« PrécédentContinuer »
But nonething that th
FUEL CELLS Senator DOMENICI. On another subject, you also seemed to be rather enthusiastic, from what you have said and testified in the past, about the Fuel Cell Program on Transportation. But your budget request, nonetheless, has reduced all fuel cell programs drastically. I am concerned that when we add some money for a program like that you seem to be able to get by without having to spend it and without very much justification.
If you want me to be a little more specific, I guess I would just like to know, under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, where that is defined as a project; program, or activity, how could an entire program like the fuel cells for $34 million be wiped out? Do you have any idea?
Miss FITZPATRICK. Senator, I think that is an Office of Fossil Energy Program at that level, because the Office of Renewable Energy has never had a fuel cells program of that amount. So I could get you that information, though I can't comment on it myself.
Senator DOMENICI. Then you are only saying that that doesn't come within your particular authority? But nonetheless, the question seems to me to be somewhat relevant. How can you have an across-the-board 4.3-percent cut and then cut a program in its entirety to the tune of $34 million? Unless that was discretionary, it would seem to me that program would have to be about 30 times as large as $34 million in order to get $34 million off the program.
Could you find out how that happened?
Senator DOMENICI. I am not saying that within the Gramm-RudmanHollings project program and activity definition that that is not possible. It appears to me to be very, very unique, but it could be; it could be that within a program, all you had to do was cut 4.3 percent, and it might be that, the way it was appropriated, had a whole batch in as a program, and so you pick one. I think that is clearly permitted, if that is the case. But would you tell us about that, please?
Miss FITZPATRICK. I certainly will, Senator. [The information follows:) RATIONALE FOR MAJOR REDUCTION TO FUEL CELL FUNDING CONNECTION BETWEEN
THIS FUNDING RECOMMENDATION AND GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS In order to achieve the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reductions that are necessary to reduce the deficit, a 4.3-percent reduction for fiscal year 1986 was a first step. To meet the total Gramm-Rudman-Hollings target of $144 billion for fiscal year 1987, the Department proposed spending cuts in its fiscal year 1987 budget request, as well as deferred a majority of the congressional add-ons in the fiscal year 1986 appropriations bill which would also impact Federal expenditures in fiscal year 1987. The add-ons for fossil energy were deferred in order to reduce budget outlays in both fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 1987. These deferrals are to be used to offset fiscal year 1987 appropriation requirements.
Of the $35.4 million appropriated in fiscal year 1986 for the Fuel Cells Program, the Department has deferred $11.6 million, including $6.8 million for phosphoric acid systems, $3.8 million for molten carbonate systems, and $1.0 million for advanced concepts. In addition, $9.3 million of phosphoric acid systems fiscal year 1986 appropriations for the 7.5 MW technology development is proposed for rescission instead of being deferred as previously reported. The majority of the deferrals and the rescission is related to phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC). In the PAFC Program, the Department is continuing development of the 11 MW stack configuration A with the International Fuel Cells Corp. (IFC) in fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 1987 utilizing existing funds. In addition, the competitive procurement for configuration B cell stack R&D will be funded using fiscal year 1985 unobligated funds. For the Molten Carbonate Program, the IFC contract for external reforming is funded to completion using fiscal year 1986 funding. The Energy Research Corp.'s direct fuel cell project is funded through the air rent contract period (Sept. 30, 1986) using fiscal year 1985 funds. In addition, a competitive procurement will be issued in late fiscal year 1986 to continue development of external and/or internal reforming molten carbonate stacks using fiscal year 1986 funds and technology development continued into fiscal year 1987 using fiscal year 1987 funds.
The Department believes PAFC technology has, as a result of technology developments and demonstrations, reached a maturity level such that the private sector can DOW continue the final development work and commercialization. As a result, the Department did not propose continuing PAFC development in fiscal year 1987 because of its mature state, but proposes to continue molten carbonate systems development and solid oxide research at a reduced level.
MAGNETIC FUSION Senator DOMENICI. For Mr. Trivelpiece, with reference to magnetic fusion-and maybe you answered this for the chairman. That program, in your recommendation, is down to $333 million. I understand that is from $365 million.
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes.
Senator DOMENICI. Will that $333 million maintain the effort in those very key technical areas so that we have an effective program, particularly in advanced fusion concept programs that you told us you intend to maintain?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I believe so. It is a difficult adjustment to have to make, but I believe we have made the adjustment in a way to preserve the correct elements in the program.
SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER Senator DOMENICI. On the SSC, which the chairman inquired of, again, if you discussed this with the chairman, I don't intend to duplicate the effort. But we have had some discussions in the past on interna. tional participation with the SSC.
Is it timely for you to at least bring the committee current on what the international possibilities for participation in the SSC are? Or is it too early for you to discuss it?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I would be glad to.
