Twenty in Ten
program, first by requiring 35 billion gallons of renewable and
alternative fuels by the year 2017, nearly five times the 2012
target, which we should meet as soon as next year, I believe,
as best I see it, and second, by reforming and modernizing the
CAFE standards for automobiles and extending the current light
truck rule which already exists. Together we believe these
measures will help reduce our dependence on unstable regimes
and will also check the growth, in fact should reverse the
increase of carbon emissions from the transportation sector.
In addition, the President proposed doubling the size of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to further protect our Nation
from shocks in oil markets. We look forward to working with the
Congress and with other parts of our administration to
accomplish these important goals.
Let me now just take a minute to mention a few of the
highlights in our $24.3 billion budget request of Congress. To
maintain our economic prosperity by encouraging scientific
innovation, the President last year proposed the American
Competitiveness Initiative. Our budget proposes, as has been
noted, a $4.4 billion budget or an increase of about $300
million over the 2007 request to fund basic research in the
physical sciences and to support science and technology
education programs in our Office of Science. We are also
requesting $2.7 billion to accelerate the Advanced Energy
Initiative, also announced last year. Through this initiative,
we will continue to develop the most promising clean energy
technologies including clean coal, biomass, solar and wind
power, hydrogen research and new technologies in nuclear
energy. The President and I believe that nuclear power must
play a significant role in meeting future energy needs in our
country.
Our budget requests a total of $400 million for the
President's global nuclear energy partnership, an international
effort to expand the availability of safe proliferation-
resistant nuclear power. To make the expansion of nuclear power
possible, we must of course address the matter of nuclear
waste. Our budget requests $495 million for the continued
development of the geologic waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. For the NNSA, the budget proposes $6.5 billion for
weapons activities which includes funding for our complex 2030
program to create a smaller, more efficient weapons complex
that is better able to respond to changing global security
challenges. Also within the NNSA, we request $1.7 billion for
our nuclear nonproliferation activities.
One of the most important responsibilities concerns our
commitment to public health and safety. Our fiscal year 2008
budget proposes $5.7 billion to clean up hazardous radioactive
waste left over from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. It
is amazing to me that we are still working on this but we are
and we will be for some years to come. I am proud to note that
we have completed cleanup of 81 sites through the end of 2006
as well as three sites in Ohio, Fernald, Columbus and Ashtabula
this year. So we are making some progress there.
Mr. Chairman, there are many other productive and promising
initiatives underway in our Department. I look forward to
discussing them with the members of this committee during the
question-and-answer session. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Bodman appears at the
conclusion of the hearing.]
The Chairman. You performed a middle-sized miracle and
something that I hope my colleagues up here including myself
will learn to do and that is, you have completed your statement
with time left, a remarkable accomplishment. Mr. Secretary, the
chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
At a recent press conference, Mr. Secretary, you were
reported as saying in effect the question of whether man is
contributing to the planet's warming is no longer up for
debate. Is that still your view?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you should know that this
committee is going to, by direction of the Speaker, spend
considerable time meeting a deadline of June 1 with regard to
presenting the Congress with a piece of legislation on global
warming. So we will be looking forward to your assistance as we
proceed with an extensive program of hearings to write a bill
to address this. Mr. Secretary, it is the intention of the
committee that this bill be fair and that it be fairly and
properly conceived and that it be, if humanly possible, a bill
which will both be bipartisan in character and have the support
of members of both sides and will be able to pass both the
House and Senate and arrive at the President's desk for
signature. My question, Mr. Secretary, will you help us in that
undertaking?
Secretary Bodman. Of course.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Secretary, is it still the
administration's position that it will oppose any type of
mandatory cap on carbon emissions?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the office of Mr. Ward Sproat,
director of the Office of Civilian Waste Management, testified
before the committee regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear test
repository. He testified that he plans to submit a license
application to NRC by 2008, and if that succeeds, to open the
repository in 2017. Are those timetables still valid?
Secretary Bodman. I believe they are valid, sir. It will be
a challenge to get it done but I believe they are valid. This
timetable was constructed with the assumption that we do not
have outside interference with our moving forward, things like
lawsuits and----
The Chairman. I am aware of that, so what you are telling
me is that we really don't think that date is necessarily a
valid date?
Secretary Bodman. Well, it is the only date that I can put
forth, that we can put forth that deals with matters that we
can control.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Secretary, we asked Mr. Sproat when
he was before us that he would provide us with an updated
version of the projected costs for the repository program. This
he agreed to do, but Mr. Secretary, it has not been done. When
will we receive that information?
Secretary Bodman. I looked at the numbers. We still are
working on it. I would tell you that my own estimate is
something like $20 billion.
The Chairman. We would like to have the response to those
questions as soon as it is comfortable because I would like to
have that in the record. Now, Mr. Secretary, does the
administration's budget provide enough funding to keep the
program on track with Director Sproat's timetable?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. There is enough money there to do this?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Now, Mr. Secretary, I have long
advocated a nuclear waste fund being taken off budget. The bill
which the administration sent up to the Congress last year did
not include such and it did not, in my view, provide the
critical element of protecting the $20 billion or so in the
corpus of this nuclear waste fund from diversion by the budget
and the Appropriations Committee. If I read this budget
correctly, of the $770 million that is expected to be collected
from ratepayers, only $202 million actually be appropriated,
leaving $568 million to be added to the unprotected balance of
the fund. Now, does the administration support the taking of
the corpus off budget?
Secretary Bodman. Let me say that, as I said before, my own
estimate is that this is about a $20 billion project. There is
already $19 billion in the fund. As you pointed out, there is
some $700 million that will be paid in this year. The income
from the fund, from the $20 billion, is also going to be
something like $700 or $800 million. You have a billion-five--
--
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the nub of the question is,
what is the administration going to do to protect this money
which doesn't belong to anybody except for the ratepayers and
the fund for the purpose which the fund was created.
Secretary Bodman. We are certainly happy to work with
Congress, sir, on that question.
The Chairman. You have got a fine lawsuit going on in this
regard.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I would like to have you submit to us an
answer to the question of what the administration proposes to
do about this matter because this has been a source of
considerable irritation to all and sundry. My time has expired.
And we will, I note, Mr. Secretary, be submitting to you a list
of questions which members of the committee and the occupant of
the chair would like to have answered in view of the shortness
of the time.
The chair now recognizes my distinguished friend and
colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that at the
hearing with the Secretary of Commerce, you commented that you
seemed a bit rusty. My observation is, you are not at all rusty
today, so your learning curve is accelerating. You are back in
your old form, which is a good thing for the committee.
Mr. Secretary, the first thing I want to ask you is the
status of the project for clean coal technology, which we call
FutureGen. I believe the President's budget requests $108
million for that project. Could you comment on that?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir. The goal is to pick one of the
four contending communities. There are two in Texas, two in
Illinois, that are competing for this. They were down-selected
from a group of I think 13 different communities. I would add,
if I may interject, that it was a rare privilege for the
Secretary of Energy to have actually calls coming from State
leaders requesting that this facility be built in their State,
which is not usually the case, and so we will be selecting one
of the four communities this summer. This is a result of the
environmental study, and we will be proceeding later on this
year with the preliminary design and construction.
Mr. Barton. My next question is also on the coal area.
Section 3104 of the Energy Policy Act authorized $300 million
for fiscal year 2007, $100 million for 2008 and $40 million for
2009 to work with private industry to go out and pick existing
coal-fired power plants that were not using the latest
technology and retrofit those plants to bring their emissions
up to current Clean Air Act standards. I can't see anywhere in
the budget that the Department has funded that program. If you
haven't, why not, and if you have, where is it?
Secretary Bodman. It is not there. You are reading it
correct. The initial interest, that is to say last year, was
that we had felt that there were other programs in place that
were dealing with that particular question and that particular
issue so when we stacked it up versus other parts of the Energy
Policy Act, it did not have the same priority as those that
were judged to be appropriate. The reason that this year the
program has been discontinued in its entirety is that there are
now regulations in place that force the utilities to deal with
matters related to mercury, to sulfur oxides and to nitrogen
oxides.
Mr. Barton. Well, that was put in the Energy Policy Act at
the personal request of the then-chairman of the committee.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. So as ranking member, it still is a high
priority and we on the minority side catch some flack in the
appropriation process by members of the majority that say the
administration talks a good game but it doesn't deliver and
specifically in some of the coal areas, and this is an example
of that. I would strongly urge and request that you go back and
take a look at that particular program because the whole point
was to clean up existing coal-fired plants so that you keep the
jobs there, you keep the resource base, which is American-
manufactured coal, and we also meet the latest environmental
standards. It is a win, win, win. It is not that much money and
the private sector has to participate, so I understand the
legislative initiative that you talked about or the
administration initiative but I would hope that we could still
see some money put into that.
Secretary Bodman. I will certainly comply with your
request, sir. I will go back and look at it.
Mr. Barton. And then last but not least, a perennial
problem at Los Alamos, which you are aware of as I am, in our
hearing in the Oversight Subcommittee last week on Los Alamos,
it was pointed out that there are a huge number of vacant
positions in the field office, so these are direct Department
of Energy employees, and if my memory is right, there are over
20 vacancies. What steps, if any, are being planned to fill
those slots so that we can have good administrative oversight
of that program?
Secretary Bodman. You are correct that there are a
significant number of vacancies in that office. As a result of
the recent problems at Los Alamos, I made the difficult
decision--you and I have talked about this--of relieving the
administrator of his responsibilities. The acting administrator
of NNSA has changed up the management, the leadership of the
site office, the one to which you referred. The new manager
arrived there on Monday of this week. Monday was his first day.
He will be addressing questions of exactly the sort that you
asked promptly. There are two individuals that have been
identified from our independent oversight office, that is to
say from the HHS organization here in Washington, and two of
those who are very knowledgeable on security matters will at
least on an interim basis fill the gap and be working for the
new manager in the site office to help strengthen that
activity. So there are a number of things that are ongoing.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one very brief
question?
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Dingell and myself and
several of the members of the committee have introduced
legislation to take the oversight authority over Los Alamos and
other weapons programs away from the NNSA and give it directly
back to the Department of Energy. Have you taken a position on
that legislation?
Secretary Bodman. Yes. I was in testimony before the Armed
Services Committee last week. I said that I had appointed a
committee a year ago roughly to look at the question of the
organization of NNSA, how it relates to the Department, and
they came up with a number of suggestions that would improve in
their judgment the management structure of the NNSA. I agreed
with them their suggestions would improve the structure. But I
have to tell you, none of those changes really would have
prevented the problem that we had.
Mr. Barton. My question is, do you support the legislation
that Mr. Dingell and I have introduced?
Secretary Bodman. I have not asked for any legislation.
Mr. Barton. That is a no. Can we make it a maybe or a yes
if we work with you?
Secretary Bodman. Sure. I mean, I would be happy to work
with you but I just would tell you that the challenges before
us relate to the culture that exists in Los Alamos, in my
judgment, and that is where I am putting my time and effort and
my focus, but of course I am happy to work with you and the
chairman on that.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
chair observes that his questions are very important. We have
had a splendid succession of scandals down there at Los Alamos
and somebody has to clean it up and there is no sign that the
current system is working and we have got to get it in the
hands of somebody like you who I think will try to do something
about it.
Secretary Bodman. I am attempting to do something as we
speak, sir.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Secretary, thank you for your participation here this morning.
I want to focus for a few moments on the very important
question of carbon sequestration and state of the art and what
we are seeking to learn and when we are going to learn it. DOE
now has seven regional partnerships that are focused on carbon
sequestration, and your budget request for fiscal year 2008
asks for $79 million in order to begin four large-scale field
tests. I am told these field tests would be of about 1 million
tons per year per project of sequestered carbon. Could you
describe the goals of your partnership and also what you hope
to learn through these field tests, and can you give us a sense
of when you think carbon sequestration technology could be
sufficiently reliable for deployment and for something we can
actually begin to rely upon as we structure legislation that in
fact might require the capture and sequestration of carbon?
Secretary Bodman. First, I think there are seven
partnerships.
Mr. Boucher. You have seven, and you are proposing four
large-scale field tests.
