In this issue:
ADVANCE YOUR CAREER AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE! APPLY FOR AN ASME FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FELLOWSHIP, INCLUDING A NEW OPPORTUNITY AT USAID!
ASME is currently accepting applications for participation in its Federal Government Fellowship Program through which ASME members provide engineering and technical expertise to policy-makers in Congress. Federal Fellows provide a valuable public service to the nation, while at the same time providing engineers with a unique opportunity to participate directly in the public policy making process.
This year, ASME is pleased to announce a Federal Government Fellowship opportunity with the USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the principal federal agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.
USAID is currently developing Grand Challenges for Development in rain-fed agriculture and off grid, renewable energy for agriculture. The Office of Science & Technology seeks a fellow who can help drive the development of these two challenges, ensure that the problem statement is scientifically valid and rooted in the most current data and information, and liaise with the necessary and appropriate parties – both within and outside of USAID. The Fellow will be expected to provide scientific, technical, and intellectual leadership, and analytical support contributing to the advancement of the Grand Challenges effort. The Fellow will serve as a liaison with internal and external partners, helping USAID enhance its network of development solution providers. The Fellow will also serve as an engineering adviser to the Director of the Office of Science & Technology.
ASME is also seeking persons interested in serving as a 2012-2013 Congressional Fellow, who would spend one year in Washington, D.C. working with the staff of a congressional committee, U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative. Congressional Fellowships are designed to demonstrate the value of engineering-government interaction, bring technical backgrounds and external perspectives to the decision making process in Congress and provide a unique public policy learning experience to the Fellow. Because of the limited number of Congressional Fellowships available, the process is very competitive. The following credentials are encouraged: at least five years of professional experience; an advanced engineering degree; professional engineer registration; and, some public policy experience.
All ASME Fellows will be awarded a stipend of $60,000 for the one year Fellowship. ASME Federal Fellows typically serve from September through August, but a January through December term is sometimes an option. Applications are accepted annually from December 1st through March 31st. All Fellows must be U.S. citizens and ASME members at the time of application.
To apply for an ASME Congressional Fellowship, fill out the online application at https://secure.asme.org/fedgovfellows/appform.cfm and provide the requested materials. The application deadline is March 31, 2012.
For additional information about the ASME Federal Government Fellowship Program, visit: http://www.asme.org/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/Programs/Federal_Government.cfm or contact Patti Jo Snyder, ASME Government Relations, at snyderp@asme.org.
SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ARPA-E
On January 24th, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing to review the efforts of the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), a Department of Energy (DOE) agency tasked with funding cutting-edge energy research.
“The legislation that authorized ARPA-E specifically directs funds to be spent in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.” Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Paul Broun (R-GA) noted in his opening remarks that ARPA-E’s mission and goals are “generally well supported on both sides of the aisle here in Congress, and for good reason – if the federal government is going to fund energy research it should not duplicate or crowd-out private sector investment.”
Discussion focused on a GAO report released to coincide with the oversight hearing entitled, “Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could Improve Its Collection of Information from Applications.” The report was conducted in response to a Congressional inquiry to examine: ARPA-E’s use of criteria and other considerations for making awards and the extent to which applicants identify and explain other private funding information; the extent to which ARPA-E-type projects could have been funded through the private sector; and, the extent to which ARPA-E coordinates with other DOE program offices to avoid duplicating efforts. Some members on the panel were quick to defend ARPA-E, and coaxed both the GAO and the IG to report that ARPA-E had already indicated that they were making internal changes based upon the GAO report.
Chairman Broun also drew a contrast between the ARPA-E program, which received $275 million in funding for the FY 2012 fiscal year but received a sizable budget increase, against the DOE Office of Science, which was funded at $4.84 billion for the current fiscal year but was essentially flat funded compared with the previous fiscal year. Chairman Broun suggested that he believed that ARPA-E was receiving funding that would otherwise go to support the DOE Office of Science.
The Chairman suggested that most ARPA-E-type projects could not be funded solely by private investors. This finding was based on interviews with representatives of venture capital firms and analysis of subsequent funding received by contingently selected APRA-E applicants, i.e., those applicants that met ARPA-E’s selection criteria but were not selected for an award.
However, an assessment of the GAO report prepared by the Subcommittee’s staff in preparation for the oversight hearing differed somewhat, concluding that:
- Numerous awardees indicated to GAO they would use ARPA-E funding to accelerate work they were already pursuing;
- Numerous awardees’ proposals overlap and even duplicate efforts supported elsewhere in DOE and other Federal agencies;
- The Administration touted ARPA-E awardees that received private sector funding after their ARPA-E award as proof that ARPA-E is working and successful; however, ten of these 11 recipients had also received significant private sector funding prior to receiving their award, raising questions regarding the degree to which the ARPA-E award itself was the driver of the follow-on funding;
- Of the 44 identified small- and medium-size companies that received ARPA-E awards, a review of USASpending.gov shows that 26, or 59 percent, of these companies received other funding from the Federal government; and,
- Over 60 percent of proposals funded by ARPA-E sought to advance technology to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 and beyond—the late stage technology demonstration and system commissioning and operation that is regularly supported by the private sector.
