In this issue:
FIRST PUBLIC DRAFT OF NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
The first public draft of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has been released, and is now available for review. For the first time, engineering design skills and content about the application and practice of science and technology have been included and integrated into the proposed standards. ASME has been supportive of this inclusion, and believes NGSS is a strong step forward to exposing K-12 students to engineering.
The recent NAEP science scores show that the U.S. has a long way to go to ensure all of our students have the science education they will need for college, careers and life. That is exactly why 26 states have come together to work to develop the NGSS—internationally-benchmarked and rigorous state science education standards. As part of that development process, there will be two public comment periods where all interested parties are invited to give feedback. The first comment period is taking place now with online comment open until June 1, and the second is slated to be in November.
The NGSS have been written as student performance expectations grouped by topics, and can be viewed in the topical groupings or individually. The draft performance expectations are composed of the three dimensions from the NRC's Framework for K–12 Science Education. These draft performance expectations describe what students should know and be able to do to demonstrate their understanding.
To review the draft standards, go to www.nextgenscience.org.
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) also has pdfs of the individual standards and other useful resources at the following website: http://www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/may2012draft.aspx
For more information about the NRC framework, please see the July 25, 2011 edition of Capitol Update.
If you would like to provide comments, click on any of the links that say "Go to the NGSS Survey” on the nextgenscience web site. Comments are due by June 1. Feedback collected during the comment period will be organized and shared with the leading states and writing team members. After the feedback is considered, a feedback report will be issued that will explain how feedback was handled and why.
Melissa Carl handles public policy-related science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) issues for ASME. She can be reached at: carlm@asme.org
SENATE COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON GOVERNMENT AND ENERGY INNOVATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) convened a hearing on May 22nd to discuss the report of the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) on the role of government in developing innovative energy technologies. The report, "Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government in Energy Innovation," was released in September 2011.
Witnesses included former Lockheed Martin CEO and former undersecretary of the Army Norman Augustine, who now leads the American Energy Innovation Council; Bloomberg New Energy Finance Head of Policy Analysis Ethan Zindler, who has produced reports on global investment trends in energy technology; and, Breakthrough Institute Director of Energy and Climate Policy Issues Jesse Jenkins, who supports the current subsidy structure for energy technologies.
Augustine sounded a familiar theme in his testimony that America was not devoting enough of its resources to basic scientific research and development in energy technology. Each panelist also reiterated to ENR that this research was vital to innovation, and that the private sector has continued to shift away from research and more into development. A recent report by the Brookings Institution, Breakthrough Institute and World Resources Institute estimated that federal spending on clean energy programs from 2009 to 2014 will total $150 billion, more than triple the amount spent from 2002 to 2008. But that figure will decline significantly after 2014, which could leave energy technology development in a state of peril.
In his opening statement, outgoing ENR Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) observed that the business leaders of the Council have a long record of commercial success building technology companies that compete in the global marketplace and they make a strong case in that report that, with the government as a partner, the United States can continue to lead in the clean energy sector. He went on to note that the only losers in the clean energy technology race will be those that fail to participate.
In his closing remarks, Augustine summed up the current state of energy innovation in the U.S. this way: “Finally, it would be inappropriate for me to miss this opportunity to address briefly the precarious position in which America’s overall innovation engine finds itself today…not just as it concerns energy needs but as it affects virtually all national issues. Our graduate schools of engineering now train mostly foreign engineers who increasingly say they will be returning home; our public primary and secondary schools are, on average, among the worst in the world; our great public research universities are challenged as never before by steep reductions in their funding; the consumer market is moving to the developing nations; our debt is so immense that it makes investment in the future particularly challenging; our corporate tax rates are now the highest in the world; our patent system is antiquated, as are our export controls and visa-granting systems; and U.S. corporations spend over twice as much on litigation as on research. This is not a formula for sustaining the success we have enjoyed in the past.”
To read Chairman Bingaman’s complete opening statement, please visit: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democratic-news?ID=7d6f4dc7-f220-452a-a797-123e1b599cba
The 44-page AEIC report may be downloaded at: http://americanenergyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/AEIC_Catalyzing_Ingenuity_2011.pdf
The written statements of each of the witnesses, as well as an archived webcast of the hearing, may be found at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=b2d17ed8-48db-44c6-965f-4a3840117200
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at: rainsr@asme.org.
JACZKO RESIGNS FROM NRC, MACFARLANE NOMINATED
On May 21st, Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko announced his intent to resign as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, effective upon the confirmation of his successor. In a prepared statement, Jaczko said “After an incredibly productive three years as Chairman, I have decided this is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum. This is the right time to pass along the public safety torch to a new chairman who will keep a strong focus on carrying out the vital mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”
Jaczko has served on the commission since 2005 and has been its chairman since 2009. Jaczko’s term doesn’t expire until June 2013. Given the election season, and the looming re-nomination of NRC Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki also on the docket, it will likely be months before either position is confirmed. A new report being released soon by the inspector general of the NRC likely played a factor in Jaczko’ s timing. Jaczko had been criticized by his fellow NRC Commissioners, and accused of cultivating a hostile working environment at the NRC, triggering the investigation.
