House Energy Appropriations Committee Hearing on Future of DOE

On January 31, the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee convened a second hearing on “The Future of the Department of Energy.” In contrast to an earlier hearing on this topic (see FYI #10), the witnesses at this hearing gave DOE a much stronger vote of confidence.

Chairman John Myers (R-Indiana) set the tone for this more optimistic hearing by saying there “nothing new” about calls for change at DOE, and that the subcommittee was interested in what “we might do to work together to make it more effective to do the job that we so vitally need.” Despite this upbeat tone, Myers expressed reservations about DOE’s fusion energy program and the LHC.

Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; William Happer, Princeton University; Frederick Bernthal, Universities Research Association; and John Conway, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board testified at this hearing. All supported DOE and its national labs, although many efficiency and cost-cutting recommendations were offered.

Rep. Jim Chapman (D-Texas), citing the previous hearing, asked Teller if it was appropriate for DOE to be involved in research, to which Teller replied “absolutely yes.” Chapman said this response was “significantly more telling than a lot of rhetoric we heard here a week or so ago.” Happer testified that “the loss of DOE funds for basic research would be devastating for the research community, and in the long run, the loss would be devastating for the US economy.” He warned that DOE’s research function has “no obvious defenders,” and could be lost if the department was radically reorganized. Bernthal offered a strong defense of the national labs, but criticized their management by DOE, cautioning, “if current policies and trends continue I believe the national laboratories as a group will experience a slow decline.” Ranking Minority Member Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) expressed some misgivings about unspecified DOE programs, saying “we don’t have anything to show for it.” He narrowed the discussion to energy programs, with fusion research eventually becoming a central topic.

Continuing this line of questioning, Chairman Myers asked, “can we afford ITER?” Happer said no one knew what ITER would cost, or the difficulty getting four nations to agree on a reactor site, warning that it could take years of negotiations. “That’s my nightmare,” Happer said. “I’m speaking very frankly, I’m just not sure it will happen.... it has an enormous impact on our national program. It is the centerpiece of our fusion program. Everything goes for ITER. And what happens to the native American program?” Myers responded, “Are you suggesting then that if we do go to ITER, or TPX, that some of the fusion programs are going to suffer, that the research is going to suffer?” Happer replied, “yes sir.” Myers continued, “twenty-five years ago, we were promised within five, possibly ten years, we would have at least a working model of a fusion reactor....” Happer described the “enormous progress” accomplished in fusion research, citing Princeton’s TFTR. Myers agreed, but said of the effort that “it’s kind of expensive, it isn’t what we had in mind.” The amount of money provided by Congress for this research is probably at least a partial cause of this outcome, Myers admitted.

Expanding on this theme, Myers continued, “it’s just one of many programs...we are thinking about; CERN is an example. Do we need to drop out...and come back here at home?” Showing some emotion, Myers said, “This committee has been burned, a number of times, through bad advice,” citing abandoned DOE projects up through the SSC. Support for the collider was strong until a site was selected, he said, predicting that ITER could run into similar problems. “We got to decide, make some decisions here,” before spending multi-billions of dollars for ITER, Myers stated.

Myers, obviously a proponent of DOE, summed-up what will likely be his approach to possible termination of DOE’s large projects: “If we’re going to get cold feet a year or two from now, we had better do it now.”