In this issue:
ENERGY HEATS UP ON THE HILL AS THE HOUSE MOVES ENERGY BILLS
With summer driving season on the cusp, the House passed H.R. 1229 this week by a vote of 263-163. The House also passed, by a vote of 243-179, legislation, HR 1231 the “Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act,” would open more acreage in the outer continental shelf for drilling as well as set a national goal for oil and gas production. The bill is the third in a series of measures aimed at increasing domestic energy production.
As reported in the May 9th, 2011 Edition of Capitol Update, the House also passed H.R. 1230, the "Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act,” last week. This week’s bill, entitled the “Putting the Gulf Back to Work” Act, is an attempt to re-open the Gulf Coast for oil exploration, putting an end to the moratorium following the oil spill in the Gulf last year.
U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Georgia) was one of the 235 Republicans who were joined by 28 Democrats to pass the bill. He issued the following statement after the successful passage of the bill through the House.
The successful passage of this bill comes on the heels of H.R. 1230, the “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act,” which passed May 5 by a 266-149 margin. There is a third bill expected to come to a vote in the House this week, H.R. 1231, which would lift the Gulf moratorium.
The fight over energy, particularly as gas prices increase for summer drivers, is becoming somewhat of an annual tradition for Congress. Lawmakers have used the recent decline in oil prices per barrel to argue that the tax breaks enjoyed by the industry should be reexamined and eliminated in light of the industry’s great financial success. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has echoed this sentiment, offering a broader measure that would also seek to eliminate the tax breaks. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Finance Committee, also held a hearing this week regarding a proposal he has to eliminate tax breaks for the five largest domestic oil and gas companies.
Also joining the growing call this week was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- unveiled a “Make it in America” initiative earlier this week that would seek to accomplish also this goal. It will be difficult for Congress to reach consensus before the start of the annual August recess.
To learn more about Sen. Baucus’ proposal please click here http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=096c59b5-68aa-4f8f-a101-8a1c528c3c0e
To learn more about Rep. Pelosi’s “Make it in America” initiative please click here http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press?id=2170
To read H.R. 1230, or H.R. 1229, and a summary of its provisions drafted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search by bill number.
Robert Rains handles public policy-related standards issues for ASME. He
can be reached at: rainsr@asme.org
MIT STUDY: "THE FUTURE OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE"
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative (MITEI) has released a new report entitled “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” a report which builds on its “2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report.” This study was conducted because of the continuing importance of nuclear power as a low-carbon option that could be deployed at a scale that is material for mitigating climate change risk, namely, global deployment at the Terawatt scale by mid-century.
The study’s authors describe their work as follows: “To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation concerns while maintaining its currently excellent safety and reliability record. In the relatively near term, important decisions may be taken with far reaching long-term implications about the evolution of the nuclear fuel cycle—what type of fuel is used, what types of reactors, what happens to irradiated fuel, and what method of disposal for long term nuclear wastes. This study aims to inform those decisions.”
Among the recommendations of the study are the following:
- Explore Implementation of the first mover program of incentives should be accelerated for the purposes of demonstrating the costs of building new nuclear power plants in the U.S. under current conditions and, with good performance, eliminating the financial risk premium.
For the next several decades, a once through fuel cycle using light water reactors (LWRs) is the preferred economic option for the U.S. and is likely to be the dominant feature of the nuclear energy system in the U.S. and elsewhere for much of this century.
- Planning for long term managed storage of spent nuclear fuel—for about a century—should be an integral part of nuclear fuel cycle design. While managed storage is believed to be safe for these periods, an R&D program should be devoted to confirm and extend the safe storage and transport period.
The study was completed before the Japanese disaster on March 11th.
Some observations about the U.S. domestic nuclear fleet are:
- Costs are likely to rise for currently operating and future nuclear power plants;
- The relicensing of forty year old nuclear plants for another twenty years of operation will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on the degree to which plants can meet new requirements;
- The entire spent fuel management system – on-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, geological disposal – is likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience; and,
- In line with many of our R&D recommendations, significant shifts in R&D plans could occur, with increased emphasis on: enhanced performance and life extension for existing LWRs; new materials for improved safety margins; dry cask storage life-extension; advanced technology for prevention or mitigation of severe accidents; and improved simulation of plant behavior under multiple unusual events.”
