-3

mechanism for selection of research and instrumentation proposals for largescale centers and facilities. The Conference Report on HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations (H. Rpt.99-363) endorsed such a principle. It is hoped that this Subcommittee will issue a similar statement of support.

In summary, the ACS supports restoration of the Fossil Energy budget to its FY 1986 level. The importance of coal to our energy needs dictates that priority be given to long-range coal research within the Fossil Energy program. The Society believes the costs of our recommendations are minimal compared to the many potential benefits to be derived in helping to insure a stable, long-range energy supply in the U.S. and in reducing our vulnerability

to the uncertainties of foreign oil supplies.

APPENDIX I

Long-Range Coal Research Programs

[Programs under Advanced Research and Technology Development(a)]
(Dollars in Thousands)

a.

Until 1986, Coal Liquefaction Advanced Research and Surface Coal Gasification Advanced Research were funded under Advanced Research and Technology Development as the Processes subprogram.

b. Enacted budget, after 4.3% reduction due to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction legislation.

Source: Budget Justification Books for the Department of Energy.

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Includes funds for the Department of the Interior programs, 1971-76, transferred to DOE in 1977.

Sources:

The budget figures for 1971-81 are from the National Science Foundation "Federal R&D Funding for Energy: Fiscal Years 1971-84" (NSF 83-301). The 1982-87 budget figures are from the Department of Energy. The figures do not include construction, capital equipment, and program direction. The 1986 and 1987 budget figures do not include funds in the Clean Coal Technology program that was mandated by Congress.

Senator EVANS. George Lawrence.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION

Mr. GEORGE LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the spirit of Gramm-Rudman and fiscal prudence, we too have scaled back our presentation for gas-related research by some 22 percent. It is still only a very small fraction of electric-related research which the Department of Energy pursues. Let me say that basically we are in full accord with the priorities that Mr. Webb has outlined for GRI for the gas-related research.

I would like to use my couple of minutes here today to emphasize the importance of it with particular reference at this moment, and to also express our appreciation to this committee for the fact that it has in the past recognized the contribution of gas-related research. In fiscal year 1986 it doubled the Department of Energy requests, and I am afraid the way they have cut it back so far this time we are asking you again to do the same.

But as my fellow panelists have all emphasized, there is an increasing concern now on greater reliance on energy. Your sister committees within recent days have heard some very serious testimony on the impact on our domestic exploration industry, and that might lead back very quickly to an increased reliance on OPEC and imported oil.

Your committees have also heard the growing environmental concern that we faced as we debated the acid rain issue and other air pollution problems. I think here is where gas-related research in both of these areas has such a tremendous contribution to make. We are talking about our largest source of domestic energy that is produced in this country today, natural gas.

It is 95 percent domestic. The other 5 percent we have comes from tremendous supplies from our neighbor to the north, Canada. We have a resource base of some 50 year supply in the conventional area, some 200 year supply in the area of what we call nearterm new technology, tight formations, Devonian shale, free methane and coal seams, et cetera, where production is already underway converting these from new technology sources into conventional sources.

Then when we get into some of the longer-term technologies that also have been mentioned, the geopressure, hydro, methane, et cetera, we are talking about truly inexhaustible supplies of energy. This is why I think the point Mr. Webb mentioned of the increased focus on the geosciences is so very, very timely at the moment. The Department of Energy has in its budget its basic energy sciences, a significant amount but very little of that is devoted to geology and the chemical sciences, and the geophysical sciences and the geochemical sciences.

This $35 million could be particularly relevant at the moment because it does really offer the prospect of a truly inexhaustible supply of clean domestic energy. If we do get that breakthrough, I would emphasize, too, that we could use it immediately. We have a delivery system in place. It is the most environmentally benign energy efficient in all 50 states; it goes everywhere. It is underuti

lized today. It can be readily expanded and is a strong plus for commercializing immediately whatever research breakthroughs occur on the supply side.

The other part of the gas-related research of course is on more efficient equipment and applications. Those have been mentioned, the fuel cell, the heat pump, coal generation, new combustion technologies, all of which can make a significant contribution.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say again we appreciate this subcommittee's response to gas-related research needs of the past, and we think it has never been more relevant than now and for the future.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. George Lawrence follows:]