« PreviousContinue »
CONDUCT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY A REGULATORY AGENCY I would say that one open question here that I believe this Committee should address, and that is whether the scientific research effort within EPA should be conducted by a regulatory agency. We have had problems with that originally with the AEC and separated that out. It may be time to separate out the environmental research and put it under some other agency-either NSF or NOAA, or some other agency-rather than the regulatory agency. Deti
Chairman CALVERT. And as the gentleman-
Chairman CALVERT. And as the gentleman knows, I agree with you. I would be more than happy to pursue to that.
Dr. Lane, you may respond on my time. How is that?
I understand the question and what the concern might be, but I believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the peer-reviewed science is separated from any influence having to do with the other responsibilities of the agency. It is very important that that be the case.
But I believe it is also very important that each of our mission agencies, including the regulatory agencies, have a component of research activity and peer-reviewed research activity, where they pas interact with the larger science community. That corporeality of Rey support ensures that the important scientific questions are ad-frestor dressed—that they are addressed by the best minds, best ideas, in a fully objective review process.
So I stand in favor of each of our agencies having an important to research arm.
Chairman CALVERT. Well, following what Mr. Ehlers' point was, is some of the issues beyond climate change-let's say particulate studies, which are going on now within the same body that is going to regulate particulates once we understand the small particulate ! issue better, is somewhat troubling to many, and certainly to me. And I think when we take on that regulatory burden which will be vie a significant one, we better make sure that the science is correct.
Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say on behalf EPA, I think that Dr. Lane said that the key to this at least certainly in our view—is the question of whether you are having independent peer review of the scientific research-as well as for that matter, to your point, Congressman Ehlers, about the grant proposals themselves that come in from researchers, which is exactly as Dr. Lane pointed out.
What we do at EPA, we have very strong external peer review of all of our scientific products, both the grants that come in, as well as the products that are produced under those grants. And when we take regulatory actions, as we did in the case of the particulate standards, we did that based on a series of over 80 independently peer-reviewed scientific studies. And that is the approach that we are going to take, and I think that is the approach that the scientific community would suggest and other scientific agencies would suggest, as the way to ensure that you don't get biased in your studies of any sort, whether it is of the grant proposals or of the ultimate scientific research.
Chairman CALVERT. Ms. Lofgren. T OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY A REGULATORY AGENCY
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I found this pas
very interesting. ay that one open question here that I believe this Com ld address, and that is whether the scientific research
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS EPA should be conducted by a regulatory agency. We roblems with that originally with the AẾC and sepa- Dr. Hakes, in your written testimony, you indicate that the foc ut. It may be time to separate out the environmente
of the programs that you have looked at are climate change, E d put it under some other agency-either NSF & that, quote, "they often have additional benefits for improved ome other agency-rather than the regulatory agency. quality and the like." CALVERT. And as the gentleman
In your judgment, do these additional benefits are they signi May I respond?
cant enough to warrant pursuit of these programs? Or, did you CALVERT. And as the gentleman knows, I agree with evaluate that aspect? Is this just an aside in your testimony? be more than happy to pursue to that.
Dr. HAKES. Well, I think you can assume that the benefits ou may respond on my time. How is that?
these other areas would sort of track the carbon savings. I me I will make a quick response then.
there would be some benefits for other air quality issues. Y ad the question and what the concern might be
get some impact in a reduction in oil imports, oth mechanisms are in place to ensure that the peer- issues like that. We really didn't have time to quantify all that. B e is separated from any influence having to do with ponsibilities of the agency. It is very important that
in areas where the carbon benefits are fairly modest, those benefi
would also probably be quite modest. re it is also very important that each of our mission
ACCESS TO SUPERCOMPUTERS ading the regulatory agencies, have a component el ity and peer-reviewed research activity, where the
Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask Dr. Lane--and it is a pleasure to s the larger science community. That corporeality you again in your new capacity--about the supercomputer issue. es that the important scientific questions are *
You mentioned that the NRC identified lack of access to powerf they are addressed by the best minds, best ideas, i supercomputers as a key problem and that the Information Tec
nology Initiative is going to address that with additional com 2 favor of each of our agencies having an important
puters, and the like.