The full 258-page report is available at http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf
An eight-page executive summary is available at http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can
be reached at: rainsr@asme.org
NRC FEELS PRESSURE FROM BOTH SIDES IN NUCLEAR DEBATE
Some lawmakers have used the aftermath of the Japanese disaster to take the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and particularly Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, to task over decisions like the closing of the Yucca Mountain repository. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan selected three sites to study Yucca Mountain and locations in Texas and Washington, but two years later, Congress intervened. The so-called “Screw Nevada” bill named Yucca Mountain as the nation’s repository.
More fuel was added to the debate this week when it was revealed that a pending Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has concluded that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons. The Department of Energy (DOE) moved to pull its application to develop the site from NRC in 2010, but the commission's Atomic Safety Licensing Board later ruled that the government could not pull the application unless Congress directed otherwise.
Sen. Reid was reelected in his state amid a difficult year for his party nationwide in 2010. Proponents for Yucca Mountain have contended that the NRC is not permitted to close the repository, and that the DOE could not withdraw its application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC, without an act of Congress permitting it to do so. Others argue that the Obama Administration does not support the repository, and should be able to withdraw an application for it. Publicly, Chairman Jaczko has said that the initial decision was based on the idea that he should not have to review something that is no longer being supported.
This week, Chairman Jaczko also toured the Indian Point plant; the nuclear facility located about 30 miles outside of New York City. DOE appealed the board's decision to the full NRC panel, and the agency is in the process of making a recommendation on whether or not the government can pull its application. Under NRC procedures, the results of a vote are not made public until staff guidance is developed based on the votes and the commission passes a final order.
Since the Japanese disaster on March 11th, Chairman Jaczko has been invoking a rarely used status that allows for the transfer of certain commission decision making powers to himself, because of concerns that the tsunami spawned by the quake could hit the United States. Though that threat subsided within 48 hours, the emergency status continues, according to an email the NRC's Office of Congressional Affairs sent to a senior staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has questions regarding this authority, and why the Chairman Jaczko continues to exercise it.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has also recently asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to analyze how updated understanding of the risks of nuclear power, and the pull-back by private institutions from financing the industry, should then affect the U.S. government’s loan guarantee program.
The full text of Rep. Markey’s letter may be read at http://markey.house.gov/docs/05-06-11ombloanguarantee.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can
be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
'FRACKING' GAS TECHNOLOGY EXAMINED BY THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee sought to shed additional light on behalf of interested, and concerned, lawmakers of both the technical virtues of hydraulic fracturing technology and some of the possible concerns as the technology continues to unearth new reserves of natural gas.
Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) also took the opportunity to scold the Environmental Protection Agency’s Paul Anastas, who asked to testify not with the other witnesses but on a separate panel altogether. Anastas is the Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Research and Development.
Witnesses for this hearing, in addition to Anastas, were:
- Mrs. Elizabeth Ames Jones, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas;
- Dr. Robert M. Summers, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment;
- Mr. Harold Fitch, Michigan State Geologist; Director, Office of Geological Survey, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; and Board Member, Ground Water Protection Council;
- Dr. Cal Cooper, Worldwide Manager, Environmental Technologies, Greenhouse; Gas, and Hydraulic Fracturing, Apache Corporation; and
- Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor, University of Houston
Although Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) was supportive of technology to reduce foreign energy dependence generally, she also struck a cautious tone in her opening statement, reserving further judgment until a later date due to some possible concerns about the possibility of contaminating drinking water from the practice.
Hydraulic Fracturing is not regulated by the EPA, but by the states. EPA is currently conducting a study on hydraulic fracturing and related safety concerns. Although hydraulic fracturing has existed since the late 1940’s, but in recent years, new technology has unlocked shale gas that was not previously accessible, leading to a boom of new wells across the country. The process of hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting a liquid mixture of water, chemicals and sand underground to break up shale rock and release oil or natural gas, is exempt from the EPA's regulations for underground injection. The EPA is particularly concerned about the use of Diesel fuel in the process.
To view the hearing please click here http://science.house.gov/press-release/hearing-highlights-lack-objectivity-draft-epa-fracking-study
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at:
rainsr@asme.org
ENERGY ADVISORY BOARD'S NATURAL GAS SUBCOMMITTEE EXPANDED
This week, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu announced the expansion of the group of environmental, industry and state regulatory experts who will make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations. President Obama directed Secretary Chu to convene this group as part of the President's "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,” a comprehensive plan to reduce America's oil dependence, save consumers money, and make our country the leader in clean energy industries.