The full Staff Report is available as an attachment to Chairman Broun’s statement at: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/HHRG-112-SY21-WState-PBroun-GA-20120124_0.pdf
To view the archived webcast of the hearing, go to: http://science.house.gov/hearing/investigations-and-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-review-advanced-research-projects-agency, and click on the webcast icon.
To read a summary of the GAO report, go to: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-407T
The complete 11-page report may be viewed at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587878.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
NEW CRS REPORT: "EPA'S UTILITY MACT: WILL THE LIGHTS GO OUT?"
A report released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) earlier this month entitled “EPA’s Utility MACT: Will the Lights Go Out?,” analyzes the “Utility MACT” or the “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (MATS) finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month. The final standards seek to reduce mercury and other air toxics emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) by approximately 90 percent. The “Utility MACT” rule is among the most expensive rules ever promulgated by EPA, with the agency’s own estimate of an annualized cost of $9.6 billion in 2015. The benefits are also large, according to EPA, ranging from $37 billion to $90 billion annually. The benefits mostly reflect the monetized value of avoiding up to 11,000 premature deaths annually.
The rule’s costs will fall primarily on older coal-fired units that do not have state-of-the art pollution controls. EPA says that this is a minority of coal-fired plants and an even smaller share of all electric generation: the agency estimates that 56 percent of coal-fired units have already installed equipment that can be used to meet the standards. In addition, about 55 percent of the nation’s electricity supply comes from natural gas, nuclear, and renewable sources that are not subject to the rule’s requirements.
The report reviews industry data on planning reserve margins and potential retirement of units that do not currently meet the standards. Based on these data, it appears that, although the rule may lead to the retirement or derating of some facilities, almost all of the capacity reductions will occur in areas that have substantial reserve margins. Two areas that may have difficulty meeting reserve margins, Texas and New England, will experience few plant retirements and deratings, according to industry data. Furthermore, to address the reliability concerns expressed by industry, the final rule includes provisions aimed at providing additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution controls or add new capacity to ensure reliability in specific areas. As a result, the report concludes, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by the rule.
Another potential concern expressed by industry and policymakers, given the rule’s cost, is what impact it may have on the price of electricity. EPA estimates that the average price of electricity nationally will increase by 3.1 percent by 2015, as a result of the rule. However, given that electricity prices have declined more than 20 percent in real terms since1980, the report concludes that the impact of price changes would be relatively small compared to this downward trend and well within the normal range of historical price fluctuations.
To read the 16-page report, go to: http://www.supportcleanair.com/resources/studies/file/MATS-CRS-Jan.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related environmental issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
DOE ANNOUNCES GRANT PROGRAM TO DEVELOP DESIGNS FOR SMRS
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a draft Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), which will establish cost-shared agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the United States.
The draft FOA announced on January 20th solicits input from industry in advance of a full FOA, which will support a first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification and licensing through a cost-shared partnership. The full FOA will fund up to $452 million over five years for two SMR designs with the goal of deploying these reactors by 2022.
Small modular reactors, approximately one-third the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction and economic benefits. Specifically, they could be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. The small size also makes SMRs ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, providing utilities with the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.
In its FY 2012 budget, the Administration requested $95 million to support SMRs, while the final omnibus budget for the DOE appropriated almost $100 million to the reactor concepts. Given that this is a draft FOA, DOE is not requesting applications or proposals at this time. Rather, DOE is seeking input from industry and other interested parties.
The draft FOA is available on Grants.gov at: http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do;jsessionid=GppHPYTDgSv3Ndg3Dqt5xgQcYHjn1rYhJWDKBqQ6c1QC3NKTnhlQ!-1890905838?oppId=138813&mode=VIEW and under reference number DE-FOA-0000371. Interested parties are invited to submit any comments, questions, concerns or suggestions regarding the draft FOA for DOE’s consideration to isomla@id.doe.gov
The deadline for submission of draft FOA responses is February 17.
For more information on SMRs, please visit the Office of Nuclear Energy website: http://www.ne.doe.gov/
In September, ASME, in coordination with ten cosponsoring organizations, held a Congressional noontime briefing on small modular reactors that featured DOE Office of Nuclear Energy Director Pete Lyons. For more information, please see the September 12, 2011 Edition of Capitol Update.
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
NRC "RESEARCH STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF ENGINEERED NANOMATERIALS" NOW AVAILABLE
A new report by the National Research Council (NRC) sets out a conceptual framework for environmental, health, and safety research on nanomaterials, develops a research plan with short- and long-term research priorities, and estimates the resources needed to implement the plan. Despite substantial research, gaps remain in understanding the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks of nanomaterials used in an array of products including drug-delivery systems, cosmetics, and food additives. With the nanotechnology sector poised to expand rapidly, there could be greater exposure of workers, consumers, and the environment to nanomaterials. As a result, the NRC’s report found that there is a critical need for a research strategy to build knowledge of the unique properties of nanomaterials.