Secretary Bodman. Well, I think there are going to be seven
large-scale field tests. That is what the money is intended to
do and it is about $10 million per year per partnership, and
the goal is to determine what kind of geological formations are
receptive to the carbon dioxide. Once you put it down there,
does it stay there, in its simplest form, so we are going to
have to do enough monitoring and work in order to do a material
balance and measure what is there. Your G2 is quite good, sir,
in terms of the size and scale and scope. We have been working
on this for the past 3 or 4 years, first doing paper studies.
We are now embarking on programs that will put this effort into
real practice to deal with the physics of it, if you will, and
I would think we would start to have a sense of this over the
next 4 or 5 years. I mean, it is going to take a period of time
in order to be sure that once you put the carbon dioxide down
there, that it stays there, that it accomplishes that which you
had anticipated when you started.
In addition to this, we also have the so-called FutureGen
project which also involves sequestration and seeks to convert
most of the energy that is in the coal into a stream of
hydrogen and then simultaneously sequestering the carbon
dioxide. So we will also learn from that. That is supposed to
start up about 5 years from now. So I think 5 years is sort of
my sense of it.
Mr. Boucher. And at the end of 5 years, we should have some
sense of the reliability of sequestration?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir, I believe so.
Mr. Boucher. OK. Let me focus briefly on the loan guarantee
program for alternative transportation fuels. There is a little
bit of frustration that loan guarantees have not been issued to
date. This program is authorized in EPACT 2005. Some of the
companies that want to apply have expressed an interest in
self-funding the Government's risk in issuing the loan
guarantee which would be a way in the absence of appropriations
that would fund that risk to get a loan guarantee issued, and I
am told that self funding is a rather common practice with
regard to loan guarantees in other program areas historically.
I know that you have asked for language that would be in
appropriations bill that would authorize the self-funding for
this. Assuming that you have that language provided, how long
do you think it will be before you can put out a request for
proposals, a solicitation for projects and actually begin to
issue the loan guarantees?
Secretary Bodman. Let me say for the record that we have
been attempting to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
title that contains the provision of the loan guarantees. That
has been of great interest to a variety of Members of Congress
as well as members of my Department. During fiscal year 2006,
about a year ago, we asked for a reprogramming of $1 million in
order to get sufficient funding so that we can start the
office, we could hire some people and get it going. That
request was denied by the Appropriations Committee of this
House, and it was a bipartisan denial, so I want to point that
out. It was a matter that is sort of frankly still--I then was
before the Senate yesterday. I know it is a matter of some
concern here. I was criticized yesterday. I expected to be
criticized more today for my failure in this regard.
Mr. Boucher. Well, please understand, I am not criticizing,
I am just asking for information, but let us assume that you
get this----how soon could you actually begin the solicitation
process?
Ms. DeGette [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Bodman. Well, first, as I understand it, the
rule--we will be required to issue and get approved a rule that
under which we operate. We will only be permitted to move
forward. We had attempted and had requested that we would deal
under guidelines which we would have been started already had
we been funded and permitted to go. It is going to take 6
months, I think at least, to get the rule done. That is how
long it takes, and if we were to successfully complete the
solicitation and program a year from now, we would be doing
well in my judgment.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Mr.
Secretary, we welcome your presence here and in the future as
well. As you know, I have got two nuclear plants, facilities in
my district on the shore of Lake Michigan. Both of them have
exceeded their capacity in wet storage for their spent nuclear
rods, and I have been out to Yucca Mountain a couple different
times. It has been a number of years since I was there. I think
there was a genuine concern as we looked through the budget
request, as I looked through the nuclear trust fund as I
indicated in my opening statement, that we will actually expand
the nuclear waste trust fund by about $2 billion from the
actual 2006 until what is estimated to be in 2008, and of
course, that is paid for by us, the ratepayers, as we use that.
And as much as we want this facility to open, I can remember
when they first started talking about having it open I think in
2010 and then 2012 and 2015 and now, as you indicated in your
testimony, about 2017. Yet it seems that the funding for the
project is about flat from 2006 to what the request is for
2007. I don't know if you have been there recently. I remember
when you were first sworn in, you talked about this was a
project that you were going to really grapple with and make
sure that the right people were there and making progress and I
am just wondering what you might say about what has happened in
your tenure since you have been Secretary.
Secretary Bodman. Well, I have been there and I have
visited the facility. I have to tell you, I was quite impressed
and encouraged by the state of the geology and the efforts that
have gone into characterizing the geology of that site. Ward
Sproat has been on the job, again I have lost track of time,
but close to a year, I guess. He is coming up on a year. And he
is the Assistant Secretary for Radioactive Waste Management and
he has done a very good job. He tells me when I talk to him, as
recently as yesterday, that the amount of money in the budget
is sufficient to move forward and get this license approved, or
not approved but get it finalized and submitted within a period
of 18 months, and so that is what our intentions our.
Mr. Upton. Well, that is great to hear, and I know that
this committee and the subcommittee will follow through to make
sure that we try to stick with those deadlines. I don't know if
you saw yesterday's Wall Street Journal, ``Can Bush Reach Our
Goal With Proposed Spending Plan''. They in essence--and I know
you were on the House floor for the President's State of the
Union address.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. You saw the fervor and the passion in support of
alternative fuels when the President mentioned that in his
speech. This story goes on to say that analysts suggest that
increasing production of corn-based ethanol would result only
in enough fuel to meet half of the President's alternative fuel
usage goal for 2017. It talks about a number of budget numbers.
It does go up but I would say that probably not e significant
amount to try and make sure that at some point we can follow
through, as your spokesman said, that we need to be more
reliant on farmers of the Midwest than on oil sheiks of the
Mideast, and I thought that was a great statement. But where is
the beef to make sure that we can get this done?
Secretary Bodman. First of all, the statement of half
refers to about 15, let us say 17 billion gallons that could
come from corn and the production of virtually all ethanol that
is used today in this country comes from corn, and----
Mr. Upton. Well, we can do it from sugar, right? Brazil has
proved that they can do it from sugarcane.
Secretary Bodman. Sugar is the best alternative. We have
very expensive sugar in our country for a variety of reasons,
sir. Going back to the corn, the goal is to have corn-based
ethanol that could produce about 15 billion gallons, 15, 16, 17
billion gallons. That is the half. In order to get to the
President's goal, we need cellulosic base which is the
production of ethanol from materials that are ways of much
cheaper feedstocks--switchgrass, sawdust, woodchips, that sort
of thing. And we have a program to do that and we are working
on it. The President has asked in this budget for $180 million
to increase the commitment to that endeavor at our renewable
energy laboratory out in Colorado and I am encouraged by that.
I was apprehensive when I heard the President say the words
that he said because we are the ones that have t deliver on
that. I would tell you that I felt better the next day after I
visited the DuPont Company with the President. The Energy
Department has a relationship with the DuPont Company for the
last 3 or 4 years developing a so-called biorefinery. They told
me during the visit that they felt they would have an
industrially attractive process in the next couple of years, so
I felt good about that. And if could just say one additional
thing. I am sorry for this. I started out life as a venture
capitalist in Boston and this is the first time in the 43 years
that I have been in and around the venture capital business
that we have seen the private venture capital community putting
big money, billions of dollars, every year into renewable
energy including cellulosic ethanol and that also increases my
optimism.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Markey. Welcome, fellow Bostonian.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Secretary, does President Bush support a
mandatory cap and trade system to control emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases?
Secretary Bodman. No, sir.
Mr. Markey. No. Does the President believe that climate
change is a serious problem given the U.N. scientific panel's
conclusions that were released last week?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Is the President aware that the United States
contributes 25 percent of the world's total of greenhouse
gases, far more than any other nation in the world?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Is there any reason to believe that the
President is going to take the world leadership on this issue
if he will not support mandatory controls on the emissions of
greenhouses gases into our environment, not just our, meaning
the United States, but the global environment?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. And what evidence would we have to indicate
that?
Secretary Bodman. There are a number of things that are in
this budget that is before you that relate to this. One is the
requirement that 15 percent of the gasoline that is now, or is
anticipated to be used 10 years from now, be a renewable or
alternative energy. Second, we have had a program in place for
some time to reduce the intensity of emissions of greenhouse
gases by 18 percent by the year 2012. We are ahead of target in
order to accomplish that. We are ahead of virtually every
country that has been a signatory to the Kyoto Agreement, and
so the mere commitment to a regulatory regime does not
accomplish that which you wish to accomplish.
Mr. Markey. Let me just stop you there, Secretary. As you
know, that 15 percent number includes coal to liquid which
actually results in more CO\2\, so I dispute the numbers that
the administration uses. Let me go to some specific big items
here. Would President Bush support mandating a fleet-wide
improvement in car and SUV efficiency in the law so that we can
be certain that the President's promise is actually carried
out?
Secretary Bodman. We are happy to work with you on that
subject.
Mr. Markey. So a mandate is possible? The Bush
administration----
Secretary Bodman. We are happy to work with you on that
subject and work with Congress on matters related to that which
the President proposed was to give the Department of
Transportation--as you know, that is where the legal authority
resides in order to set CAFE standards which is I think the
question that you are asking, and we would have requested that
the same pattern be put in place for automobiles that has
existed for SUVs----
Mr. Markey. May I say, Mr. Secretary, the big problem we
are going to have is that the people of the United States don't
trust the Department of Transportation anymore, that we need to
have a mandate that they actually apply. We can determine what
the level is. I think we can negotiate on that. Four percent
per year, 3 percent, 5 percent, we can discuss that. But we
can't discuss whether or not it is optional. That is where the
Department of Transportation has let down the country.
Secretary Bodman. That is my view, just so that it is
clear.
Mr. Markey. On appliance efficiency standards, the Bush
administration has had an abysmal record in putting new
regulations on the folks to guarantee that appliances are more
efficient so we don't have to build as many coal and natural
gas plants to generate the electricity for them. Would the
President support allowing the States to step in and set
appliance standards if the Department of Energy is more than 3
years late in issuing a new, revised standard?
Secretary Bodman. I read during the days of my confirmation
hearings an article on the abysmal record that has existed, not
just in the Bush administration but I also say, sir, the
Clinton administration before it.
Mr. Markey. Would you support after 3 years letting the
States do it----
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to talk to you about any
subject related to this matter. I will tell you that we have an
agreement with the court that we have been sued as you are I am
sure aware and we have also had review that was required by----
Mr. Markey. You should not be sued, Mr. Secretary for doing
your job.
Secretary Bodman. We have been sued. It is not a matter of
being sued or not a matter of whether we should be. We have
been. We have an agreement with the court. We have an agreement
I believe with this Congress to get back on track by the year
2011 and we are fully focused on doing that.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin, for 6
minutes.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you for being here today. I wanted to follow
up on the loan guarantee questions that Representative Boucher
was asking and make sure that the information that I have or at
least the understanding that I have is correct. All right. So
the Energy Policy Act authorized $2 billion in loan guarantees
and there has already been solicitation on those $2 billion but
no awards have been made. Is that the correct status of that?
Secretary Bodman. No, ma'am. I mean, I would be happy to
give you the facts if you would like the facts.
Mrs. Cubin. I would.
Secretary Bodman. The Energy Policy Act did not stipulate
any particular amount. That was an agreement between this
Department and OMB related to the 2007 budget submittal and
that is what we put into the 2007 budget submittal. That is
where the $2 billion limit came from. The second part of what
you said related to what, ma'am? My brain has gone dead.
Mrs. Cubin. That there has already been solicitation on
that $2 billion.
Secretary Bodman. Oh. There was not solicitation. It was a
pre-solicitation. It was an expression of interest because we
knew full well that we didn't have the people in place because
we were turned down on the reprogramming, that we didn't have
the people to evaluate it. So we had expressions of interest
from over 100 companies that totaled some tens of billions of
dollars of requests that were made available.
Mrs. Cubin. OK. Then in the CR for fiscal year 2007, $4
billion was authorized and----
Secretary Bodman. That is apparently so.
Mrs. Cubin. OK. And then the DOE request for fiscal year
2008 is $9 billion.
Secretary Bodman. That is correct.
Mrs. Cubin. OK. So now, I am talking about the rulemaking
that you were discussing.
Secretary Bodman. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. It is my belief that there needs to be a
rulemaking before any solicitation can be made or before the
process can go forward for the $4 billion in the CR and for the
$9 billion request, but there doesn't necessarily have to be a
rulemaking before the $2 billion can be awarded. Do you agree
with that?
