« PreviousContinue »
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
JAY B. ACES
Jay B. Hakes was nominated by President Clinton to be the
It is recognized as the authoritative source of U.S. energy
The Agency has adopted a strategic planning process emphasizing
In the past year, he has published two articles in Public
Dr. Hakes was born in Gallipolis, Ohio.
He is married to Anita
Department of Energy
Wasbingion, DC 20585
ELA RESPONSE TO DOE AND EPA CRITICISMS Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. Doctor, do you have any o comments on some of the criticisms that you have on your st here today by the other witnesses?
Dr. HAKES. Well, one of the criticisms that was made is that EIA is made up of a bunch of pessimists.
late of Wheaton College, with a masters degree from ity in 1968, and a doctor of philosophy degree from ity in 1970, Dr. Hakes taught political science at ty of New Orleans from 1970 to 1977. rear, he has published two articles in Public
Times on performance measures-. 'Comparing Outputs (October, 1996) and 'Performance Measures and 2 Change" (July, 1997)
He is married to Anita
Dr. HAKES. And as I think the line shows in our study betw the frozen technology case and the baseline case, we have a lot technology advances in our baseline study. And we have actua in our projections, been very optimistic about technologies t aren't even being commercially sold yet. I mean we have sort predicted that the combined cycle natural gas plant would sor take over electric generation, even when they weren't being sold tensively commercially. We have seen opportunities for ref erators where the technology wasn't even commercially availa yet. So we have adopted a lot of advanced technology.
But if we had time, I could give you lists of press releases ab great, new technologies that are about to hit the market, and to find one sentence 2 years later about how the company dropped that program. So I think what our analysts do is they for those technologies that can play a very positive role. They a lot of tough questions. They don't accept all of the optimism comes from particular industries or from program advocates, I think they arrive at reasonable estimates. And I think our, tainly, baseline estimates are quite aggressive in adopting technology. So I feel that that is an important point.
I think where we get into issues of cost and that kind of is we need to sit down and compare notes. We feel that all of work on costs can be fully documented. We feel that our costs combined heat and power, despite what has been said in som the other testimony, can be well documented. And we feel there is sometimes a tendency to underestimate costs when grams are being advocated.
So, that would be, in general, a response to some of the critici of our report.
Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say I think our cism of this report is quite simple.
Chairman CALVERT. Well, Nr. Gardiner, I will get back to
Chairman CALVERT. Mr. Gardiner.
CREDENCE OF DOE AND EPA CLAIMS OF CARBON SAVINGS Doctor, DOE claims that its programs will save 112 million ric tons of carbon equivalent in 2010, and EPA claims its prog will save 354 million metric tons. What credence would you these claims?
And, lastly, what trust would you have in an analysis of any that receives many millions of dollars annually through the partment of-DOE?
Dr. HAKES. Well, I think that these programs definitely prc positive results. I think where we get into some disagreeme that some of those results are already in our baseline, and
of them are things that actually are new and save emissions, and some of them actually are quite low-cost programs. So, the fact that there is a potential—that they are in the baseline, may not be a terribly big issue.
But, you know, if someone does something voluntarily, a lot of times when you go back and talk with that firm, they will report in interviews to us or GAO or other people, that these are actions that they were planning to take anyway without the voluntary programs. But I don't want to suggest—I think Mr. Gardiner and I would agree, that there aren't plenty of programs where the voluntary program actually does come up with a fairly new idea that the industry may not have thought of.
So, our general approach, as I suggested in responding to the 112 number, is that there is usually a discounting that has to occur to measure the expected impact on the baseline growth of 33 percent.
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. STUDY Chairman CALVERT. You cite that you have entered into the record a report by Arthur D. Little, Inc. It finds that DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs will save 112 million metric tons of carbon in 2010. What peer review process was used by this firm?
Mr. REICHER. Mr. Chairman, this has been a longstanding piece of work with Arthur D. Little since 1994, in which we have asked them to review the potential for energy savings, carbon reductions, cost savings, in our various technology R&D programs in DOE. And what Arthur D. Little does is to convene on its own a whole host of experts in the various technology areas on a yearly basis. And they analyze looking at issues about markets, technology penetrations, cost reductions. They evaluate where they realistically think these technologies are going and come up with the estimates that we were to receive on an annual basis. So it is a very substantial peer review process, and, in fact, I think Dr. Hakes has indicated that they highly respect and value the Arthur D. Little work.
I will say on the issue of the savings in 2010, in the report on page 6, we list the savings in 2 different fashions: both a non-integrated total of 112 and a so-called integrated total of 75 million metric tons. So we are very careful to indicate it in both respects to make sure we take account of potential overlaps in the impasse.
Chairman CALVERT. I question on the isn't it true that the Arthur D. Little Company is provided with various agreements through DOE contracts totalling over almost $50 million?
Mr. REICHER. The department does technology work with Arthur D. Little, as we do with many, many companies. What Arthur D. Little does in the case of this analytical work is, as I have said, to convene a group of outside experts to review the potential for savings in energy reductions.
I also want to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that we have undertaken this Arthur D. Little work, in part, in response to Government Performance and Results Act, GPRA, where we have been asked to look more carefully at the results we are getting from our investments, particularly as we formulate our budget. So a combination of-we are quite confident about this A.D. Little work and the independence of the peer review that is being carried out. I think