The report describes four broad, high-priority research categories, with some aspects that need to be addressed in the short term (within five years) and others that will evolve over longer terms. The research categories are: identify and quantify nanomaterials being released and the populations and environments being exposed; understand processes that affect both potential hazards and exposure; examine nanomaterial interactions in complex systems ranging from subcellular to ecosystems; and, support adaptive research and knowledge infrastructure for accelerating research progress and providing rapid feedback to advance research.
Other key findings include:
- There is a gap between research and associated activities funded and the level of activity that would foster greater progress toward the research priorities. Approximately $120 million per year over the next five years should remain for EHS research by federal agencies. Any reduction in the amount could be a setback to nanomaterials risk research.
- A modest infusion of additional resources garnered through public, private, and international initiatives could help build infrastructure that is critical for supporting progress toward the research goals.
- Mechanisms are needed to ensure the research strategy is implemented effectively, to evaluate research progress, and to refine the strategy as evidence is gathered.
- The structure of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which has only coordination and information-sharing roles across the federal agencies and no "top-down" budgetary or management authority to direct nanotechnology-related EHS research, hinders its accountability for effective implementation of the research strategy.
The 214-page report is available on-line at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13347 without charge.
Paul Fakes handles public policy-related research and development issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
fakesp@asme.org
BPC ENERGY PROJECT RELEASES CONSENSUS REPORT ON OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR U.S. SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Energy Project recently released a consensus report, “Shale Gas: New Opportunities, New Challenges,” on the implications of expanded U.S. shale natural gas production. The report is authored by the 20-member BPC Energy Project board that includes CEOs from the oil and gas industry, former top government officials from both parties, environmental group representatives and economists, among others. It articulates opportunities associated with newly accessible and economically recoverable domestic shale gas resources, and highlights the critical need to develop those resources efficiently and responsibly.
Key points from the report include:
- Natural gas prices declined approximately 37 percent from February 2008 to January 2010. In addition, recent forecasts by the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimate that the spot market price of natural gas will not exceed $5.00 per million Btu until 2020.
- The price of natural gas has decoupled from the price of crude oil for the first time in over 20 years and is projected to remain on this trajectory for decades to come.
- The natural gas supply could support as much as 100 years of domestic gas demand at present levels of consumption. Natural gas extraction from shale formations has exhibited rapid growth, and currently comprises approximately one quarter of total U.S. natural gas production.
- Capturing the benefits of shale gas requires prudent and responsible development that engenders public confidence and mitigates community impacts.
- Concerns persist about the potential for fracturing fluids or methane gas to migrate into drinking water if wellbore integrity is not assured, or if proper surface handling procedures are not followed. In addition, impacts on water resources in water-constrained areas must be addressed.
- The average shale gas well requires about three to five million gallons of water for both drilling and hydraulic fracturing—significantly less than coal production. On a life-cycle basis, natural gas-fired electric power generation uses less water than coal or nuclear generation.
- Air emissions and methane leakage are also issues that must be addressed for responsible production.
- The National Petroleum Council (NPC) and the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board (SEAB) studies make valuable recommendations regarding environmental performance issues, including: sharing best practices, transparency and disclosure, air emissions, groundwater protection, and regulatory resources.
The full 26-page report is available at: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Shale%20Gas%20Paper.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
EIA ISSUES AEO2012 EARLY RELEASE REFERENCE CASE
On January 23, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) issued the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2012) Early Release Reference case, which provides updated projections for U.S. energy markets through 2035. The Early Release Overview specifically highlights the Reference case, which assumes no changes in current laws and regulations, thus serving as a starting point for analysis of potential policy changes or technology breakthroughs.
Key findings of the AEO2012 include the following:
- Domestic crude oil production is expected to grow by more than 20 percent over the coming decade;
- With modest economic growth, increased efficiency, growing domestic production, and continued adoption of nonpetroleum liquids, net petroleum imports make up a smaller share of total liquids consumption;
- U.S. production of natural gas is expected to exceed consumption early in the next decade; and,
- Use of renewable fuels and natural gas for electric power generation rises;
- Total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions remain below their 2005 level through 2035.
The 13-page AEO2012 is available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2012).pdf
The complete AEO2012, to be released on April 26, will include many alternative cases in recognition of the uncertainty inherent in making projections about energy markets, which in part arises from assumptions about policies and other market drivers such as trends in prices and economic growth.
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
THE ARTICLES CONTAINED IN CAPITOL UPDATE ARE NOT POSITIONS OF ASME OR ANY OF
ITS SUB-ENTITIES, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED AS SUCH. THIS PUBLICATION IS DESIGNED
TO INFORM ASME MEMBERS ABOUT ISSUES OF CONCERN BEING DEBATED AND DISCUSSED IN
THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, IN THE STATES, AND IN THE FEDERAL AGENCIES.
ASME Government Relations
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 906
Washington, DC 20036