Three members of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board were appointed to a subcommittee on natural gas issues in January: former CIA Director John Deutch, who chairs the subcommittee; IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates Chairman Daniel Yergin; and, Susan Tierney, Chairwoman of the Board of the Energy Foundation. Joining them will be:
- Stephen Holditch, Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University;
- Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund;
- Kathleen McGinty, Former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; and,
- Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University.
The Subcommittee will work to identify, within 90 days of beginning its work, any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing. It will also develop, within six months of beginning their work, consensus recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment.
Additional biographical information on each of the subcommittee members is available at http://www.energy.gov/news/10309.htm
The 44-page “Blueprint” may be viewed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf
The charge to the Natural Gas Subcommittee may be viewed at http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/Fracking_subcommittee_charge.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at: rainsr@asme.org
NSF RELEASES 2012 – 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN
The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently released “Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016,” a document to guide the agency's priorities and investments for the next five years. The strategic plan sets the pathway for the agency's future, refining NSF's vision statement, refocusing its strategic goals and drawing upon new approaches and methods for assessing and evaluating the performance of NSF's investments in science and engineering research and education.
The new plan outlines three strategic goals that underpin all programs and activities during both the short term and over the long term: to transform the frontiers, innovate for society, and perform as a model organization. The first two goals align with the two merit criteria that NSF applies in evaluating every research proposal the agency receives--intellectual merit and broader impacts. The third strategic goal emphasizes the importance of operational excellence to achieving NSF's vision, and it encourages experimentation in business processes in order to make the agency more efficient and effective. The plan sets performance targets to measure progress in achieving the strategic goals, and it lays out near-, mid- and long-term actions for the agency to take.
The strategic plan also commits NSF to innovation and experimentation in the assessment process itself. For example, through the STAR METRICS project (Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment - Measuring the Effect of Research and Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science), NSF is working with other federal science agencies and with research institutions to improve the tracking of outcomes from investments in science and engineering research and education.
"We're living in a time when complex problems demand new approaches that bring together and energize innovative collaborations among scientists, engineers and educators from across disciplinary boundaries," NSF Director Subra Suresh noted. "This strategic plan encourages us to do exactly that while ensuring that we remain good stewards of taxpayers' dollars and help the public understand the value of the investments we make."
The strategic plan may be downloaded at http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/index.jsp?org=NSF
Melissa Carl handles public policy-related science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) issues for ASME. She can be reached at:
carlm@asme.org
SENATE STALLS WHILE HOUSE COMMITTEES ADVANCE SBIR/STTR LEGISLATION
With the conclusion of the House Committee on Small Business’s markup on Wednesday, May 11th, H.R. 1425, the ‘Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2011’ is one step closer to full consideration on the House Floor. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held its full committee mark-up for the legislation last week. H.R. 1425 authorizes the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) through FY 2014.
The current authorization for both programs is set to expire on May 31, 2011, leaving Congress little time to approve a bill. The House and Senate have failed to agree to a full SBIR/STTR reauthorization for the last 3 years, leaving the programs operating under short term extensions. A one-year extension effort is currently underway in the Senate following failure of a broader eight-year extension measure (S. 493).
Highlights of the House legislation include:
- Increase in award amounts for Phase I and Phase II to $150,000 and $1.0 million, respectively (up from $100,000 and $750,000).
- Provides for annual indexing of award sizes to account for inflation.
- Enables majority venture capital (VC) backed firms to compete for a limited percentage of SBIR awards. The Departments of Health and Human Services, Energy, and NSF are permitted to award up to 45 percent of SBIR funds to firms majority owned by VC companies; all other SBIR participating agencies are allowed up to 35 percent.
- Creates a commercialization pilot program and provides for increased use of funds for technology assistance.
Key differences in the House and Senate versions of this bill include the Senate bill’s (S. 493) increases in research agency budget set asides for SBIR/STTR. The Senate’s bill’s increases for SBIR/STTR have sparked concerns about whether increased funding for the programs would detract from federal science agencies’ regular research missions.
Additional differences between the House and Senate Bills came Wednesday, with the the House Small Business panel adopted more than a dozen amendments to the bill. Successful amendments included three proposals by Representative Mark Critz, (D-PA-12th), that direct participating research agencies to prioritize awards which research clean-coal technologies and the environmental impacts of acid mine drainage and hydraulic fracturing. The House bill also includes several amendments from the House Science Committee, including amendments directing research agencies to favor technologies which will be manufactured in the United States.
Paul Fakes handles public policy-related research and development (R&D) issues for ASME. He can be reached at: fakesp@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