Jaczko drew the ire of many Republican members of Congress when he decided not to review the Yucca Mountain repository license application that Energy Secretary Steven Chu withdrew from the NRC in 2009. This move alienated the Chairman from many members of Congress and praise from members of the Nevada Congressional delegation. Still, Jaczko was very active after the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, providing testimony all over Capitol Hill and sending delegations to Japan to learn more about the accident. Safety measures were a large focus of his work at the NRC, and the agency is currently creating new rules to ensure that U.S. reactors can better withstand natural disasters that could cut power to the facilities.
In late March, Jaczko was the lone dissenting vote for approving a license allowing construction and conditional operation of two new reactors at Scana Corp.’s Virgil C. Summer nuclear power plant in Fairfield County, S.C. Jaczko cited that he wanted the proposed plant to comply with all post-Fukushima safety standards before he would vote in favor. Before confirming Jaczko’s successor, however, the Senate will first need to find someone to fill the remainder of the chairman's current term which expires in June 2013 before finding a nominee for the full five-year term.
Just days after Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko announced his intention to resign upon the confirmation of his successor, President Obama announced that he would nominate Dr. Allison Macfarlane to become a Commissioner and the Chair, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Macfarlane played a key role in the development of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC), a report that ASME President Victoria A. Rockwell submitted comments to in October 2011. The main recommendation from the BRC was the creation of a Nuclear Waste Corporation tasked with identifying a new site for storage of nuclear spent fuel (Please see the November 7, 2011 Edition of Capitol Update for more information).
Macfarlane has been an associate professor of environmental science and policy since 2006 and is currently working at George Mason University. She was previously a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. It is unclear who will be nominated to become Chair of the NRC, or if Macfarlane’s nomination will move simultaneous to Kristine Svinicki’s, whose term expires next month and has been re-nominated.
To review ASME President Victoria A. Rockwell’s submitted comments on the BRC report, please visit: http://www.brc.gov/index.php?q=generalcomment/asme-comments-blue-ribbon-commission-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-future
Macfarlane’s bio is available at http://esp.gmu.edu/people/facultybios/macfarlane.html
Jaczko’s entire statement may be read at: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1214/ML12142A168.pdf
Robert Rains handles public policy-related energy issues for ASME. He can be reached at: rainsr@asme.org
HOUSE COMMITTEE ACTS ON DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
The House Appropriations Committee has approved its version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. In total, the bill provides $519.2 billion in non-war funding, an increase of $1.1 billion over the 2012 level and $3.1 billion above the President’s request. Consistent with the President’s request, the bill also contains $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for defense activities related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing total DOD appropriations to $607.7 billion.
Under the House bill, DOD’s Basic and Applied research accounts receive $2.1 billion (+0.2 percent) and $4.5 billion (-3.7 percent) respectively. ‘Advanced Technology Development’ received $5.5 billion (+2.2 percent). Combined, these ‘Science and Technology’ accounts, which represent the incubator for the next generation of defense technologies, would decline by roughly $200 million (-0.4 percent) from FY 2012 to a total of $12.2 billion for FY 2013. This total represents a $349 million (+2.8 percent) increase over the President’s request.
Overall, DOD’s Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RTD&E) accounts would receive a total of $70.2 billion, $2.4 billion (-2.5 percent) below last year’s level, but $576 million above the President’s request for FY 2013. The House Appropriations Committee notes that DOD’s broader RTD&E portfolio funds “continued research and development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46A tanker program, the P8-A Poseidon, the new Air Force bomber program, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Navy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, the Ohio class submarine replacement, the Army and Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Army Ground Combat Vehicle, the Israeli Cooperative Program, and other important development programs.”
No date has been announced yet for House floor consideration.
For text of the bill and report, please visit: http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BILLS-112HR-FC-AP-FY13-Defense.pdf
The House Appropriations Committee Report is available at: http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEFENSE-FY13-FULLCOMMITTEEREPORT.pdf
A summary is available on the House Appropriations Committee website at: http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=294116
Paul Fakes covers public policy-related research and development (R&D) issues for ASME. He can be reached at: fakesp@asme.org
NSF REPORT DETAILS FEDERAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT TO COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES AND NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS
Institutions of higher education, the major source of the nation's scientists and engineers, perform about one-half of the nation's basic research. Therefore, the level, distribution and characteristics of federal academic support are of much interest to officials at federal, state and local levels in non-governmental sectors.