Secretary Bodman. No, that is contrary to what I have been
told by our general counsel but I will be happy to review that
with him.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. That is my understanding, but we
will just wait for the review.
Secretary Bodman. My colleague just told me that at least
our understanding is that I was correct, that even with the $2
billion, according to the 2007 CR language, that we would have
to have a rulemaking.
Mrs. Cubin. However, that 2007 CR is subsequent to the $2
billion so it seems to me there is room there where maybe it
wouldn't be, but we will follow through on that.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Another understanding that I had is the
regulation requirement in the CR applies only to the new $4
billion solicitation authority, not the existing $2 billion, so
we will work together on that.
Secretary Bodman. We will be happy to work with you, ma'am,
on that.
Mrs. Cubin. And one issue that I heard a great deal of
concern about is the administrative change that the DOE has
made regarding the interest range charged to the PMAs on the
Federal power investment. I know you would agree with me that
PMAs are not Government corporations nor Government entities.
Is that right?
Secretary Bodman. I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I
don't know the answer to that question.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, trust me on this one. I know I am right
on that.
Secretary Bodman. I accept your answer.
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, the PMAs are not Government entities and
so I wonder if you can explain to me the justification in
revising your historic long-term yield rates to the agency
rates that are charged to Government corporations. In other
words, the rates to the PMAs haven't been tied to the
Government corporation rates, and this wasn't done by Congress,
it was done by an agency.
Secretary Bodman. The justification is the one that you
have given, namely that there is sufficient privilege that goes
with operating a PMA that is in effect a monopoly in a given
region or has very strong market presence in a given region,
and therefore there is either the formal or informal financing
that the rates for financing are similar to Government-owned
corporations or Government-sponsored corporations, GSCs, and
therefore having interest rates that are similar to other
Government types of corporations makes sense, and it is
strictly that.
Mrs. Cubin. Just one statement. I don't think that is
historically the way the interest rates have been dealt with on
the PMAs.
Secretary Bodman. I am sure that is correct.
Mrs. Cubin. And so there is a lot of complaints about that
and maybe we can discuss that too. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. The chair recognizes now the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. I thank the chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, over the
last 7 years, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
has held a dozen hearings about security concerns at Los
Alamos. You have a number of ongoing reviews related to DOE and
the security at Los Alamos which are due at the end of
February. I would like your commitment to come before the
subcommittee in early March to discuss those reports. Can I
have your commitment that you will appear in early March before
the O & I subcommittee to discuss these reports?
Secretary Bodman. I don't want to commit on the terms of a
schedule. I will be happy to provide you with the information
and----
Mr. Stupak. Well, we were already told that you would
appear. That is why I am just trying to get this nailed down.
Secretary Bodman. The fact that you were told that I would
appear is fine. If my colleagues said that I would appear, then
I will appear, but what I don't want to do is to appear at a
time that where I have not had sufficient opportunity to make a
judgment on what is in those reports and I don't know what my
own schedule is going to be late in February, early in March
and when I will have the opportunity to do that and so I----
Mr. Stupak. All right. Well, when you are getting prepared,
would you please be prepared to discuss how the Department
plans to improve the process of granting high-level security
clearance at labs, if you would, please, sir?
Secretary Bodman. That is certainly one of the questions
that is on the plate, yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Now, Mr. Secretary, on January 23,
same day of the State of the Union speech, you announced and
the President also announced in the State of the Union that he
would double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by
2027. You announced that the U.S. would start buying 100,000
barrels of crude oil a day starting this spring to accomplish
this goal. The same day the price of a barrel of crude oil for
March rose $2.46 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. This was
the largest 1-day increase in 16 months. Should we expect for
the next 20 years that crude oil prices will be t$2.50 a barrel
more than it normally would be because the administration is
expanding the SPR, and is the Federal Government achieving its
goal of reducing gas prices if the Federal Government is
actually driving the prices higher?
Secretary Bodman. No, and then yes.
Mr. Markey. OK. Well, should your announcement that the
Federal Government will purchase 100,000 barrels of crude oil a
day be enough to cause such an increase?
Secretary Bodman. No.
Mr. Markey. OK. Well, so far we got no, yes, no. Let me ask
you this. Has the Department of Energy done any research on the
effect that these market swings have on the price of crude oil,
gasoline and natural price?
Secretary Bodman. Yes.
Mr. Markey. OK. I got a no, yes, no, yes. We are still
going.
Secretary Bodman. Could I amplify that?
Mr. Markey. Sure.
Secretary Bodman. We announced that we would be working
with initially 50,000 barrels a day of acquisition. This
country uses, as has been suggested, 20 million barrels a day.
The Energy Information Agency within the Department of Energy
studied this matter because I was asked about it a year ago
when I was in here.
Mr. Markey. Right. I asked you those questions. My next
question----
Secretary Bodman. The effect of this on the price of oil is
trivial.
Mr. Markey. Trivial?
Secretary Bodman. Trivial, because the day after I
announced, the price backed off a dollar and a half. You have
markets that are in the hands of human beings. Human beings are
essentially emotional souls and so people bought on the grounds
that there was a story apparently going on that indicated that
this would drive up the price of oil. This is a 20-year program
if we are successful in accomplishing it, and we will be
starting the acquisition----
Mr. Markey. I understand I have got a minute left. Let me
go. If it is $2.46 and you said the next day it dropped $1.50,
it makes my point that there are these wild swings in the
marketplace.
Secretary Bodman. There are substantial swings in the
marketplace.
Mr. Markey. And I asked you about it last time, so I take
it based on your answer you would agree with the legislation I
reintroduced, the Pump Act, to prevent unfair manipulation of
prices, H.R. 594, to prevent these wild swings in the market
because the experts tell us if we would pass the Pump Act, we
could lower the cost of the price of crude oil by $20 a barrel
by having the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversee
these trades. So therefore I take it from your answer, you
agree with the purpose and intent behind the Pump Act?
Secretary Bodman. Sir, I don't agree with the Act from what
I know of it.
Mr. Markey. Why would you disagree with it?
Secretary Bodman. I haven't studied the Act.
Mr. Markey. Does the Department plan on taking a position
on the Pump Act? It didn't last year. Will you this year?
Secretary Bodman. I don't know, but I would be happy to
study it.
Mr. Markey. Would you and get back with us, especially
since you have indicated in your answer there are these wild
swings in the market----
Secretary Bodman. There are substantial swings in the
market. The reason there are substantial swings in the market
is that the suppliers are having a terrible time keeping up
with the demand and therefore the price is set in the
marketplace and it is like a share of stock.
Mr. Markey. But I don't think that demand would drop a buck
fifty in one day or go up $2.46 the next day based on a
pronouncement from the Secretary of Energy.
Secretary Bodman. Of course it didn't.
Mr. Markey. It shouldn't, but it did.
Secretary Bodman. Of course it shouldn't and it did but it
doesn't mean that the system is broken.
Mr. Markey. What it means is speculation based on fear
leads to greed and therefore----
Secretary Bodman. I guess there are varying views on that
subject, sir.
Mr. Markey. We look forward to your response to the Pump
Act. Thank you, and I thank the gentlewoman.
Ms. DeGette. The chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus of
Illinois for 6 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thanks for being here. A couple things. I just want to just for
clarification, in the discussion with Joe Barton--of course, he
has great interest in FutureGen and so do I. Your response to
him was, we will make the decision on location. Didn't you
really mean the alliance will make the decision?
Secretary Bodman. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is important.
Secretary Bodman. That is right. I think that is right,
yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Because we are going to be highly competitive
in this field. We think science-- and when you have all these
different partners in the FutureGen project, they are going to
look at all these variables and I would say that is kind of an
arm's length transaction from the political environment that--
--
Secretary Bodman. I think your criticism is valid.
Mr. Shimkus. No, it is just clarification.
Secretary Bodman. Well, no, I think it is a correction.
Mr. Shimkus. And I think some of my colleagues will want to
get more knowledgeable because the alliance aspect of this
project is I think very important. The issue too, and I gave
you kind of a heads-up, the coal-to-liquid debate. When the
President made the State of the Union, he talked about the
alternative fuels and had the increase in alternatives, he to
my disappointment didn't mention coal-to-liquid but we were
informed that the word ``alternative'' meant also the option of
coal-to-liquid. Is that your understanding as to the
alternative debate?
Secretary Bodman. That is my understanding.
Mr. Shimkus. That is great. Rick Boucher and I worked last
year and dropped a bill and we will do so pretty soon again and
we would just like for your input and advice and counsel on
what we are now terming price collar based on a loan
application where the industry puts in and above a certain
ceiling price and they can recovery from the treasury based
upon input if it goes below a floor. We think it is going to
score well, in fact, we are hoping a budget neutral score
because there is going to be money in early over a certain
ceiling price, and we would ask for your help and assistance
and due diligence on that. We are very, very excited about it
and we are seeing great fluctuations right now in the market
and of course based upon your business background, the higher
the risk, the higher the fluctuation, the cost of capital goes
higher and makes it more it more difficult to do, and this
eases that because we want to get that first plant on the
ground and of course you know that the first plant will make it
opportunistic for other plants to be developed. That also
addresses our concerns on carbon dioxide issues but that is the
whole sequestration issue that FutureGen is premised on and all
these other research projects----
Secretary Bodman. And the seven partnerships that exist
throughout the country.
Mr. Shimkus. And I encourage that. We know we can
geologically store natural gas. We have done it for decades now
in parts of the country. We don't think carbon dioxide is going
to be a problem but I know we have to jump through the hoops. I
want to now just briefly turn to the renewable aspect of E-85
and I am very pleased with where we are at. I applaud the
administration. I am on my third flex-fuel vehicle now. It is a
Jeep Commander. I have got 20 retail locations in my--I mention
this all the time, and on average, 20 cents cheaper a gallon.
So in parts of the country it is there and it is an opportunity
for choice. There is a problem on infrastructure that you are
aware of and this--Denny Hastert is recovering and he asked me
to also address this concern. What are you doing to ensure that
the infrastructure is in place to provide to meet the demand
for E-85, and it is really the certification issue and United
Laboratories aspect and we have pumps and facilities that
aren't being certified, they can't be used, and can you address
that on the infrastructure side?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, there are two questions at least on
the infrastructure. One is getting sufficient flex-fuel
vehicles manufactured, and that is something that the President
talked with the CEOs of at least the American manufacturers.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I have had a Ford Taurus, I have had a
Ford Explorer and now I have a Jeep Commander. They are out
there for the public to buy and many people don't even know
they have them.
Secretary Bodman. I understand that, and we are attempting
to get to be better known and to have the companies take a role
in that regard. The second part are the pumps and we are
working directly with the, I think it is Underwriters
Laboratory to certify the type of pump that needs to be
installed so that we can get the kind of protection that the
insurance companies demand and so I am optimistic that that
will get done this year.
Mr. Shimkus. And I hope as we move on the global warming
debate, of course my friend Mr. Markey already raised some
points, but he is also the number one opponent to nuclear
power, and the issue is, if global warming and the carbon
debate is critical to meet our electricity generation demand
and needs, the nuclear portfolio has to stay strong and it has
to expand.
Secretary Bodman. I agree with that very strongly.
Mr. Shimkus. And so we just want to help make that case,
especially from the emissions side, and with that, I appreciate
your time. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I now yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Bodman. Nice to see you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Good to see you. I know we ran into each other a
couple weeks ago coming back from Houston. Mr. Secretary, what
can you update--I know Mrs. Cubin actually asked an earlier
question but I would like an update on the energy loan
guarantee program that was funded in the CR that the House
passed. Assuming the CR signed by the President, does the
Department of Energy have a time frame for some of the
decisions to be made? And also, obviously from our area, I have
mountains of petroleum coke sitting there that we would like to
see some of those things, the loan guarantees the same as we
would do for goal, and is there a time frame we can look for
for a decision?
Secretary Bodman. Well, as I mentioned before, that my
understanding is that we will require a rule to be promulgated.
Six months would be record time. We already are working on the
rule, anticipating that we get the CR that we think we are
going to get although I never want to count-- as I have learned
in dealing with Congress, I never count my chickens until they
are there. And so if we were to get that rule done in 6 months,
if we were to have grants made a year from now, we would be
doing well.
