Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research Program Toward a User-Driven Research Endeavor
Reps. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Bob Inglis (R-SC) introduced the Global Change Research and Data Management Act to strengthen and streamline federal climate change research and reorient it for state and local governments, planners and researchers, replacing the U.S. Global Change Research Program established in 1990.
Witnesses
- Dr. Philip Mote, Climatologist, State of Washington
- Dr. Michael MacCracken, President, International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences
- Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President, UCAR
- Franklin Nutter, President, Reinsurance Assocation of America
- Sarah Bittleman
- Dr. James Mahoney
2:50 Dr. Mote They want to know what the probable changes are in rainfall, snowfall, and streamflow. The Northwest Hydropower Council wanted streamflow estimates. There’s already been an observed shift of two weeks in the start of the snowmelt. A national climate service is needed. To properly construct probabilistic scenarios at the regional level would require using tens of models; it would be too much for a regional center to undertake. Sea-level rise. Monitoring the climate, as HR 906 rightly addresses. The monitoring networks are slowly dwindling. The American Association of State Climatologists calls on Congress to save these networks from decline.
2:55 In recess.
3:20 Ms. Bittleman I work for the governor of Oregon here in Washington DC. The Western Governors Association appreciates the effort to make this bill relevant to the western states. The US has spent considerable dollars on understanding the science of climate change. Now the time has come to fund the study of adaptation. I need to recite some of the very real changes: smaller snowpacks, more extreme floods, more droughts, more wildfire, pests and disease. Congress and the Administration should fund research that makes mitigation and adaptation easier. Some states are creating their own climate change research centers, including Oregon. It is important that the program under HR 906 integrates the state offices and regional centers. We recommend that the bill be amended to establish a national climate information service, as Dr. Mote mentioned. Additionally the NCIS could provide national policy papers.
Decision makers at all levels of government and the private sector need accurate information.
3:27 Udall Are you saying the director of the USGCRP needs direct budget authority?
Fellows I think that the director of USGCRP have some level of budget authority and be close enough to the political center to push changes. When I was at the OMB we had every agency come in and present their programs.
Mahoney I had a hybrid position; I was Senate-confirmed, so I had a political position and access to the top of the OMB and the relevant cabinet officers. I think there should be a definite recognized management and coordination function. The division that generates the reports is greatly underresourced. Some direction by the Congress to see a more effective and efficient process would be a positive step.
3:32 Inglis The bill calls for the program to be updated every four years. Any thoughts?
MacCracken The first was developed in the early 1990s. We shifted in the mid-1990s, though without a formal plan. You do need to take a different perspective. There’s no optimal way to cut this problem into pieces. Requiring something in an update is useful.
Fellows The world climate society takes a look every five years. It would be interesting to look if you staggered the vulnerability and policy assessments, but the four-five year cycle is good.
3:35 Inglis One degree fahrenheit change and we have no more mountain trout.
Bittleman From the state perspective the entire process of data collection and how climate change is being experienced on the ground is what’s important. Every year the states are acting based on the data coming in. When there’s a year date for a report, that’s not as important as the flexibility to include the data, activity that are happening in the states.
3:37 Udall Regional vs. national assessments. How do we ensure the USGCRP meets both needs? I don’t see these things as separate. In Oregon and the Pacific Northwest we would like to gather information on a watershed level. We would like to see all of this information integrated. We see the possibility of integration being the real hope.
Nutter From the insurance perspective, regional assessments are imperative. The effect of climate change on extreme weather events in the Gulf is different from the Midwest or the Northeast.
McCracken We have tried to have sector assessments. If you’re interested in the forests locally, you need a regional perspective. If you’re looking at forest industry, you need national perspective. We also need the international perspective—migratory species, foreign investments, global health, refugees. The IPCC kind of looks at this, but hasn’t really taken a look at individual countries.
Udall Wehn we figure this out as a human race we’ll have created a template to face other challenges we’ll face. That keeps me going.
McCracken Climate change is intimately tied to meeting the Millenium Goals. It is all coupled and has to be looked at this way.
3:43 Nutter Those who look at protecting people’s property and lives. New York State has $2 trillion of insured properties. It’s a remarkable exposure to extreme weather events and climate change. This bill will have a real impact.
MacCracken In the 1990s we didn’t want climate change to be a justification for funding fusion research, for example. One of the things we struggled with in creating a useful assessment was what to focus on. That whole social science part of what has to be in climate change research isn’t well funded.
Mote Another aspect of this separation is that mitigating and adapting sometimes come together. As we design portfolios of alternative energy, are they resilient to climate changes? Such as hydropower. Climate change actually makes our hydropower generation more in line with demand for Washington, but means there will be less spare power for California in the summer.
3:50 Inglis Thank you.
Udall Thank you for appearing. I take the challenge of addressing global warming, as does Rep. Inglis and many other members of the House, very seriously. It’s one of our highest priorities in the Congress. This hearing is now adjourned.
Advanced technology vehicles, focusing on the road ahead
In today’s hearing in the new Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure, we look forward to hearing testimony on advanced technology vehicles. As we discuss energy policy and the most efficient path toward energy security and independence, we naturally turn to the issue of transportation fuels.
