Images de page
PDF
ePub

2

resource (renewables). These analyses have resulted in the publication, beginning in 1984, of multiyear research and development plans, identifying critical research needs and the proper role of Federal activities. The process is by its nature a continuing one and the level of participation by interested parties outside of DOE has been increasing and will continue to do so.

As an example of the effort to expand participation in the planning process, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences held a symposium on the conservation multiyear plan, at the request of the Department. The two day meeting in December, 1985, included participants from academia, industry, professional societies, Congressional committee staffs and the Congressional Research Service, the Energy Research Advisory Board, the national laboratories, and several foreign countries, including the Commission of the European Communities. The formal report is not yet available, but the comments given at the symposium were highly favorable to the plan.

In 1986, CE will place greater emphasis on involving the national laboratories in task force reviews to determine overall priorities in national laboratory activities.

The

The issue of how best to transfer the results of Federal research has been addressed at the level of the individual technology programs. The great bulk of information generated by CE research is highly technical, due to the emphasis on basic and early applied research. audience for this information is generally other researchers in national, university, and industry laboratories. Therefore, the most appropriate means for transferring most of the information is through targeted program reviews, seminars, professional conferences, and publications. Some information is useful for a wider audience or the general public and the Department uses a variety of dissemination techniques, including the National Appropriate Technology Assistance Service, the Conservation and Renewable Energy Information and Referral Service, the Technology Information Center, and energy information offices in the States and Territories.

CE is maintaining its emphasis on effective technology transfer through the research program offices and views the entire research and development process as an integrated whole, requiring the involvement of all private and public sector participants from the earliest planning to the final transfer of Government funded research results. In 1985, a technology applications division was established to coordinate and focus the technology transfer efforts that are already part of every research program in CE. In addition, we are placing more emphasis on technical assistance and technology transfer in our state and local assistance programs.

There have been activities in several of the other areas of concern to Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins recommends encouragement of private efforts in low-income weatherization. We have recently initiated a 5-state pilot project to assess the capability of states to stimulate private and non-Federal support of low-income residential retrofitting. An innovative financing initiative was undertaken in response to the need

3

to develop ways of supplementing Federal weatherization funds. Models demonstrating shared savings, bank participation, and energy services company business development are being concluded. New models testing hybrids of these initial shared savings approaches are underway.

CE will continue to expand the opportunities for participation in the research planning process. The reviews of the National Academy of Sciences and the Energy Research Advisory Board will be continued.

CE will continue emphasis on maximum interaction with industry in both planning research and applying results, including investigating novel cooperative venture possibilities to help leverage available resources and assure the utility of research programs, and will remain alert for opportunities to transfer useful information to new audiences, such as least-cost planning for the utility industry.

Senator FORD. I am hoping that your budget will not fly, but what has happened in the last 5 years, and I say this with all due respect, is that I have had them sit at that table and say whatever you put on the budget, whatever you add to it, we are not going to spend it. Whatever you do to the budget, if it does not agree with ours we are not going to spend it.

So I think you are good to your word. I do not doubt that at all. You have deferred everything that Congress thought was appropriate, and so if they add it on you are not going to spend it. That is even tougher than when I was Governor. [Laughter.]

Senator FORD. Mr. Bauer, you said on page 1 of your statement:

But perhaps most importantly, by reflecting this Administration's commitment to fiscal restraint, the fiscal year 1987 Fossil Energy budget request will do its fair share in helping to bring Federal spending under control and removing the last remaining obstacle to a future of continued economic growth.

I just wondered how you could make a statement like that when the total DOE departmental budget request is in excess of 1986 appropriations.

Mr. BAUER. Senator Ford, in taking a look at the fossil energy R&D budget by itself for just a moment, and yes, I recognize that there are deferrals in there.

Senator FORD. It is down 73 percent. Somebody else is getting all that you are giving up and then some.

Mr. BAUER. Fossil energy's budget authority last year was $342.9 million.

Senator FORD. Seventy-three percent.

Mr. BAUER. That is about right. But when we look at the technologies that we are pursuing and the current status of some of those technologies and also efforts that are currently being completed, what we did was attempt to properly balance the fossil energy budget.

For example, in fiscal year 1987 we have met the commitments on TVA. We have made the final payment on kilngas. There are some technologies that we believe, need additional technology development work that needs to be done and yet it is very expensive and long term. MHD is considered technically OK but unaffordable at these times.

Also, on fuel cells, we are proceeding along on the 11 megawatt configuration A with UTC on prior year funds. There were some fiscal year 1985 funds that we are using to develop configuration B. For the record, Mr. Chairman, two of the deferrals are now rescissions. One of those is the 7.5 megawatt fuel cell with Westinghouse. There is competition on some of the other fuel cells. We are reaching a point on internal reforming versus external reforming and proposing to go competitive on those two technologies.