Mr. Green. Well, I know we will be visiting for our
committee on a bipartisan basis. We have an interest because
that is again some alternatives we could utilize. A few of the
potential technologies such as FutureGen, zero emission coal-
powered plants, or the widespread adoption of biofuels has the
capability to change the game in terms of CO\2\ emissions. If
we are facing a high probability of increasing global warming
and a major regulatory regime, it could be far-ranging
restrictions over many decades. Should we be engaging in more
crash-course projects to make sure we get results as fast? It
sure would be better if we could solve our global warming with
technology instead of regulation, especially since regulation
won't be global whereas the problem is global. Could you just
address that?
Secretary Bodman. Well, I agree with you. We are doing
everything we know how to do in order to accomplish an
improvement in the fuel mix that we have available to us, and
we are happy to get advice and counsel from members of this
committee or others if there are other things we ought to be
doing.
Mr. Green. I think all of us would love to see the problem
solved technologically instead of regulation.
Secretary Bodman. I agree with that, sir.
Mr. Green. And that goes across national lines. Let me jump
ahead on one. We hear that cellulosic ethanol is more efficient
than corn-based ethanol and more compatible with our existing
fuel supply infrastructure. Is that generally the opinion of
the Department?
Secretary Bodman. Cellulosic ethanol would be produced over
a broader range of States. That is the advantage that it has
and so the goal here would be to have a series of regionally
based industries based on different sorts of cellulose that
could be grown within a State or a group of States in a region
and so that is why it is--and also, cellulosic ethanol has a
substantial advantage in terms of its contribution to global
warming problem, namely that it has a more substantial
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than corn does.
Mr. Green. Well, and I know the interest of I think a lot
of Members and we are hearing it the last few weeks, that it
would be important for our renewable fuels policy to have a
feedstock neutral so we don't pit our cattle raisers against
our corn growers, and I would hope the Department will pursue
that objective when we deal with those policies. My last
question is, I would also like to raise the issue of carbon
sequestration in oil and gas production. When exploration
companies drill for oil and natural gas, they often inject
carbon dioxide gas into the underground rock formations to
create pressure to put that product out. The fact that they
reinject the CO\2\ underground has two benefits. One, the gas
does not contribute to our global warming, and it creates a
demand for others to capture that CO\2\. For those reasons, I
want to make sure the Department of Energy works with this
particular industry due to their expertise with the DOE dealing
with carbon sequestration, and can the Department give us a
commitment that we would like to see that expanded,
particularly when we are dealing with oil and gas that we could
sequestrate that CO\2\?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually
yield back a minute.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. We all commend
you, and I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Stearns from Florida
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, I
am just pulling up here on my little Web here. It says northern
Michigan is experiencing among the top-10 coldest starts ever
in the last 100 years. When you read this kind of information,
does it confirm or not confirm global warming?
Secretary Bodman. I don't think it is relevant, sir.
Mr. Stearns. So when I read different parts of the country
are experiencing the coldest they have ever had in 100 years,
that has no relevance on the debate?
Secretary Bodman. No, sir, I don't believe so.
Mr. Stearns. And why is that?
Secretary Bodman. The existence of global warming as an
issue comes from observation, namely the fact that the
temperature has increased on average for the world coupled with
an analysis of carbon dioxide percentage in the atmosphere,
that also reaching a record, coupled with an analysis done in
part using Department of Energy computers of various models
that have been organized and developed and worked on by
scientists who work for some 12 or 13 different agencies within
this Government.
Mr. Stearns. Well, we have had a hearing on this and there
was some debate upon the statistical information that was used
to come up with these figures. Are you aware of any of that
analysis that there is some controversy on it?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, I am aware of it.
Mr. Stearns. So based upon that, some people would indicate
that it is still not scientifically 100 percent proven that the
figures that you quoted, the increased warming is accurate.
Would that be a fair statement?
Secretary Bodman. Would it be a fair statement to say that
some people say that? I don't happen to subscribe to that, as I
suggested to you, but it would be a fair statement that some
people believe that. I don't.
Mr. Stearns. Let me start out by saying there is some talk
about focusing on solar energy and biomass, ethanol. At the
University of Florida in my congressional district, they are
developed new, innovative technologies for the conversion of
renewable biomass into fuel. We have 15 million acres of
forestland and 10 million acres of farmland, so Florida has a
tremendous potential to become a national leader and producer
of bioenergy. And so my question is, the President has laid out
his initiatives for biomass and alternative fuels in his State
of the Union recently. How will these goals be met and how much
is DOE proposing to spend on them and are there other agencies
that are involved?
Secretary Bodman. We are spending what to me is a lot of
money in the 2008 budget that is before you, $180 million
roughly to be spent on cellulosic ethanol. We are proposing to
spend significant amounts of money on wind, on solar energy, on
electric transmission, all of which will contribute to the
delivery of renewable energy to large markets. So I am
satisfied that we are spending a good deal of money in our
Department that is coupled with a similar kind of funding
stream, even higher, I believe, for the Agriculture Department
for their funding of work in exactly the area that you
mentioned, developing cellulosic-based ethanol.
Mr. Stearns. I would to commend, as others have, the
administration's proposal to increase the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and the Advanced Energy Initiative as part of the
administration's overall strategy for reducing Americans'
dependence. The President has called for this expansion .5
billion barrels to 1.5 billion barrels and DOD has budgeted
$168 million in fiscal year 2008 to begin that process. If you
could, please describe the long-term plan for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve if you can just briefly.
Secretary Bodman. First of all, the current reserve
consists of five different locations, two in Texas, two in
Louisiana. The total amount of oil in the reserve today is 690
million barrels. We have enough funds to start purchasing oil
at a rate of about 50,000 barrels per day, which is a very
small fraction of what we use in this country. It is like 2
percent. And so we will start that in the next couple of months
through a Presidential order to spend--we have $500 million or
so that we have in the kitty that we would set aside from the
sale previously of oil after Katrina and Rita that we expect to
get about a year from now. Late this year we expect to have
completed the purchase and to be back in a position where we
have 727 million barrels, which is the current capacity. The
Energy Policy Act indicates that we are to expand the size of
the SPR to 1 billion barrels. We have a plan in place to do
that that involves the selection of a fifth site in Richton,
Mississippi. We expect that to take the next 5 years to get
that built, to get two of the four facilities expanded and then
to add additional oil to it, and it will take 5, 6 years before
we accomplish that. The next half a billion barrels will come
after a thorough analysis and will take until 2027 to
accomplish.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The chair now yields herself 6 minutes. Mr.
Secretary, let me add my thanks for you coming today. I want to
talk about a couple of issues. The first one is renewable
energy. Both the President in his State of the Union speech and
you today in your testimony have made it clear that this
administration has a goal of transitioning to renewable energy.
Is that correct?
Secretary Bodman. We have a goal of having renewable energy
as a far greater component of our motor fuels in our country,
yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. And in order to achieve that goal,
it would seem to me that we would have to have a national
commitment to scientific research. Is that correct? We need
more research into renewable energy in order to increase that
use?
Secretary Bodman. That is fair, yes.
Ms. DeGette. I am really concerned therefore about the
funding cuts that the administration has proposed to the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is in my home State
of Colorado, and which is the preeminent research facility on
renewable energy and energy efficiency in the world. According
to the budget, it looks to me like the 2007 requested amount
was $187.5 million and this year the Department is requesting a
cut. They are requesting $181.5 million. Is that correct?
Secretary Bodman. This is for work on cellulosic ethanol?
Ms. DeGette. This is for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Golden, Colorado.
Secretary Bodman. No, I know that, but we are requesting
about $180 million for just renewable energy or just cellulosic
ethanol, much of that, most of that to be spent at NREL.
Ms. DeGette. Well, according to the DOE 2008 budget, the
NREL budget request for 2008, the entire NREL budget request is
$181,508,000 versus last year where the request was roughly
$187.5 million, right?
Secretary Bodman. That is accurate, yes.
Ms. DeGette. So my question is, if we really are going to
have a commitment to renewable energy, how can we justify a cut
to the NREL budget?
Secretary Bodman. The NREL budget has a number of different
initiatives. The budget for cellulosic ethanol, which is the
component that you started asking me about, is going to
increase by a substantial amount over that which we requested
last year.
Ms. DeGette. And is that research being done at NREL?
Secretary Bodman. A lot of it is, yes.
Ms. DeGette. So what the administration is proposing then,
if I hear you correctly, is a big increase for cellulosic
ethanol and then you would have to drastically cut over types
of renewable research, correct?
Secretary Bodman. I don't have the breakout of what work is
being done at NREL, and I would be happy to take the question
for the record and I would be happy to give you an answer.
I don't have a working number on it. I would also tell you
that I think that as we work our way through this, it is highly
unlikely that we will end up with NREL being reduced.
Ms. DeGette. Well, I think you are right about that and I
think the reason is because just as in the continuing
resolution where Congress, the Democratic Congress put more
money, I think Congress will increase these funds. But what I
am concerned about is, if the administration really has a
commitment to renewables. It would seem that in your budget for
NREL, you would be asking for an overall increase and not just
really robbing Peter to pay Paul, one type of renewable versus
another.
Secretary Bodman. I understand, and I don't have an answer
to that, but I would be happy to get it for you.
Ms. DeGette. The other thing I will let you know, and this
is something else you should explore, Mr. Secretary, last year
the DOE tried to lay off 32 workers. In fact, they did lay off
32 workers at NREL and then the President was scheduled to go
there the next week for a press conference at NREL and so they
hurriedly hired all those 32 workers back before he could come
and announce his renewable initiative. So the other question I
have is, does the Department intend this year to lay off
scientists at NREL? And if you can look at that, because I
think that is really a direction going backward and I don't
think that the administration should say it is committed to
research into renewable energy and then be laying off
scientists, and I think you would probably agree with that.
Secretary Bodman. I do agree, and I don't expect that that
would be the case.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I just want to ask you one more thing,
because this Los Alamos situation. Mr. Barton and I went down
to Los Alamos a couple of years ago and did a site visit where
we had a complete change. Everyone had been fired and we had a
complete change of administration down there. This was after
the last security breach and they were instituting new
technologies and new personnel techniques and so on, and I
commend you for making a quick and decisive change in the
leadership down there but I guess I would say that we need to
work together to make sure that we get some continuity and some
high standards because it can't be helpful towards our goal of
securing that facility having these continual personnel
changes.
Secretary Bodman. I agree with that, and I will be happy to
work with this committee as well as other committees in
Congress to accomplish that.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I am now
pleased to recognize Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr.
Secretary, we are delighted that you are with us this morning.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you for the great job that you do in
trying to use more nuclear power. We have a 250-year reserve of
coal, more renewables, and we appreciate your effort in helping
develop clean coal technology. Mr. Secretary, as you know, USEC
is operating the gaseous diffusion plant down in Paducah and it
is the only uranium enrichment plant operating in the country
today, and the Environmental Management Office in Lexington of
course oversees the environmental cleanup, and the Oak Ridge
Operations Office has historically managed the lease to make
sure that USEC is complying with the terms of that lease, and
they have always had a contract and most recent there has been
a firm named Hazelwood that provides that service for Oak Ridge
operations, and unless I am mistaken, it looks like that in the
fiscal year 2008 budget, that money for that purpose has been
zeroed out, and we have always had some concern that there may
be an effort made to move that responsibility from Oak Ridge
operations up to the Environment Management Office in Lexington
and merge that responsibility. A lot of us have concern about
that and it is certainly possible that I misread the budget but
I was wondering if you would make a comment on that or you are
aware of that.
Secretary Bodman. I have no idea, sir. I would be happy to
find out for you and give you an answer.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I would really appreciate that, and I
know in the past you all have been very good in getting back
with a lot of questions.
Secretary Bodman. I will be happy to respond. I am
unfamiliar with that turn of events.
Mr. Whitfield. And then of course there has always been
money in the budget under safeguard and security at the USEC
plant and I have been told that the funding for that has been
zeroed out for fiscal year 2008 as well, and if your staff----
Secretary Bodman. I would find that very surprising but
again, I don't know that and I would be happy to respond to
that question.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I appreciate that very much and we
look forward to talking to your staff more about it as we go
along.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Whitfield. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGette. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California for 6 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Mr.
