Senator FOWLER. Mr. Little, I take it you would disagree with Secretary Fitzpatrick's analysis of the photovoltaic program, in regard to our national needs.

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, I would. I think, to answer the question you raised earlier which is, what should the DOE do now, I believe that you have to revisit what was happening in 1980-82, and at that period of time there were three major components to the DOE program. One was advanced research and development which is all that remains today.

The second was technology development which was run by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and that took the best ideas from Advanced Research and Development and moved them into a state where more engineering work could be done to move them toward production.

Third, there were experimental demonstration programs, and so today where we look at a $40 million budget, principally assigned to advanced research and development

Senator FOWLER. They're cutting that to 20.

Mr. LITTLE. They want to cut it to 20, yes, which is-I would just as soon not think about the number, but in 1982 it was like forty, forty and forty, advanced research and development, technology development and demonstration.

Senator FOWLER. RIGHT.

Mr. LITTLE. And this PV-USA is a good example of what belongs in the demonstration part of the DOE budget. That kind of thing should be restructured and re-initiated.

Senator FOWLER. Anybody else want to make a comment before Mr. Cooper asks some questions?

Mr. COOPER. Can you give us some specifics as to how you want to concentrate federal effort at nearer the market end than the research end? That seems to be what everyone is saying here, that you were glad to have the long-term, high-risk research support but that something else is needed.

We are going to try and respond to that in Congress. What are you going to have us do?

Mr. LITTLE. Let me just try to say what I said before, a little more clearly. Advanced research and development is fine, but now we need to go into technology development which is to demonstrate manufacturability of these very small, in some cases square centimeter results through the development of new machines, higher throughput machines, more efficient machines and processes.

Third, we then need to go forward with some experiments on systems to show that indeed they do perform to our expectations.

Mr. COOPER. You are really looking for the Congress, then, to give some direction to the Department to have some emphasis in this area, as well as to provide more funds, because I get the strong feeling that twenty million is a disaster level for the program?

Mr. LITTLE. In photovoltaics, $20 million is a disaster number and I think it would probably really put the country out of the photovoltaics business if it were to go forward at $20 million.

Mr. COOPER. Well, this is an authorizing committee here so our role is not, of course, to give you the money. That's the Appropriations Committee that does that. But it would be very helpful to us if each of you could perhaps set some of your thoughts to paper on

how we might cast in language, direction to the Department to do what it is you think is needed to assist both in the domestic markets and in export markets.

Mr. SHERWIN. I would like to comment one step further on that. One of the things we would have liked to have seen in the Energy budget or plans, which we did not request-by the way, we asked for a level of funding this year at $16.75 million which again is an absolute minimum number.

I share Mr. Little's opinion, for an industry that has a potential of billions of dollars it's not much of an investment. But what we would like to see, we have some very fine American designs that are almost there, and then the tax credit, you know, just wiped the companies out. I happen to be a major stockholder in one of those companies that is in Chapter 11, primarily because of the loss of quick market opportunity.

What we need there is some funds which we have been told are not possible through current DOE funding, to finish the minor things that will make these machines work day in and day out. We have got the hours on them now. We know the parts of them that work well. We know that we have got the finest air foils, the finest aerodynamics in the business.

We know that we have the best materials work in the business. We know we have the best electrical components work in the business. And we can build a machine that will put 60 kilowatts out at 20 percent of the weight of a Danish design.

Maybe we need to add five percent of the weight to make it hold up. Maybe we need to change the airfoils. We are that close, and then as I point out, our industry being as undercapitalized as it is, the companies could not withstand any aberration in the marketplace and continue doing that R&D, and that is really where we are at.

If I were in a position to write a bill, I would write cost-year contracts or grant or something to these companies which have demonstrated a technical ability to make something work, to get them into the marketplace on some sort of basis that's rational, and we were that close.

When you see, you know, $68 million or $63 million going to a machine-or a company like Boeing who have decided they're not going to be in the business, with that amount of money divided up among the rest of the industry, everybody would still be in business. By the way, we are in favor of finishing the Boeing project. We're so close. You know, it's now in a position to give us some information.

I guess my point is, the way the funds have been allocated, they really haven't gone to the near-term market potential of hardware and we are losing our ability to compete worldwide.

I may point out, the countries that are interested in taking our position are people like Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, India, in addition to the Danes, the Dutch, the British, the Swedes and the West Germans. So, if we don't get moving and capitalize on all this expertise which we have in this country, we are going to lose and we are going to lose significantly and we already have a power plant of the size of Diablo Canyon that's working at a lot less money and about one-third the time.

Senator FOWLER. Since the competitiveness factor in policy decisions, is the only thing that the administration seems to pay attention to, we need to find a way to flesh that out. We need to specifically recommend ways that we can attract the capital, not from direct government participation, if possible.

We solicit any additional views. We lost the tax credits. It was on the Ways and Means Committee. The reality is, that those aren't going to come back in the next two years.

Mr. SHERWIN. We are willing to accept that.

Senator FOWLER. I wish I knew a way to do it, but we have to accept the reality. We have to move on from there and find a way to continue to progress.

Anything else?

Mr. SHERWIN. I would like to make one minor correction. I am from the Republic of Vermont, not Connecticut.

Senator FOWLER. Thank you. I will allow that correction.

Thank you very much for coming. We all share the same goals, and your work, comments, and statements will be helpful as we continue to work on these issues.

Mr. SHERWIN. We will provide you with some language, and also a statement on how we think our industry can be more competitive.

Senator FOWLER. It will be very helpful.

We will recess these hearings until Thursday at 2:30. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene Thursday, March 26, 1987.]

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1987

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Wyche Fowler, Jr., presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WYCHE FOWLER, JR., A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Senator FOWLER. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you to our second subcommittee hearing on renewable energy policy.

Once again we have a distinguished witness list. The staff and I have read the prepared statements. They are uniformly excellent, and they will be made a part of the record of this hearing. I think it is going to be a very fine record.

For purposes of this afternoon, I do want to request each of the witnesses to please summarize their testimony. It will help us proceed directly to the discussion in the hour or so that we have allotted for this afternoon.

The aim of these hearings is to determine how best to influence the DOE renewable energy and energy conservation research and development program. We want to influence the program so that cost-effective technologies become available sooner rather than later.

We heard at our first hearing that the DOE's emphasis on longrange, high-risk research may not be the best approach, given that we want these technology options to be available when they might be needed in the 1990s.

In today's discussion, I'd like to hear how we might redirect DOE's program to advance good cost-effective options.

Do we just need more money? Do we need a different emphasis for the research, more research on manufacturing methods, for example? Do we need more demonstrations? Do we need to pick some technologies that will receive more support than others? If so, how do we pick them? What criteria do we use?

And finally, this is your chance to play Congressman. If you were attempting to write a bill and put your recommendations into effect, what specifically would your legislation include?

If you can help us with these questions, you will be helping us a lot. More importantly you will be helping the prospects for these technologies.

(101)