There are other technologies where we believe that sufficient data exists. Take Wilsonville, the pilot plant where we do direct liquefaction research. We have tested three coals at all different kinds of temperatures and pressures and recently, we had a very good-I think it was a 30- or 40-day run in the closed couple mode. We are getting more distillate per pound of coal than we did out of our previous direct liquefaction processes that we worked on.

So we believe there is sufficient data there for the marketplace to make a decision. We have gone through and looked at those technologies and also taken a look at what we are doing on the acid rain-related research for which we are getting significant cost sharing. There are a lot of good technology programs there.

But for those that Congress added, those ongoing programs are continuing until the date, as Ms. Fitzpatrick mentioned, from the date of the submission of the budget to March 20, and we have not taken any precipitous action.

Senator FORD. Well, Senator McClure, who is chairman of this committee, and Senator Byrd signed a letter to DOE asking them not to put the deferrals into place until Congress has a chance to act.

Do you think DOE will accede to this congressional request? I believe you had Representative Yates and another Congressman who both requested that you defer it.

Mr. BAUER. Senator Ford, I believe the letter has come back up from the Secretary saying that he will revisit it upon good indication from Congress and that there will be a positive action on the deferrals.

Senator FORD. Which way? [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things I would like to ask about, Great Plains, and naval petroleum reserve. One last question, and I appreciate the time you have given me.

Mr. Bauer, last year you requested $242.7 million in program authority for fossil energy. Your budget submission last year said, and I quote, "The Department's fossil energy program is geared toward establishing an adequate scientific and engineering knowledge base to support private sector efforts to develop and deploy these technologies. The proposed 1986 budget is a balanced budget which addresses these needs and focuses on long-term, high risk research and development activities which might not otherwise attract sufficient private sector investment."

This year you are requesting a 40-percent cut from what you said last year was necessary for an adequate scientific and engineering knowledge base. Logically, if as you said in your 1987 budget request for fossil is its fair share, it nevertheless must be inadequate then to sustain the knowledge base. Am I right on that?

Mr. BAUER. You are correct, Senator Ford.

Senator FORD. I am through, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator Ford. Senator Evans. Senator EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow through on some of the concerns and questions about deferrals, and I am not sure whether we are getting into budgetary rather than program matters, and I am not sure that these questions should be addressed to either of you as much as to our chairman, but let me see if I can give it a try, and I will end up understanding a little better.

Do you have your budget person from the Department with you? Mr. BAUER. I do not.

Miss FITZPATRICK. No, sir.

Senator EVANS. Fortunately for him. [Laughter.]
Ms. FITZPATRICK. It is a lady, Senator.

Mr. BAUER. It is a lady.

Senator EVANS. Even more fortunate for her.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask you a question.

Senator DOMENICI. She is busy deferring. [Laughter]

Senator EVANS. That is what I wanted to ask about. It is my understanding that deferrals, unless they are for multiyear obligations, are deferrals that are for a specified period of time within a fiscal year but ultimately the money should be released so it can be spent out at an adequate rate before the end of that fiscal year. Is that essentially correct?

Senator DOMENICI. Frankly, I regret to tell you that I do not know.

Senator EVANS. Well, I went back to try and do some-now I guess the real question is: What is a deferral? Is a deferral just an opportunity? Maybe I should ask the Department or Secretary Fitzpatrick.

In your view, is a deferral just a decision not to spend? Or is it a decision to defer for a short period of time to associate spend-out rates with the number of months left in the fiscal year?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Senator, I do not want to be in a position of knowing more than the chairman knows. [Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. Frankly, I think the word "deferral" only refers to the statute which contemplated "some further" action; consequently, they were deferred for a period of time until the action was taken. The action that was expected was action by the Congress.

But it appears to me that with the Chadha case that it is effectively an elimination of the program unless you can get both Houses of Congress to overturn the deferral in a joint-type resolution which would be signed by the President and thus become law. So it effectively eliminates the program for the year, because there is no way that that can be done.

I would assume maybe you might if you had an appropriation bill running through here which had some leverage in it, you might overturn after deferrals and give the President aid for Nicaragua or something, and then he would sign it, and it would effectively overturn in a temporary nature, but I assume everyone is acting as if they are completed because there is no way, short of concurrence with the White House or putting it in some bill that they will sign. It is going to effectively turn into a rescission as if the rescission was effective.

Now if some of the staff thinks to the contrary they can tell me, but I think that is what it is.

Senator EVANS. That is my concern.

Senator DOMENICI. They do not expect to have it back on board from what I understand. Is that about right? You are assuming it is gone, the deferred items, are you not?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator EVANS. So for all practical purposes, the only difference between a deferral and a rescission as far as the Department is concerned is that one requires congressional approval and the other one does not. Is that essentially correct?

Miss FITZPATRICK. That seems to be the practical effect, yes. Senator EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I think if that course is broken down, we had better fix it up-

64-415 O- 86 - 4

« PrécédentContinuer »