Secretary, as I said in the beginning, welcome to the
committee, and thank you for answering the questions and the
ones I am about to pose. As you know, the Department of Energy
has been plagued for years and through more than one
administration by long delays in issuing appliance efficiency
standards. So far you seem to be meeting the aggressive
schedule that you set last year for getting the required
standards out and I am pleased that you have asked for
additional funds, and we may get back to that topic, but
however, I am very concerned that recent proposed standards
have been weak and are not using the tremendous potential of
this program to address our energy needs. For example, the
proposed home furnace standard is well below the norm that
already exists in much of the North. The only real savings from
the furnace standard would be if northern States were allowed
to enact a higher standard, and a similar situation exists in
California. The State was prepared to put in place a new water
efficiency standard for residential washing machines but just
days before that rule was to take effect on January 1, DOE
denied California's request to set the standard. Californians
could have saved a lot of money, water and vast amounts of
energy but we needed a Federal waiver to set the new water
standards, and why was it denied? Among the reasons for this
denial was the absurd, I believe, suggestion, and I am going to
put this in quotes, ``that California failed to prove it has
unusual and compelling water interests.'' We discussed where I
live, Mr. Secretary, in a coastal desert. Much of California
treats water like gold, and actually the delivery of water in
California is the single largest user of electricity. So we do
have unusual and compelling water interests and we have had
these for decades. In this case, instead of allowing a State to
proactively and voluntarily look inside its own jurisdiction
for a way to save energy, the Federal Government actually
stopped us from doing so, and I would like to have you comment
on DOE's action, and also keeping in mind the request by the
northern States for home heating standards.
Secretary Bodman. Well, first of all, I did ask about this
at the time that this was being done and I to be honest have
forgotten the rule. I will be happy to get it back to you. But
there was a concern not that there were a lack of interest in
water, I never heard that before, but that there was a lack of
legal standing that the State had for some reason. There were
other reasons offered in that letter, I am sure, and I don't
have it there. I would be happy to take a look at it or be
happy to look it up. We have it. So it was done on a, at least
what I would term to be a technicality and not on the merits of
the case. I would also tell you that part of the reason that
this Department has struggled, and this has been a bipartisan
struggle, it has been back since the 1990's that we have had
problems of setting proper standards of efficiency. When you
set things in our country, you mentioned furnaces in the North.
Well, furnaces in the North are different than furnaces in the
South and therefore one is required to set a standard and those
standards are a problem trying to deal across the board. So we
are constantly meeting with interest groups, both on the
manufacturing side and on the energy efficiency side, if you
will, and we are attempting to broker substantial interface and
improvement by working together with those two groups working
together and it is that effort that is yielding some
significant results. We certainly didn't achieve results for
the State of California, and I will try to respond more fully
on that.
Mrs. Capps. I would appreciate an answer in writing on that
and----
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to do it.
Mrs. Capps. And it is also kind of ironic and difficult
that the response didn't come until 3 days before the end of
the time and that puts us again at 5 years until this can
happen. I want to lead into the question. I want to just beg
that we do want Federal standards whenever possible but you are
right, we do have regional differences, and that is what the
waiver process should be about, in my opinion, to allow States
to push ahead and sometimes the industries then will follow
suit and then we get the desired result of energy efficiency
and that is the goal.
Secretary Bodman. I understand.
Mrs. Capps. But back to the point that I did mention in the
beginning when I commended you have gotten some increase in
funds and you set out an aggressive schedule, but I wonder if
you could tell us how you have analyzed the staffing and
funding requirements to carry through the standards planned
because there seems still to be a bottleneck and some of the
largest possible savings, for example, some standards on
furnaces and refrigerators are not included in the plan and
thus won't be considered for another 5 years. This seems to be
a difficulty that should be surmounted, particularly with extra
funds that you could for staffing.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, I think that we will certainly
encourage that. I just will tell you that I don't deal with the
details of how this happens but I do deal with the details that
we have enough resources and we have enough people and I have
been satisfied with what I have been told about our ability to
comply with the 2011 date and getting back on a schedule that
we have committed to and so that is 4 years out, and we are
committed to that.
Mrs. Capps. Maybe when you respond to the one question on
the washing machines, I could also hear how you plan then to
implement along the path that you have to meet the standards.
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Secretary, if I can inquire, we have, it
looks like, about six Members left to question and of course
others may come in, we don't know. Would you like to have a 15-
minute break now or would you just prefer to go straight
through?
Secretary Bodman. I would rather get it done if we can get
it done.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. That would be my preference as
well. The chair now recognizes Mr. Walden of Oregon for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
it. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
the work you are doing for the country. I want to thank you
especially for sending Dale Gardner out to the Oregon Institute
of Technology's renewable energy conference. We had invited
you, and I know your schedule is very complicated and we do
appreciate sending Dale out there. There are some issues though
that I would like to raise with you. Of course, I would be
remiss coming from the Northwest if I didn't raise some level
of objection to the administration's decisions regarding the
Bonneville Power Administration and the plan to capture the net
secondary revenues above $500 million a year. We do appreciate
the way this proposal came out as opposed to the one last year
which was going to set it in motion immediately and rather this
proposal at least allows and calls for facilitation among
various parties in the Northwest. So while we appreciate that,
we still obviously have concerns about the impact this
potentially could have on rates in the Northwest, and I want to
express that to you as I have before.
Secretary Bodman. It is dutifully understood. I had the
occasion to testify before the Senate committee yesterday and
there were a number of Senators from northwestern States who
offered even if I say, even more vigorous tones----
Mr. Walden. I am not surprised.
Secretary Bodman. I just would tell you what I told them,
and that is, in my judgment, there is a prudence about that
that makes sense to me just in terms of managing the business
and trying to put some money aside to save it for the future
and you automatically pass everything through to your
customers. I wouldn't do that if I were running a company and
that is what we tried to encourage the management there to do,
to think through, and that I think is a reasonable and prudent
thing to do.
Mr. Walden. And the notion that if we prepay debt which we
are on a schedule to pay now, agreed to by the Government, that
if we get into a problem we might be able to draw back on that.
Secretary Bodman. That is the goal.
Mr. Walden. And that is a better proposal than just taking
the dollars off the top and never getting any----
Secretary Bodman. No, and that is the goal.
Mr. Walden. Because you know how wide the swings can be in
terms of----
Secretary Bodman. I understand.
Mr. Walden. Unless you are better at predicting the weather
than anybody on television and tell us what the snow pack will
be and the runoff will be.
Secretary Bodman. I can tell you, sir, that I am not.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. I also want to raise some
concerns about the funding specifically for the geothermal
research that again has been zeroed out in this budget and I
have objected to this before. As fate would have it, not only
do we have this wonderful renewable resource center at Oregon
Institute of Technology, one of their great focuses is on
geothermal energy production and how you take what is sort of
scientifically known and then convert it into something that is
practical, and there is some really exciting opportunities in
that field. Many parts of the country, and indeed many parts of
my district where existing known geothermal resources are,
there are some new technologies they tell me could result in
much lower temperature production of power among other things,
and I know the administration has been committed to advancing
the idea of renewables and new technologies and research, so I
hope you would take another look at that. I know we will in the
Congress again but it is I think an essential element.
Secretary Bodman. It would be of interest to me if the
reason that it has been zeroed out is that the general thesis
is that the research has been done. This is a matter now of
applying the technology that has already been developed and
getting it into the marketplace. Queried what role should the
Government play, that should be something the private sector
does. But if there are areas for research, and there are
different voices on this subject, I would like to know about it
personally.
Mr. Walden. I would be happy to get that----
Secretary Bodman. If you would do that for me, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Walden. It sort of reminds me of that old story, I
think it was out of the patent office, that somebody at the
turn of the century said we really didn't need one because
everything that had what could be invented has been invented
and I am finding even in the area of warm water in the ground,
they are finding new technologies, new ways to----
Secretary Bodman. Well, this whole area of what role the
Government should play and how much we should do, it is very
difficult to discontinue anything. Once you start down a path,
it is hard to discontinue anything once you get going because
people like it and they----
Mr. Walden. I understand.
Secretary Bodman. Members of your committee like it. I am
sure I will hear more about it later.
Mr. Walden. And I appreciate that position, so we will
continue to----
Secretary Bodman. We tried to be reasonable and tried to
make a judgment on where to put the money.
Mr. Walden. And we will help you even be more reasonable.
How is that?
Secretary Bodman. All right.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you
for spending all this time that Members can ask questions. Mr.
Secretary, I can't think of anything more important to the
future of our country than lessening and hopefully somebody
eliminating the need to go outside our borders for oil and for
energy. It seems to me that we would not be in Iraq today had
we had energy independence in the country and there is nothing
more important. I have voted for every energy bill that has
come out of this committee since I have been a member of this
committee. I have advocated for a diverse portfolio of nuclear
energy. I just can't tell you how frustrating it is to see that
this is not being given the priority our country needs to give
this. I can't think of anything more important, and every year
we hear talk when the budget comes out, we have lost more money
in Iraq that we can't even account for than what we spend on
making energy independence a priority, and it is very
frustrating. I was happy to hear you tell Mr. Shimkus that
coal-to-liquids was part of your definition of alternative
energy sources, and I have a question for you, sir. My State,
Pennsylvania, was about to become the first State in the Nation
to site a plant that would convert waste coal into zero-sulfur
diesel fuel and home heating oil. It was an $800 million
project. The Department of Energy in 2003 had committed a $100
million zero-interest loan as part of this project. Site
preparation for this project started just this past fall and
construction was to start this spring of 2007. In the
President's budget, this $100 million zero-interest loan was
rescinded. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you could speak to me
about this rescission and why just as we were about to put
online a facility that would have converted 1.4 million tons of
waste into 60 millions gallons of fuel, that we have pulled the
plug on this?
Secretary Bodman. That particular project, there had been
an inability on the part of the company and my Department to
reach agreement on the terms of whatever the loan was, and as I
understand it, we have been working at this for 4 years. This
grant was originally made some 4 years ago.
Mr. Doyle. Two thousand and three. That is correct.
Secretary Bodman. And our folks were of the view that the
project was not going to be real, I am just telling you that
that was the report that I was given. It was not going to be
accomplished and that they did not have a financial plan that
held together and therefore for that reason, that the financial
viability of this program was called into question and that was
the reason for the rescission.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Secretary, I would ask that you revisit this
with your staff. We have information quite to the contrary.
Governor Rendell and the State of Pennsylvania, which is also
contributing considerable funds to this project, has come out
publicly and asked the President to revisit this rescission in
the budget. All indications that are given to us is that this
project is ready to start construction in a matter of months,
so it is hard for me to understand how we could have such
different information on where this project is, and I would ask
that you at the very least revisit this with your staff, and I
would be interested if you could forward to my office all of
these reasons for the rescission so that we can address them
and make sure that at least we all agree that the facts are the
same.
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, in
his State of the Union address, the President said we must
continue changing the way America generates electric power by
even greater use of clean coal technology. The concern I have
is every year we hear good words but actions don't seem to
follow the words, and while funneling money into FutureGen, a
project that I think has minimum support of industry and is way
behind where it should be, given the President's goal, we are
continuing to cut money from clean coal programs in order to
fund this other initiative at the NETL, which is just outside
my district and in Congressman Murphy's district, they are
seeing their core coal research program being cut by $28
million while their oil and gas programs which were getting $60
million have been eliminated. At the same time, $149 million of
clean coal technology deferred funding which was to be used for
the next clean coal power initiative solicitation has been sent
back to Treasury. The President has also stated that these
technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment
and help us to confront the challenges of global climate change
but we are terminating a $23 million program, innovations for
existing plants, that is entirely concerned with the
development of environmental technologies necessary for the
existing fleet of coal-powered generation. We are talking about
over 1,500 power plants that provide 52 percent of the Nation's
electricity. And finally, the oil and natural gas research
programs that are being zeroed out provide funding to 5,000
small, independent oil and gas companies that employ an average
of less than 20 people. Can you explain to me how gutting all
these programs helps further the President's goals that he
states his State of the Union address?
