The Honorable Pete V. Domenici -2 April 9, 1986 Answer: I do not believe that the Clean Coal Technology Program offsets the drop in coal research within DOE's fossil energy budget. The Clean Coal Technology Program supports the final stages in process development and is designed to test the economic feasibility of coal cleaning processes for which the basic research had long ago been completed. This program is an aid to industry in bringing new coal cleaning technology to commercial operation. It is at the opposite end of the R&D spectrum from research and will provide no support for research, either fundamental or applied. d) Question: How do you envision the "merit-based peer review process" to Function? Who would be involved in this process? How would the "members" be selected? Are there any similar examples of this concept in other federally-sponsored research areas? Answer: I believe merit-based peer review operates well in NSF, NIH, and in much of DOE. With NSF, proposals for support of research usually are evaluated by five scientists, who are selected by an NSF project officer. The NSF project officer typically uses these scientists' evaluation of the scientific merit of the proposed work as a guide in making an award of federal funds. The NIH normally convenes a committee, whose members are selected by NIH, to evaluate and rank a large group of proposals. The DOE system is similar to that of NIH. DOE staff assembles a panel of scientists, who are judged to be expert in the research being evaluated. This panel then ranks the research proposals in order of scientific merit using criteria specified by DOE. I do not believe peer review should supplant or replace consideration of political issues and the will of the Congress, but should be an integral part of the selection process based on Congressional guidelines. However, I do believe that peer review should always be part of the process, since it appears to be the best way we have of ensuring the highest possible scientific quality. In operation, I foresee that a research funding process involving meritbased peer review might function as follows: Congress decides that research on sulfur removal from coal should be studied and appropriates funds for this in the DOE budget. DOE would then issue a Request for Proposals in conformity with the Congressional guidelines. The proposals submitted would receive a preliminary screening by DOE to ensure conformity with the RFP. This would be followed by an evaluation of the scientific quality of the proposed research by a panel of experts assembled by DOE. Taking all factors into account, including scientific merit, DOE would then select the organization(s) to receive the award and execute the necessary contract(s). I hope these comments are helpful. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Yours truly, John Larsen John W. Larsen, Chairman APPENDIX II Additional Material Submitted for the Record PMAA Statement of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America Before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. Senate Advocating a Conservation R&D Program for Home Heating Oil March 17, 1986 MEMBERS OF THE PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA The Petroleum Marketers Association of America represents the independent petroleum marketers who are members of these state and regional trade associations: Alabama Oilmen's Association Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Inc. California Independent Oil Marketers Association Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association Georgia Oilmen's Association Idaho Oil Marketers Association Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association Indiana Oil Marketers Association, Inc. Kansas Oil Marketers Association Kentucky Petroleum Marketers Association Louisiana Oil Marketers Association Michigan Petroleum Association Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association, Inc. Mississippi Petroleum Marketers Association Missouri Oil Jobbers Association Montana Chapter, Western Petroleum Marketers Association Independent Oilmen's Association of New England Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey New Mexico Petroleum Marketers Association Empire State Petroleum Association North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association Ohio Petroleum Marketers Association Oklahoma Oil Marketers Association Oregon Petroleum Marketers Association Pennsylvania Petroleum Association, Inc. South Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association Texas Oil Marketers Association Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association Washington Petroleum Marketers Association Western Petroleum Marketers Association West Virginia Petroleum Marketers Association Oil Jobbers of Wisconsin, Inc. Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association The Petroleum Marketers Association of America is located at 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1130, Washington, D.C. 20005. Telephone (202) 331-1198. Statement of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America Before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Conservation R&D Program for Home Heating Oil PMAA very much appreciates the opportunity to describe its concern over the proposed lack of funding for oil heat R&D in the Department of Energy's budget request for Fiscal Year 1987. PMAA is a national federation of 41 state and regional trade associations representing 11,000 independent marketers of petroleum products, equipment and service. While almost all of these marketers are small businessmen, collectively they sell over three quarters of the home heating oil and half of the gasoline consumed in America today. Example of R&D Benefits for Consumers PMAA believes that federal research has been very beneficial to consumers of oil heat. For example, the oil heat program that was started in 1978 at Brookhaven National Laboratory is one of the most successful stories in federal research history. With an R&D investment of only $5 million, Brookhaven demonstrated the success of the flame retention burner that has become the industry standard for new oil heating equipment. New flame retention equipment and retrofit devices for existing oil burning equipment are estimated to save consumers $1.5 billion through reduced oil usage by the end of the next decade. This amounts to one of the best cost/benefit ratios ever funded by DOE. Proposed Oil Heat R&D PMAA feels that there are several research projects that should be undertaken by DOE in FY87 that are equally as promising in terms of costs and benefits to 15 million oil heat taxpayers as the example just cited. These projects have been identified in a study being funded by DOE through Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Attached to this statement is a detailed description and proposed funding level for these projects, which are summarized on the fourth and last page of this statement. Briefly, a total funding level of $1.9 million is required in three areas of activity: -2 First, $1.05 million for efficiency advances equipment such as heat exchangers and venting systems on Second, $650,000 for advanced combustion and control, including pulsed combustion oil heating equipment Finally, $200,000 for technology transfer programs. Oil Heat Slice of the Budget Pie PMAA is aware of the Gramm-Rudman limitations on the budget, and supports efforts to reduce the deficit by reductions in federal spending. However, the pie chart on page 3 of DOE's Budget Highlights reveals Total Budget Resources of $19 Billion for DOE in FY87. The pie chart shows that the $.2 billion budget category of "Grants and Other" is barely visible as a 1% slice of the total budget pie, and that is over 100 times larger than PMAA's $1.9 million request for oil heat. This raises the question why taxpayer dollars are supporting DOE's multi-billion projects to produce electricity and natural gas from nuclear energy and coal, without any effort toward helping taxpayers as a user of oil heat. |