Witness
The Honorable Steven Chu
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

 

Committee Members
Jeff Bingaman, Chair (D-NM)
Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member (R-AK)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Daniel Coats (R-IN)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
James Risch (R-ID)

 

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources received testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on the fiscal year 2012 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on February 16, 2011.

 

Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) applauded President Obama on a DOE budget request that he called a “strong statement that energy is a priority for his administration” and explained that he thinks it was compiled with significant fiscal restraint. Despite being pleased with the increased investments in clean energy, Bingaman was concerned with the decrease in fossil fuels research, noting that advances must be made on technologies that make fossil fuels cleaner, such as carbon capture and natural gas development.

 

Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) questioned the need for an increased DOE budget in her opening statement. “I share the desire to promote clean energy technologies, but given the urgent need to make tough budget decisions we need to draw a distinction between the programs we want to fund and the programs we need to fund,” she explained.

 

Secretary Chu said that the country must “rev up the great American innovation machine” to meet President Obama’s challenge to out-innovate, out-compete and out-build the global competition. The President’s budget request would increase total DOE spending by 11.8 percent more than the level appropriated for FY 2010, to a total of $29.5 billion. According to Chu, the FY 2012 budget proposes to lead the global energy race by investing heavily in clean energy technologies and supporting groundbreaking science through increased funding for the Office of Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). In addition, $11.8 billion would be directed to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for nuclear security issues. These investments come at the expense of others, admitted Chu; funding would be reduced for the Fossil Energy program and the Hydrogen Technology program.

 

Chairman Bingaman asked Chu to describe the three new proposed Energy Innovation Hubs, which would double the current number of hubs. One hub would focus on battery technology research, another would look at ways to strengthen fossil fuel energy capacity and storage as a back up to alternative energies, and the third would study critical materials, such as rare earth elements (REEs), Chu explained.

 

A few members were concerned with the varying support the budget allocates to energy resources. Ranking Member Murkowski noted that the request proposes plenty of funding for wind, biofuels, solar and geothermal technologies, while money proposed for hydropower and nuclear would be decreased. “The Administration is clearly picking those winners and picking those losers,” she argued. Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) echoed this concern. Chu defended DOE’s decisions, saying that the department must differentiate between mature technologies and those just getting off the ground.

 

Several senators expressed their support for ARPA-E. Al Franken (D-MN) mentioned the House proposed continuing resolution that would drastically cut funding for the program. “It would be a very significant setback,” Chu acknowledged, adding that the program helps spur private sector growth when companies invest money given to them by the government at a ratio of four dollars invested to every one dollar of government support.

 

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) asked Chu what plans DOE has for securing sources of enriched uranium. “We also have the view that the U.S. should have in-country technology” to supply the mineral used for nuclear power and that such a supply is important to national security, Chu responded. Chu gave no specific plans for ensuring a uranium supply except that DOE is “focusing on the next generation of technologies” in enrichment.

 

Another topic mentioned a few times was technology related to clean coal and carbon capture. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) noted that the budget has a 26 percent decrease for clean coal investments. Chu recognized this but pointed out that DOE gave $4 billion to clean coal research and development from the 2009 Recovery Act. Chu later told Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report in 2009 on making liquid fuels by combining biomass and coal and that the prospect is promising.

 

Others thought the budget does not address certain concerns at hand. “We’ve got immediate problems in this country,” said Senator James Risch (R-ID), referring to rising gas prices and the effect the budget could have on them. Chu claimed that investments in alternatives to fossil fuel and energy efficiency could decrease the use and demand of oil in the U.S. and bring the price down. Senator Daniel Coats (R-IN) said that he does not agree with the budget increases and told Chu “it’s likely you’ll be called on to do more with less.”

 

Testimonies from the chair, Ranking Member and witness, as well as an archived webcast can be found at the committee web page.