Right now, over 50% of the nearly 21 million barrels of oil we use each day in the U.S. is imported. And almost 70% of that oil consumption is used in the transportation sector. In 2007, we expect American to use over 14 millions barrels of oil to drive to work and do their chores, to travel within their communities, and to travel on vacation. We will also use over 4 million barrels of fuel on industrial transportation. Ten million gallons of that fuel will be imported.
These numbers suggest that in order to achieve energy security, we need to reduce our use of imported fuels. We can begin this effort by becoming efficient users of transportation fuels.
In our tax code, we have several incentives aimed at encouraging manufacturers and consumers across many industries to build and purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. We have tax credits for the purchase of vehicles featuring technologies that greatly increase their fuel economies. And we have tax penalties that apply to the purchase of the least fuel efficient vehicles. The tax code also features credits, against income or excise tax, for bio-based fuel blends that displace imported fuels.
And while we pursue energy security, we are always mindful of environmental concerns. Our vehicle tax credits have minimum emissions standards. And our alternative fuels credits are intended to encourage clean burning fuels.
We hope during this hearing to establish a record regarding the response of the market in general, and of vehicle manufacturers in particular, to the current tax incentives for efficient and clean vehicles. And as always, we are interested in hearing testimony on new incentives that might be more effective in helping us achieve our energy policy goals with respect to transportation fuel usage.
In particular, we sought testimony from:- Manufacturers who employ cutting edge power storage technologies;
- Manufacturers who are active in the traditional and diesel markets;
- Producers of alternative transportation fuel who can speak to fueling station needs, and
- Scholars from the automotive industry who have long studied the response of the industry to Federal energy policies.
- Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advance Vehicle Engineering, DaimlerChrysler Corporation
- David Vieau, CEO, A123Systems
- Martin Eberhard, CEO, Tesla Motors
- Dr. Walter McManus, University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute
- Phillip Baxley, President, Shell Hydrogen, LLC
Establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
H.R. 364 establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) within the U.S. Department of Energy, similar to the successful DARPA program within the Department of Defense. With a lean and agile organization ARPA-E will assemble cross-disciplinary research teams focused on addressing the nation’s most urgent energy needs through high-risk research and the rapid development of transformational clean energy technologies. By leveraging talent in all sectors – from private industry, to universities, to government labs – ARPA-E will foster a robust and cohesive community of energy researchers and technology developers in the U.S. This bill follows on the direct recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences’ report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm.”
Witnesses- Dr. Stephen R. Forrest
- Mr. John Denniston
- Mr. William B. Bonvillian
- Dr. Richard Van Atta
Coal, focusing on a clean future
Opening statement from Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.): In today’s hearing in the new Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure, we look forward to hearing testimony on advanced coal technologies. As we discuss energy policy and how to best use coal, a natural resource that we have in abundance, to enhance our energy security, it is important that we learn more about the feasibility of various advanced clean coal technologies that feature clean emissions and allow carbon sequestration and storage.
In our current tax code, we have several tax incentives for these technologies, including investment tax credits for investments in advanced coal technologies and accelerated depreciation to address the capital costs involved in these technologies. We hope during this hearing to collect testimony regarding the response of the market in general, and of coal producers and utilities in particular, to these incentives. We are also interested in hearing your views on new incentives that might be more effective in helping us achieve our energy policy goals. In particular, we sought testimony from experts on:- Clean coal and gasification projects, including the newly announced Wyoming Coal Gasification Project, a private-public partnership formed to develop an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.
- Coal to liquids, the process of making liquid fuels from coal
- Refined coal production tax credits
- The costs of establishing new facilities as well as retrofitting existing coal-fired power plants.
We also look forward to hearing these experts’ views on the feasibility and future of carbon capture and sequestration as well as the market for sequestered carbon. Sequestered carbon can be used in many useful technologies, including enhanced oil recovery. A primary focus of energy policy discussions is the abundance of coal in the U.S. This hearing represents our first examination of the possibilities of that endowment.
Witnesses- Steve Waddington, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority
- Dr. Nina French, ADA-ES, Director, Clean Coal Combustion
- John Diesch, President, Rentech Energy Midwest Corporation
- Dr. Brian McPherson, Research Scientist, Petroleum Recovery Research Center, NM Tech and Manager, Carbon Engineering Group Energy and Geoscience Institute, University of Utah
- Bill Townsend, CEO, Blue Source
Renewable Energy Opportunities and Issues on Federal Lands: Review of Title II, Subtitle B – Geothermal Energy of EPAct
The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, led by Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), will hold an oversight hearing on “Renewable Energy Opportunities and Issues on Federal Lands: Review of Title II, Subtitle B – Geothermal Energy of EPAct.” Other renewable programs and proposals for public resources will also be discussed.
Witnesses:
Panel 1- Mr. Jim Hughes, Director, Bureau of Land Management
- Professor Jeff Tester, Chair, MIT Climate Change Panel
- Mr. Daniel Kunz, President, US Geothermal Inc.
- Mr. Paul Thomsen, Public Policy Administrator, ORMAT Nevada
- Mr. Randall Swisher, Executive Director, American Wind Energy Association
- Mr. Robert Gough, Secretary, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy
- Ms. Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director, The Watershed Research and Training Center
- Mr. Joshua Bar-Lev, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Bright Source Energy
- Mr. Will Lutgen, Jr., Executive Director, Northwest Public Power Association