Secretary Bodman. One, oil and gas, oil at $60-plus a
barrel, natural gas at 780 MCF. In the President's view, and I
subscribe to it, that there is plenty of incentive for industry
to develop whatever technology needs to be developed in order
to accomplish that. Secondly, with clean coal, I just simply
have different numbers. At least my number of the clean coal
part of what goes on in fossil energy is $385 million, up from
$281 million in last year's request, up from $314 million the
year before.
Mr. Doyle. I will check our numbers and maybe you can send
me yours.
Secretary Bodman. I would be happy to.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes Mr. Gonzalez from Texas
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome,
Mr. Secretary. My apologies, a lot of us have other things we--
--
Secretary Bodman. No, I understand entirely. Not a problem.
Mr. Gonzalez. But thank you for your patience and also I
want to tell you that I am quite impressed with the breadth of
knowledge, specific questions to specific projects, so either
you keep up with everything or you have one heck of a staff
that----
Secretary Bodman. Well, I know the latter is true and I
would like to think the former is also accurate.
Mr. Gonzalez. It is usually a combination. Now, it has been
refreshing in the State of the Union address by the President,
your own remarks and what is coming out of the Department of
Energy, there seems to be a real emphasis now on alternatives,
renewables, biofuels, everything that we have been talking
about for a number of years but I never really believed that
the administration embraced. Would you say that that portion of
this part of the portfolio is essential and fundamental to an
energy policy when we are talking about the renewables, the
alternatives, the efficiencies, which all equate to
conservation?
Secretary Bodman. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. So and the reason I say that, and you know
where I am probably coming, will you say that we have finally
reached the point where conservation is a sufficient basis for
a sound, comprehensive energy policy? And to be fair with you,
you know where I am going, to Vice President Cheney's remark in
2001 where he said conservation may be a sign of personal
virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound,
comprehensive energy policy. What I am sensing is that we have
reached that point I would have to ask the Vice President, that
it is not just a personal virtue anymore.
Secretary Bodman. I think it is fair to say that
conservation is--I don't know that I would call it the basis of
a comprehensive strategy or policy but it certainly is an
important component of such an animal, so I would agree with
that.
Mr. Gonzalez. Now, regarding ethanol, I am from Texas, and
you know how that works because you are very knowledgeable, but
the oil industry people made some comments recently on ethanol
and this is somebody in the San Antonio area. He said because
gasoline demand is growing 1.5 percent to 1.7 percent a year,
and I am paraphrasing here--biofuels reaches 35 billion
gallons, that is not enough to keep up.
Secretary Bodman. I am sure it is. The goal that the 35
million gallons would accomplish would be that 20 percent of
the then-amount of gasoline that we use would be alternative
fuels 10 years from now and so when you say--I guess I would
respectfully disagree with whoever said that.
Mr. Gonzalez. I wanted your opinion on it. Despite the
growing use--in other words, you are projecting out the next
few years the increased demand for standardized, good old
gasoline is the way we do it?
Secretary Bodman. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. And taking that into consideration, 35
billion still----
Secretary Bodman. The 35 million is 15 percent and then we
accomplish the other 5 percent by the reduction of gasoline
usage by increasing CAFE standards for automobiles as well as
trucks and light trucks and SUVs.
Mr. Gonzalez. And I know we are looking at hydrogen and
others, how we fuel our vehicles, but ethanol is probably where
we are putting a big portion of our faith and investment.
Wouldn't you say that?
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir, I would agree with that.
Mr. Gonzalez. And part of it is so that we are not
dependent on foreign sources of energy, fuel, oil?
Secretary Bodman. That is correct.
Mr. Gonzalez. All right. And so in today's paper we are now
discussing agreements maybe with Brazil regarding ethanol, and
what is your view or your position regarding the degree that
imported ethanol will play in meeting some of our benchmarks?
Secretary Bodman. First of all, I would not advocate
changing either the tariff or the subside that exists. One
lasts until 2009, the other I think until 2010 or 2011, and as
we start to approach that, I would think that that was
something that the administration and Congress would work
together to try to examine. There are a number of different
proposals and ideas that I have heard and we would like to
share our views with yours and see if we can't come up with a
proposal that makes sense.
Mr. Gonzalez. And if you will indulge me, I have a few
seconds but I wanted to touch on, just give you a heads-up, we
have a municipally owned utility company and we would like to
make greater investment in nuclear power, but there are no
incentives when it comes to municipal-owned utilities and
representatives from CPS Energy Company will be meeting with
general counsel today from DOE and I really would appreciate it
if you could explore what those incentives might be there that
we may institute. Again, I want to thank you for your patience,
your time and your service.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is it your
view that because of the municipally owned, that it is not
eligible for the----
Mr. Gonzalez. That is my understanding, that under the law
at that time, that is what is being represented to me, and I
really would appreciate it if you would explore that.
Secretary Bodman. That is a new one on me, and I will try
to take a look at it.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Many of us think the
best way to categorize the global warming challenge is a
planetary emergency, that it rises to that level, and that
really to approach it, we need to have an approach similar to
John F. Kennedy's effort to go to the moon, and it takes that
type of scope of national endeavor, and I have to say looking
at the budget, I think we fall well short of getting to the
moon. I don't think this plan will get it to Cleveland when it
comes to solving CO\2\, and I wanted to show you a couple of
charts while I talk about that, if we could get those up on the
screen. First one shows R&D budgets going back to the late
1970's, 1978 on the left show our budgets. These are constant
dollars, and you see over time they have shrunk down to 2005 we
are down here at less than a third of what we were spending
during the late years of the Carter administration investing in
energy research, and you are not the only administration who
has been short in that regard. But I think this demonstrates
how little we are investing in a planetary emergency relative
to at least one other occasion where we were serious about
energy, the late 1970's, where we actually increased our full
efficiency of our cars by 60 percent.
If we look at the next slide, if you can look it, it
compares our declining investment in research R&D to other
areas. On the left it shows our energy investments in the
little left-hand chart. We had a spike during the Carter
administration. It has been flat since then. In the middle
chart we show our R&D in health, and you see it has thankfully
gone up dramatically by a factor of eight or nine during that
same period. And on the right of the chart, the right graph
shows the increase in R&D for military R&D during that same
time period. What you will see is, in military R&D we have this
enormous increase in R&D but on another major threat to America
with global warming we have less than a third, now just over a
third with your budget, what we were spending in the late
1970's, and I point this out because I think that our country
is going to have to come to grips with the scope of the
challenge that global warming faces and I just have to express
that I think our efforts are going to have to be much higher
magnitude. I am going to ask you a question about that in a
moment.
Second, I ask you about the schizophrenia in the budget
that I had seen, and we are spending, you just told us, about
$40 million a year on clean coal technology on CGCC plants that
might be able to sequester CO\2\ some day, and I think that
would be great. I support that research. But the problem is
under your policies, no one will ever build such a plant
because under the President's policies, he doesn't want to do
anything to regulate carbon dioxide. He wants to make it free
for companies to put unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide, which
they do today, for free, at no cost, no regulation. They can
put any gigatons of CO\2\ they want. As a result of that, even
if the taxpayers develop this technology, no one is going to
ever deploy it because under the Bush plan, he wants to let you
just keep putting carbon dioxide with no restrictions
whatsoever into the atmosphere, and I think that is a
schizophrenic policy that dooms us to failure to actually these
new technologies deployed.
In the last slide I want to show you, I would like your
comment. If we can have the last slide up there? This shows the
wheel-to-wheel global warming gas emissions per gallon for
various sources of fuel. First on the left is crude oil. The
third bar I want to show you is coal to liquids, and it is in
two parts. It is CO\2\ emissions on the light shade. The blue
on this chart up here shows the tailpipe CO\2\ emissions and
the last part is the production CO\2\ emissions, and what it
shows is that the coal-to-liquids technology which as I
understand your budget and the President's speech would allow
that to be considered a, quote, alternative fuel that would get
the benefits of your budget actually without sequestration has
more CO\2\ emissions than crude oil and with CO\2\
sequestration or processing has essentially equivalent CO\2\,
and this chart actually shows a little bit more CO\2\ emissions
than actually burning oil, so we are going, if not backwards,
we don't make any progress on CO\2\ emissions. And you, as I
understand, consider this eligible for the alternative fuels
credit. So my take on the budget is a wholesale failure to
really face this enormous challenge that we have, one that I am
very optimistic we are going to succeed in eventually because
we have got the know-how to do it and we are going to grow
markets, we are going to sell our technology to China when we
finally get this to be commercialized. So I would just ask your
comment on those observations, if you would?
Secretary Bodman. Sure. First, in terms of the coal-to-
liquids, I would hope that part of this would be ways of
sequestering the carbon dioxide that comes out of this process
and so the production part of this, I agree with you that in
order to deal with coal-to-liquids, you have to account for the
fact that you are producing a lot of carbon dioxide in the
production process, and one has to develop technology to
sequester it, so this would be dependent, in my judgment, on
that effort to sequester carbon dioxide that we are already
working on. And as to the differences between the tailpipe,
those emissions are, at least it strikes me, are relatively
inconsequential differences from oil.
Mr. Inslee. Just one closing comment. We are not going to
be able to solve this problem unless we put taxpayer money into
CO\2\ reduction, and spending millions of dollars on something
that does not reduce CO\2\ emissions for a new fuel is not
going to get us to where we need to go, and that is my concern,
and my time has expired.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes Mr. Matheson from Utah for 5 minutes.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, I
don't expect you have detailed knowledge of the specific
project in Moab, Utah, but I am going to ask you about it
anyway and we may need a written response after we are done
here.
Secretary Bodman. Sure.
Mr. Matheson. We talk about this a lot, and historically
back in 2000, Congress authorized moving the pile. There were
some discussions about wanting to keep the pile in place in
2005. Going through the record, a decision was issued to move
the pile. And then you and I had a discussion in a Science
Committee hearing about where the budget proposed last year
showed what might have been perceived as a smaller amount going
into moving this pile than what we would have needed to
complete this in a reasonable time frame, and at the time we
had a discussion about, OK, you don't spend the same every
year. There is a ramping up, there is associated timeline, and
I would ask, if there was a sense of what the timeline might be
on a year-by-year basis to pay for this project and I want to
reiterate that request because I haven't gotten an answer to
that one yet about how we project doing this over time in terms
of dollars, how you budget it out over the years to move this
pile. The reason that I am particularly concerned about this is
that ultimately we have issued what is called a request for
task proposal. DOE issued that in just November of last year.
Secretary Bodman. Right.
Mr. Matheson. It should have been good news but what
concerned me about it is, it talks about only cleaning up two
and a half million tons of a 16-million-ton pile, and I am
curious why a decision was made to break this apart and do a
little bit of the pile when the record decision said we are
going to move the whole pile anyway, and it just reflects a
concern on my part about is there a commitment to move this
pile? Is there a rationale behind breaking this into two
different contracts, and are we going to be talking about this,
or will this be talked about long after you and I are both gone
from being in this position?
Secretary Bodman. I hope you are still here, sir. I am
likely to only be here for the next--in fact, for sure I will
only be here for the next 2 years and I will then have
completed 8 years and I think I will have completed my duty to
my country. With respect to this, this is something that the
Department rightly or wrongly thinks that we did the right
thing. We made the judgment and we wrote the ROD and we were
the ones that made a decision that this was the right thing to
do is to move the entire pile.
Mr. Matheson. I think that is the right decision.
Secretary Bodman. Well, I would assume that you do so that
and we are committed to that. As to why the contract was broken
in half, I don't know. We will get you an answer.
Mr. Matheson. I would love to get a follow-up on that and
also the timing----
Secretary Bodman. This is expected to take some 20 years to
accomplish.
Mr. Matheson. Well, that is news because we used to be
talking about it taking seven to 10 years and so----
Secretary Bodman. Well, I am just telling you, at least the
information I have, that 2028 is the schedule. It may be that
this is a matter that we have a lot of demands on our
environmental management operation. We have a lot of demands on
the budget, as you I am sure are aware, and my guess is that
that is the reason that this was set up that way.
Mr. Matheson. Well, if you would be able to follow up with
just explaining why we broke it into two and also what you
think the projected schedule is, I would appreciate it.
Switching issues, do you know how much the Department of
Energy is going to spend on Divine Strake and other similar
tests in this fiscal year and the next fiscal year and which
appropriations acts those tests are funded from, from DOE,
since you are the manager of the Nevada test site?