This information is provided in a report released last week by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The "Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2008" provides the full set of detailed tables associated with the report "Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering to Universities and Colleges Show Little Growth," which was published earlier this year.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, requires that the Foundation "initiate and maintain a program for the determination of the total amount of money for scientific and engineering research, including money allocated for the construction of the facilities wherein such research is conducted, received by each educational institution and appropriate nonprofit organization in the United States, by grant, contract, or other arrangement from agencies of the federal government, and to report annually thereon to the President and the Congress."
To fulfill this requirement, the NSF uses the data collection system originally designed by the Committee on Academic Science and Engineering of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. NSF annually collects statistical data from the 19 federal agencies that account for virtually all support for science and engineering (S&E) research and development at educations institutions. Data are also collected on these agencies' obligations to nonprofit institutions.
Since its inception, this survey system has been the sole source of data on federal funding to individual institutions for S&E activities and therefore attracts a wide audience. These data provide information that enables users to examine patterns of support for individual institutions over time and to compare such patterns with those of other institutions.
To review the report, "Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2008", please visit: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf12316/
The report "Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering to Universities and Colleges Show Little Growth," can also be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf12306/
Paul Fakes covers public policy-related research and development (R&D) issues for ASME. He can be reached at: fakesp@asme.org
NEW LEADERSHIP TEAM ELECTED FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
At its May 2012 meeting, the National Science Board (NSB) elected Dan Arvizu as its new chairman, Kelvin Droegemeier as vice-chairman, and Carl Lineberger to serve on the NSB's Executive Committee.
Arvizu is director of the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo. He was appointed to the Board in 2004 by President George W. Bush and was renominated by President Barack Obama after his initial six-year term ended. During his first term on the Board, Arvizu chaired the Audit and Oversight Committee and co-chaired the NSB Task Force on Sustainable Energy. Arvizu has received numerous honors for his work. He was inducted into the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Awards Conference Hall of Fame in 2008 and was named the Hispanic Scientist of the year in 2010 by the Museum of Science and Industry in Tampa, FL. He has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from New Mexico State University and a Master of Science and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University.
Droegemeier is Vice President for Research, Regents' Professor of Meteorology, Weathernews Chair Emeritus, and Roger and Sherry Teigen Presidential Professor at the University of Oklahoma at Norman. Droegemeier's research involves the dynamics and predictability of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. He earned a B.S. degree in Meteorology from the University of Oklahoma, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The Board also elected W. Carl Lineberger to serve on its Executive Committee. Lineberger is the E.U. Condon Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Lineberger, appointed to the Board in 2011, currently serves on the National Research Council (NRC) Report Review Committee. Lineberger received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
For more detailed information on each of the three new NSB leaders, visit: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124253&org=NSF&from=news
Paul Fakes covers public policy-related research and development (R&D) issues for ASME. He can be reached at: fakesp@asme.org
GAO REPORT: OLDER POWER PLANTS GENERATE A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF EMISSIONS
In a report released on May 18th, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that older electricity generating units, i.e., those that began operating in or before 1978, provided 45 percent of electricity from fossil fuel units in 2010 but also produced a disproportionate share of emissions, both in aggregate and per unit of electricity generated. According to the report, in 2010 older units contributed 75 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 64 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, and 54 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel units. For each unit of electricity generated, older units collectively emitted about 3.6 times as much sulfur dioxide, 2.1 times as much nitrogen oxides, and 1.3 times as much carbon dioxide as newer units.
The report attributes the difference in emissions between older units and their newer counterparts to a number of factors:
- First, 93 percent of the electricity produced by older fossil fuel units in 2010 was generated by coal-fired units. Compared with natural gas units, coal-fired units produced over 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, twice as much carbon dioxide and over five times as much nitrogen oxides per unit of electricity, largely because coal contains more sulfur and carbon than natural gas.
- Second, fewer older units have installed emissions controls, which reduce emissions by limiting their formation or capturing them after they are formed. Among coal-fired units, which produce nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation, approximately 26 percent of older units used controls for sulfur dioxide, compared with 63 percent of newer units. Controls for nitrogen oxide emissions were more common among all types of fossil fuel units, but these controls vary widely in their effectiveness. Among older units, 14 percent had installed selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment, the type of control capable of reducing the greatest amount of nitrogen oxides emissions, compared with 33 percent of newer units. In addition, approximately 38 percent of older units did not have any controls for nitrogen oxides, compared with 6 percent of newer units.
- Third, lower emissions among newer units may be attributable in part to improvements in the efficiency with which newer units convert fuel into electricity. Nonetheless, older units remain an important part of the electricity generating sector, particularly in certain regions of the United States
The 30-page “Air Emissions and Electricity Generation at U.S. Power Plants”
(GAO-12-545R) is available at: http://gao.gov/assets/600/590188.pdf
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.
EDITOR: ASME Government Relations, 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036-5104.