Of course, it is necessary to have something on the table to negotiate with, and until such time as the United States decides to proceed, there is a certain element of hypotheticalness to the whole thing. But I was in Japan a few weeks ago, and I met with one of the Japanese leaders of the High Energy Physics Program, and he informed me that the Japanese scientists in high energy physics have made a decision that if the United States were to proceed with the SSC, then that is the activity that they would like to find themselves joining with and participating
That doesn't put any money on the table, but it is certainly a step up, and that they have made a decision not to join with the Europeans in doing this.
I was also in Italy not too long back and was meeting with some of the representatives of the High Energy Physics Program there. I would think we might consider Italy as a potential partner in this area, too. The rest of Europe, I think, might be a little hard-pressed in that the Hera project Desy Lab is a very large commitment, and I think it is pretty much taking the resources of Germany and some other countries that are participating. Such is true in West Germany with the large electron-protron project. It is a very large commitment. For the foreseeable future, I can't imagine Europe, other than Italy, becoming heavily involved in this activity.
I think Japan is very promising, and I would be quite encouraged in their prospects of coming in if the United States decided to proceed.
Senator DOMENICI. In a nutshell, it is possible that a share of the costs that we have been hearing about for SSC may be borne by Japan and others if we proceed and if appropriate arrangements could be made to make their partial investment something that they saw as worthwhile, is that correct?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes; I think that is correct. It would be needed to be looked at in terms of the quid pro quo from their perspective and perhaps the use of assigning an interaction region to study the interactions. But until we are farther along, it is not possible to get into the specifics of the negotiations.
Senator DOMENICI. My last question on the SSC is: As I read about it and talked with people in my State, I was led to believe that many States and even subdivisions of States are involved in trying to qualify, and that there is some discussion in the air about locations offering local incentives of a monetary nature as part of their program.
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. You are correctly informed, Senator. (Laughter.]
Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask: I don't speak of the incentives of the type the chairman spoke of. That is part of the congressional activity, or even of that type that poor, little Senator Domenici might be talking about here. (Laughter.]
What I wanted to ask was whether or not the Department has made up its mind and has no criteria for siting that involves a bidding war between the locales as to how much local money they are going to put up. Does the Department have that?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. That is correct. We have not come to a position on that matter.
Senator DOMENICI. I don't know what the chairman thinks about it, but I think the four criteria involving actual monetary bidding by cities or States for that becomes part of it.
Surely, Congress ought to have something to say about that, wouldn't you think, Mr. Chairman? .
Chairman HATFIELD. I would think so, except I certainly wouldn't foreclose the possibility of free land, Federal Government land, that
vuld certainly nhat covers that is c
might be already available and titled to the Federal Government, such as in Oregon or New Mexico. (Laughter.]
Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, some locales are well beyond free land. I mean, you would think that Texas, which usually thinks big, is talking well beyond land. They are talking about land and millions of dollars they might make available to put up for a site.
I frankly believe it is not incumbent upon the administration to make that kind of a decision in isolation. We ought to surely have something to say about that.
From brief discussions with you, you told me in the past you don't have any such criteria, and if they are going to be developed, you would certainly furnish the ideas to Congress before you concluded in that regard, is that correct?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I think that is correct, Senator, yes.
PRICE-ANDERSON INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION Mr. Chairman, I had one other concern that Senator Johnston shared with me. I will be very quick with it.
It does have to do with a nonappropriations committee, the Energy Committee, upon which the chairman serves with Senator Johnston, myself, and Senator McClure.
We thought we ought to ask you to furnish this information which might be helpful to us as we work on Price-Anderson indemnification extension.
There are two bills that we have before us that would require:
That the Secretary determine if any nuclear incident covered by an agreement of indemnification involved gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of a DOE contractor, subcontractor, or supplier. The Secretary would be required to recover from such contractor to the extent that such negligence contributed to the incident
We understand that you have, or may have, some agreements of indemnification with subcontractors that are operating at the national labs and any of these contractors, may be universities or consortia of universities.
I wonder if you would be able to provide the subcommittee with any typical such agreements as they pertain to indemnification? Senator Johnston and Senator McClure thought we should see that language as we work through that bill. If you could do that, we would appreciate it.
Also, if you could tell us when you submit them, in the amendment that we will provide to you with the suggested language, if it would have any impact on future contracts between the Department and universities, I think we ought to know that before we finish the legislation; and what options can you identify to permit continued access to the resources available at universities?
We will submit that language to you with those questions. Could you answer that and give us some typical indemnification language, if you have some?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Certainly, I hope you are not expecting me to do that at the moment, because I don't know all that information in my head.
Senator DOMENICI. No; I don't believe we are back in markup for 10 days, so at your convenience.
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. We will be pleased to prepare the information and provide it to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Senator DOMENIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.