Secretary Bodman. Well, it would be in the NNSA budget.
That would be coming out of that. That is where the test sites
funding comes from.
Mr. Matheson. If you could give me follow-up, and I don't
expect you to know this number but how much DOE plans on
spending on this test compared to what DOD is going to spend. I
would appreciate it if you would follow up on that question.
Secretary Bodman. Sure. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Matheson. The last question I wanted to throw at you
was about the reliable replacement warhead program. This budget
provides about $89 million for it. The Navy is asking for an
additional $30 million. The Jason report, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, on aging plutonium pits just came out and it
seems to undercut one of the primary rationales for moving
ahead with creating these new nuclear warheads.
Secretary Bodman. Right.
Mr. Matheson. So I am wondering, and since we haven't got a
design actually selected yet, I am wondering why we are now
between your budget and the Navy looking at throwing $120
million out of this year when we don't have a design yet.
Secretary Bodman. This is for the design. This is a major
undertaking, and I believe that it is well justified. It is
really unrelated to the decision--not the decision but to the
information we received on plutonium aging that was encouraging
because I was concerned that we would have to deal with a very
inherently unstable material. The weapons that we have in the
stockpile today were designed at a time when our Nation was
continuing to replace weapons on a regular basis. Every 4 or 5
years we got a new design, a new weapon and therefore the
design was done without adequate tolerance for something that
would have to last for many years, that it was designed to only
last 3 or 4 years and then it so we had much more narrow
tolerances in the overall approach to the design.
So the goal of the reliable replacement warhead is to
enable us to design something that would have much greater
tolerances built into it, and where the Secretary of Energy and
the Secretary of Defense each spring in the month of March--
next month I have to write a letter to the President as a part
of my job certifying that the weapons that, God forbid, if we
need to use a weapon in the stockpile that it will work. That
gets harder to write every year. This initiative is meant to
deal with that question and to produce a smaller number of
replacement warheads to replace the stockpile that we have.
Mr. Matheson. I look forward to continuing the dialog. We
will submit written questions as well. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes Mr. Murphy from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I want
to go back to a point here about the National Energy Technology
Lab in my district which you visited and you know what fine
work they do there.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Murphy. And I know you were talking about more money
that goes into FutureGen and other areas like that. What my
understanding of the bill is that in the request for fossil
energy research and development in 2008, it is $566 million as
compared with 2007 which was $592, a reduction of $25 million.
There is also some significant changes to fossil energy's coal
and power and oil and gas programs, which I think are concealed
on the appropriation. Specifically from the coal and power
program, the existing clean coal technology account of $257
million is eliminated by transfer of $108 to the
administration's FutureGen initiative and cancellation of the
remaining $149 million. Also the $73 million that has been
allocated to the clean coal power initiative to conduct a
solicitation for fiscal year 2007, this amount together with
the prior year funding of what is likely to be available in
2008 is going to be insufficient to make awards under the
solicitation for 2008.
I see this is having been chipping away and pushing at the
one hand. We really understand we need coal, we have abundant
supplies of it. We don't have to fund both sides of the war on
terror when it comes to coal, but it is one of those things
that I wish we had the kind of energy, if you will pardon the
pun, behind that of looking at that much like we had under the
launch of the moon initiatives we had back in the 1960's. And
so I am very concerned about that. I wonder if you could
elaborate any further, or if you don't have that information
available today, I would appreciate if you could get back to me
with other information about that, how we can continue to
invest strongly in clean coal technology and the National
Energy Technology Labs.
Secretary Bodman. I will be happy to get back to you on
that. I just would tell you it is the same answer I gave to Mr.
Doyle a minute ago that my figures show that we have
significant increases in the clean coal research area. I don't
have it broken out by laboratory so I don't know what the
funding would be for a particular laboratory, but if that is
what your question is, I will be happy to get an answer for
you.
Mr. Murphy. Well, I would appreciate that because for that
laboratory too, I know they do a lot of valuable work and have
a long legacy in terms of experience there, and although I
understand that sometimes the parties shift but when we have
such an asset, I hate to see funding cut where someone else
starts up and every couple years these sorts of things change,
so please do that. I think they are great people doing a lot of
great work. The second thing, you talked a little bit about
nuclear. As you know, Westinghouse Nuclear is headquartered in
my district.
Secretary Bodman. Right.
Mr. Murphy. We are enjoying a lot of job growth there and
obviously clean energy, and I am wondering with this, if other
provisions in the budget are going to look at--if there are
other things you see in there that are going to encourage the
construction of more nuclear power plants and now we have the
Yucca Mountain issue and I know they are looking at about 20
power plants in America, but do you see there is other things
within that budget, other initiatives that the Department of
Energy will be looking at to even push for more nuclear energy?
Secretary Bodman. Absolutely. First of all, we are working
on Yucca Mountain, and a parallel and longer term effort, we
are working on GNEP, which is the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, which has to do with the treatment of, the
recycling of or reprocessing of spent fuel. It is a way of
getting at the spent fuel problem. We still need Yucca Mountain
but the goal is to reprocess that fuel, extract more of the
energy out of it that we have today and still produce a waste
that is much less toxic than the waste that exists today from
our standard utility plants. So that effort is underway. And
then the Energy Policy Act that you all passed, I like to say
it has every kind of incentive in there that one could think
of. It has got an insurance program at the back end. It has got
front-end loan guarantee provisions in the law. It has got
production credits in the law. It has got all kinds of things
that are there, and we are doing our level best to encourage
the development of more nuclear power in America.
Mr. Murphy. I appreciate that. I know that we have a lot of
other issues too and I wish I had more time. I wanted to ask
about where we stand with some of the renewables like wind and
solar, et cetera. I don't think if you could answer quickly,
what level do you think we can get up to in the next 5 to 10
years with regard to using some of those renewables?
Secretary Bodman. Wind energy, there is concern about a
reduction in the amount of effort we are doing on wind. Wind
has demonstrated that it is close to being economically viable
and that the goal, or the effort now has to be, how do we get
the energy that is produced by the wind devices to the
marketplace and so we need to worry more about transmission and
we need to worry more about the new technology for long-
distance superconductivity, and all of that is going on in
another office, another part of the Department. So we are
enthused about that. The President believes it can be 20
percent of our total electricity, and that is a big number. It
is about 1 percent today.
Mr. Murphy. Well, I appreciate that, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy. I hope that one of the things the Department of
Energy also can get us information on what we need to be doing
with those transmission lines, but I thank the----
Ms. DeGette. Without objection. The chair now recognizes
Mr. Barrow from Georgia for 6 minutes.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being
here, Mr. Secretary. If I am not the last person to talk with
you today, I am getting close to the last, one of the guys you
have been waiting for today. I appreciate your patience in
being with us today. I want to follow up on some of the
concerns that Mr. Boucher raised about getting this loan
guarantee program but not just along the lines that are of
course of importance to him, clean coal technology, but also to
try and fund research and development of cellulosic ethanol. I
am going to put in a shameless plug for my part of the country.
I am old county commissioner and we would have occasion from
time to time to talk about what the highest and best use for
something is to try and decide how to zone some property.
Secretary Bodman. Sure.
Mr. Barrow. And I think we need to apply that kind of
thinking toward ethanol production in this country because
while I certainly want to support corn to gas as much as
possible, something tells me that the highest and best use of
corn isn't necessarily putting gas in our tanks. I don't think
America is going to want to be taking beef off the table, to be
able to put gas in the tanks. But I can tell you in my part of
the country, we produce more cellulosic waste doing the things
we want to do and do better than they do anyplace else in the
world. We got pine waste and products that are a great raw
material. So I want to encourage you as your Department moves
forward in this area to look at cellulosic ethanol research and
development.
And back to Mr. Boucher's concerns about the loan guarantee
program. If I heard you correct, I think I heard you say that
the Department would be doing well if we are cutting any kind
of loans or backing any loans by the end of the next year.
Secretary Bodman. A year from now, I said, and I was just
giving an honest----
Mr. Barrow. I just wanted to make sure I had--because you
didn't say--you didn't give us a hard deadline. You said you
would be doing well to be doing that, and it sounds like you
would be lucky to be doing that.
Secretary Bodman. It takes 6 months to write a rule. We
have to write a rule, and you have to send out a notice of
intent to write a rule and then have to dod a draft.
Mr. Barrow. Well, we have got utilities and we got co-ops,
we got enterprises in this country that have never defaulted on
a loan before that are ready to go in this area. They need the
full faith and credit that you have offered in this program
that is not going anywhere, so whatever we can do to help you
help us, please let us know. We have got folks who need to go
on this who can make a lot of progress in this area if only we
could free up that credit that doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Secretary Bodman. I would just remind you, sir, that it is
limited. I mean, remember, this is all kinds of industry are
going to be interested and I am concerned that the appetite----
Mr. Barrow. Which is why I prefaced my remarks with trying
to you all to try to think about this in terms of what has the
longest term, most sustainable bang for our buck in renewable
energy development, and we have a lot of potential there that I
want you all to be aware of. Touching on the subject of the
renewable fuel mandates and the program to try and get 35
billion gallons a year of renewable fuels by 2017, do you all
have any idea of how many flex-fuel vehicles we are going to
need in order to be able to match that supply? Because while we
are straining and busting a gut really to try and do incentives
through credit, through research and development, through
direct grants, every way conceivable to make sure that we have
that kind of supply of renewable energy, what are we doing to
make sure that the demand is going to match the supply, to make
sure we have a sufficient supply so people can use the stuff.
Secretary Bodman. The problem we have is that we have 220
million vehicles roughly in America today so even as you sell
17 million a year, that takes you a long time to modify the
averages, if you will. So Detroit has committed, I believe, and
I am hesitant to give you a different answer if it turns out to
be true but to produce something like half of its vehicles in
shape as a part of a flex-fuel program, I think it is 4 years
from now. It takes a number of years in order to set up and
operate and get in place the production activities so they have
to plan well in advance and so----
Mr. Barrow. The point is, it is part of you all's plan to
make sure that the supply of vehicles can meet the demand for
this.
Secretary Bodman. We are not ignorant of it. We are working
on it but it is a legitimate question as to we would like to do
it frankly without mandates, without saying you will have to
produce so many vehicles with such-and-such standard equipment
and we would like to do it without that. Obviously if it proves
that we have to do that, we will do it.
Mr. Barrow. One last thing. The Savannah River, which abuts
my district, drains a basis that serves both the Savannah River
site and Plant Vogel. Plant Vogel is probably the last
commercial nuke power plant in the country, if not the last to
be commissioned. It has got two cells with two more units are
going to try to be put online. Their unique concern is about
the river that serves the surrounding riverside area. The
environmental lab for the Savannah River site is an institution
long standing. I would like your staff to look into how we can
expand its mission and broaden its base of support because it
will provide a lot of support that we need in order to do at
Vogel what we want to do and to do at SRS what we need to do.
So I would like your staff to brief us on that so we can expand
their mission.
Secretary Bodman. We would be happy to do that. As I think
about the laboratory, I was supposed to have been there last
week and then it was canceled but I think it is next week that
I go so I will be down there and get a chance to visit it
personally, but they have a lot of expertise in hydrogen
because of the efforts of the Savannah River site dealing with
tritium.
Mr. Barrow. They are experts on hydrogen and they have
developed a lot of groundbreaking work on groundwater and they
have been very good at that. They also have an advantage in
that it is the safest of all the laboratories that we have run
in our whole district. That is something that is high on my
list.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
Ms. DeGette. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for staying so long. I am sure it won't be long now.
I mentioned in my opening remarks the Drive Act, which I am
doing with Congressman Kingston, which is H.R. 607 in this
Congress. We dropped it in last year as the Kingston-Engel Bill
and we dropped it in this year, given the change in the
politics in the House as the Engel-Kingston Bill but the
important thing is, is that it is a bipartisan bill and we are
trying to get as many people on both sides of the aisle on the
bill. I really think that the administration can go a long way
in helping us to pass this bill. Everybody is talking about
energy independence. The President mentioned it in his State of
the Union last year, albeit briefly, and then mentioned it more
extensively this year. I spoke to the President after the State
of the Union about our bill when he was coming off and last
week at the Democratic retreat I spoke with the President about
it again and I think that this is something that we really can
make a difference in. It is modest but it is something I think
that is really doable, and last year frankly some of us went to
the White House to speak with the President and some of his
aides. They told both me and Congressman Kingston that there
would be follow-up, and there really wasn't. So I am hoping
that don't kind of fall into that this year. We believe that
our bill would save 2\1/2\ million barrels of oil a day by 2015
and 5 million barrels by 2025, which is right in line with what
the President said in his State of the Union, and what our bill
does, it helps U.S. automakers manufacture more-efficient
vehicles and provides the same performance consumers expect, so
it is breaks both for the industry and for consumers in terms
of encouraging people to buy these cars.
Secretary Bodman. How does it do it, sir? What does the
bill provide?
Mr. Engel. Well, the bill provides tax incentives and tax
breaks for people who purchase these cars, for the industry to
make these cars. It mandates incentives for cellulosic
biofuels, creates an alternative fueling infrastructure, funds
for installation of alternative-fuel pumps and things like
that, and it provides incentives, tax breaks to purchase these
things. We don't think it is an end-all and a be-all and
obviously we have got to build from there but we think it is a
great start, and we think it is a great bipartisan start and it
is a modest start and I really think this would be a great
thing. Another thing that is done in the bill is we talk about
plug-in hybrid vehicles. It incentivizes the rapid
commercialization of it, and I am wondering if DOE has
formulated plans to do that. Batteries of plug-in vehicles are
very expensive, and we want to see if we can bring down the
cost of batteries. So I am wondering if you can talk about
that, and I was a bit disturbed when I saw that the DOE cut its
funding request for vehicle efficiency research by $8 million.
That disturbed me a bit. I mean, $8 million isn't a lot of
money but it is sort of an indication of what is important and
what is not. So I am wondering if you can----
Secretary Bodman. Everybody has different comparisons they
are using with either the year before or 2 years before. My
number on vehicle technology is $176 million, up from $166
million, $10 million more than the 2006 request. It is true
that it was $182 million in 2006, so depending on what one
compares it with, it is up. Battery technology is up some $15
million according to within that, up some $27 million, so we
are working to expand our efforts, research efforts with
respect to batteries.
Mr. Engel. OK. I would like to obviously have more
discussions with you and your staff about this. I have one
final question, which is a somewhat parochial question. Indian
Point nuclear power plant in New York--and by the way, in your
opening remarks I listened very carefully. You said that the
administration looks at nuclear power as an important
component.
Secretary Bodman. Yes, it is.
Mr. Engel. I agree with that, and I never uttered a word
about Indian Point until after the September 11 attacks in 2001
when we learned that one of the planes that hit the World Trade
Center flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant
which is less than a 50 mile radius from Manhattan, and of all
the power plants in the country, that is the plant that is the
closest to any major metropolitan area, and of course, it is
not just any metropolitan area, it is the New York City
metropolitan area. So we are concerned and they are up for re-
licensing and I am very unhappy with NRC rubberstamping, what I
regard as rubberstamping all these things. It may be approved.
I know my time is up and I just want to ask you quickly, you
mentioned Yucca Mountain in your opening remarks, and what is
the plan, since Yucca Mountain, if it is ever built, is so far
away and keeps getting pushed back. What happens with the spent
fuel at all these plants across the country that really have no
real place to go?
Secretary Bodman. Your question is, what happens if I get
Yucca Mountain open?
Mr. Engel. Well, I think Yucca Mountain is not going to
open for a long time.
Secretary Bodman. Well, we have it at 10 years out and the
status quo would be unless Congress decides something other
than that would be the way it is situated the way it is now.
Once we get a license, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we
are given permission to discuss interim storage but I am
precluded from doing interim storage until I get a license.
That is just the way is written and so assuming I file and we
get a license in a reasonable period of time, you will be
talking to a new secretary. I won't be here but the secretary
would then be in a position to deal with this matter at that
point in time, would deal with interim storage and you start
setting this up. I sure wouldn't create 30 different sites the
way one of the bills that was around last year suggested. It
has to be a smaller number.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, thank
you for joining us here today. One, let me just say that I am
extremely disappointed that the administration is cutting the
weatherization assistance program from $242 million in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 to $140 million in fiscal year 2008. The
Department of Energy has called it our Nation's ``most
successful energy efficiency program'' and yet we are seeing
this type of dramatic cut on America's working families,
especially the working poor. It is about priorities, and I
think this gives us an idea of the priorities unfortunately of
this administration. You did mention in your testimony, sir,
that in fiscal year 2008 there is going to be $180 million
spent on cellulosic ethanol research. My numbers indicate it is
actually $179 million, and you pointed out that that is
actually an increase over last year, and you are right, it is.
It is a $29 million increase over 2007. These are big numbers,
at least where I come from, in Hope, Arkansas.
Secretary Bodman. I agree with that, sir.
Mr. Ross. So let me put them in perspective in a way that I
would understand them and hopefully a lot of us will get a
greater perspective as we talk about priorities. The entire
cellulosic ethanol research budget is equal to less than 15
hours of the amount of money we are going to spend in Iraq. We
will spend more money in Iraq in the next 15 hours than we are
going to spend in fiscal year 2008 on cellulosic ethanol
research. I think that more clearly puts into perspective what
our priorities really are in investing in alternative renewable
fuels. We talk about it a lot. The administration talks about
weatherization a lot and yet they cut the weatherization
funding. They talk about research and development a lot and
then they cut--if not cut, certainly do not properly fund
cellulosic ethanol research. I am absolutely convinced--and by
the way, the $29 million increase over 2007 for cellulosic
ethanol research amounts to about 3 hours of the amount of
money--we will spend more money in the next 3 hours in Iraq
than we are going to spend on the increase. So that is a couple
numbers to put that into perspective. The reason I raise that
is because I represent 29 counties in Arkansas, about half the
State, 21,000 square miles, and in that area, included in that
is a number of counties that fall within the delta region, one
of the poorest regions in the country. Husbands and wives
combined have an annual income of less than $29,000 a year, and
I really do believe that as a Nation if we will properly invest
in alternative renewable fuels like ethanol and particularly
ethanol from cellulosic-based products, we can realize an
economic revival in the delta region of our country.
Finally, 2 weeks ago, Mr. Secretary, you said that the U.S.
tariff on ethanol imports probably would be lifted to meet
President Bush's goal of increasing the use of renewable fuels.
I am quoting you, ``We are probably going to need to remove the
tariffs so we can enforce more,'' and that was your quote from
a roundtable discussion at the World Economic Forum in
Switzerland. Based on your testimony today, perhaps you have
reversed that position, but my question is this: In order to
meet the President's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of
renewable and alternative fuel by 2017, it is necessary to
maintain and create incentives that are favorable to continue
an expanded investment in renewable fuels. However, your recent
comments suggesting that the ethanol tariff be discontinued
seem contradictory to that goal. Your statement seemed to
suggest that this county will be exchanging a dependence on
foreign oil for a dependence on foreign renewable fuel. How
does trading one source of foreign energy for another reconcile
with our goal of energy independence? Further, I am concerned
that the administration continues to support tax incentives for
oil and gas companies arguing that they are necessary to
achieve energy independence but disavow similar treatment to
the renewable and alternative fuels that you yourself, sir,
stipulate will displace 15 percent of projected gasoline usage
by 2017? You suggest that you support a decrease in foreign oil
tankers in our ports but an increase of foreign ethanol
tankers. Again, sir, how does this trading one source of
foreign energy for another meet the goal of energy
independence? Thank you.
Secretary Bodman. One, I will try to answer. You have asked
a number of questions. Oil and gas, neither the President nor I
support tax incentives for oil and gas companies. I have said
that multiple times. That is not something the President
advocated. It wasn't in the proposal and it was put in by those
who wrote the law, so that is comment one. Comment two, I was
quoted as having said what I said. I didn't say that, and what
I said was and what I meant was, that this administration is an
advocate for us looking at the question of both the subsidy and
the tariff closer to the time when they run out so that we can
then analyze it and work together to try to come up with
something that makes sense. We have had a very strong response
on the subsidy side. We have a lot of ethanol that is being
manufactured in this country. One of the questions will be, how
much, how far, how fast, and we are also going to get a sense
of whether or not we are able to get cellulosic ethanol
commercialized. We are expecting that to happen over next
couple of years so we are working toward that end and so I have
an optimistic view.
I will conclude by saying I am the one that made the
judgment on weatherization and I understand that it is painful
for some citizens in our country. I am able to do so much with
the money I have allocated to me and I made the judgment that I
made, and that is why are you looking at the proposal that I
made.
Ms. DeGette. Last but never, ever least, the chair is
pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
your patience and your answers. There are a couple things I
want to address, or have you address. One is, I also am from
the Northwest and BPA is an important part of our economy. What
the President's budget asks to do will increase 11 percent for
ratepayers, their energy prices at a time that we just sort of
recovered from a downturn in our economy. This would be
devastating to our region. This is an agency that has never
missed a payment to the Government in 23 years, and in fact has
prepaid $1.8 billion without raising in the last 6 years and we
need that flexibility, and I know you addressed that when you
were talking to Representative Walden, but again, I just want
to emphasize our important BPA is to our economy, and having
this happen would just be devastating.
Secretary Bodman. I appreciate your views, ma'am.
Ms. Hooley. There are some questions I have. First of all,
we have a lot of small businesses that are looking at putting
together biodiesel biomass programs. There are clearly some
missing pieces, distribution, having in the case of crushing
seeds with canola. That is a problem. Do you think it is
appropriate that where you have a viable source that is cost-
effective and again to get us to that energy independence for
the Government to step in and say here are the missing pieces,
this is where we are going to help out, provide incentives,
provide grants, provide loans?
Secretary Bodman. That is what we are trying to do. We are
trying to do it in a cost-effective way. We are trying to do it
by doing research, particularly on cellulosic ethanol, so that
we can crack the code, if you will, and see that we develop
processes that can be used by regions like Oregon, that have
potential of growing cellulose in that region and making use of
it, and perhaps you are already are growing it in the region
and would make use of it. So we are trying to do the research.
We are also trying to work with companies to encourage them to
do research through growing efforts with us and we are having
some success in that endeavor, so I think there are areas where
we are I think having very good programs that hopefully will
deal with the question you raised.
Ms. Hooley. One of my universities, Oregon State
University, has been doing a lot of research on wave energy.
Our State is obviously a State that is ripe for wave energy.
What do you see a role for that in the future?
Secretary Bodman. I would be kidding you if I said I knew
very much about wave energy. I know that your university is
leading the activity in that area. I do know of all places from
Utah there is activity with a professor at the University of
Utah that also has an interest in this. I would be happy to put
you in touch with our assistant secretary for renewable energy
because he deals with this on a--Andy Carther deals with this
every day and--not every day but once a week he has got various
activities involved in this. So I would be happy to have you
deal with him.
Ms. Hooley. I would like to have a conversation.
Secretary Bodman. OK.
Ms. Hooley. And then my last question is, the two big
issues that are going to be talked about over and over and over
again in this Congress is energy independence, making sure that
we have our own energy supply in this country, and the other
issue is going to be climate change, global warming. I was just
in the Science Committee that had a hearing on this. Are you
looking at how do those two--as we develop our energy
independence, is it also going to be good for climate change
and global warming and what we need to do in that area? Are we
coordinating these two efforts?
Secretary Bodman. In most cases, they are very compatible,
not in every case as was mentioned on coal-to-liquids. I mean,
that is an issue we have to deal with, how to sequester carbon
dioxide coming from the coal. But that is what we are doing
because we have so much coal and so I think that is worth
looking at. But other areas, for example, cellulosic ethanol,
85 percent of the carbon that is emitted from the tailpipe of
the car is saved because the plant, the switchgrass or whatever
plant grows, grows by absorbing carbon dioxide as part of the
photosynthesis process and it is very efficient and very
effective in doing that and so only 15 percent of it is lost,
85 percent of it is gained and so you have a big additional
advantage in cellulosic ethanol and that is directly in line
with the President's proposal.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience and
for being here today.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you very much.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for appearing
in front of us and answering all of our questions so
thoroughly. We look forward to working with you and the rest of
the Congress.
Secretary Bodman. Thank you very much.
Ms. DeGette. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]