What are the applications, other than use for climate modelin .LVERT. Well, following what Mr. Ehlers' point wat issues beyond climate change-let's say particulat
for these supercomputer resources? And, do we know how many a
ditional computers we are talking about? And, where will they E are going on now within the same body that is going
located? And, who will have access to them? ticulates once we understand the small particular ferred to, of course, is separate from
Dr. LANE. Ms. Lofgren, the Information Technology Initiativer somewhat troubling to many, and certainly to me en we take on that regulatory burden which will be
Dr. LANE (continuing). The Climate Change Technology Initia _e, we better make sure that the science is correct
tive. 2. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say on behalf of at Dr. Lane said that the key to this at least cer wwis the question of whether you are having inde
Dr. LANE. But I wanted to point out the benefits that it will pre view of the scientific research-as well as for that point, Congressman Ehlers, about the grant pro
tives. One is to increase substantially our investment in long-tert
The Information Technology Initiative is focused on several objec Es that come in from researchers, which is exactly
research, so that is to ensure that we are working on the com EPA, we have very strong external peer review entific products, both the grants that come in, as
puters that we are just now imagining and the software and all
the fundamental computer science, computer engineering question ucts that are produced under those grants. And gulatory actions, as we did in the case of the par
Second is to make available the cutting edge systems the mos eviewed scientific studies. And that is the ar 3, we did that based on a series of over 80 inde capable hardware, software for some of the most importan
science and engineering, and most challenging science and eng e going to take, and I think that is the approach
neering research questions. And one of those is global climate community would suggest and other scientific
change modeling, because the facts are that as good as our model ggest, as the way to ensure that you don't get bi
are and our researchers are outstanding, certainly leaders in the
world—but the largest, most sophisticated models are in Europe lies of any sort, whether it is of the grant pra
And that is, in large measure, because they have invested in the timate scientific research.
e review process.
Ms. LOFGREN. Yes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Right.
that need to be addressed.
computational capability that they need to carry out those calculations.
So, we think we can—the sum is much bigger than the parts here, by making the investment in teraflop-initially, a few teraflops; then, 10 teraflops; then, of the order, 40 or so trillion operations per second computer capability-we can, in fact, be again leaders in the world in modeling, not only intellectually which we are now, but also in terms of actually carrying out the model calculations.
So, the kind of computer capability we are talking about is comparable to what currently the Department of Energy is making available for their stockpile stewardship program. It is also a very challenging set of research issues. We are going to learn from what is being done on that defense-side of DOE to do some important work on the civilian side, and climate change is just one example of that. Combustion may be another area, certain materials research, those problems that would require large team efforts and this level of computer capability.
Maybe Mr. Reicher could answer.
Increasingly, with these faster and faster computers on the weapons-side, we are making the capability available on the civilian-side, building systems that can be switched from defense work to civilian work so that at the weapons labs, for example, we are more and more able to do the kind of modeling of climate combustion and other kinds of key challenges that we face in the world today.
NOAA OCEAN-OBSERVING NETWORKS Ms. LOFGREN. If I could, just one quick follow-up question--and you can maybe give me your answer not here since we are out of time_but I do notice your comments on page 10, Dr. Lane, about the NOAA ocean-observing networks. We had a big spat about that last year, and I am wondering if you could let us know whether, in your judgment, the resources allocated to that aspect of this is sufficient? Dr. LANE. I definitely will respond to your question. [The information follows:) (Dr. Lane refused to submit the information for the record.) Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COST OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS I would like to focus on the emission fumes and the effect of some of the modeling and some of the research, and determine and get some response as to whether or not there is a reason why we can't get a clear picture in cost, because it seems that, in my particular area, and, of course, around the Nation, some environmental damage we can't do much control over, with emissions, we, hopefully, can.
al capability that they need to carry out those calcula- So, I would like further comment from any panel member if
can get that. ink we can—the sum is much bigger than the parts Mr. GARDINER. Well, let me see if I can start, Congresswom aking the investment in teraflop—initially, a few
Johnson. en, 10 teraflops; then, of the order, 40 or so trillion op I think the-as I tried to indicate in my opening statement-UE second computer capability—we can, in fact
, be again the sense that we have from the programs that we run at EPA TE e world in modeling, not only intellectually which w are largely about deploying new technologies is that they are also in terms of actually carrying out the model cal tremely effective at both our reducing emissions, not only of gree
house gases but of other air pollutants as well, which clearly d of computer capability we are talking about is com- very important in a number of areas around the country. But, al hat currently the Department of Energy is making
that they have substantial economic benefits because they a their stockpile stewardship program. It is also a very
largely about making these institutions whether they are h et of research issues. We are going to learn from what pitals or universities or businesses-more energy efficient and sa on that defense-side of DOĚ to do some important
ing them money in the short run. ivilian side, and climate change is just one example
, we believe that there are substantial benefits, both envir pustion may be another area, certain materials re
mentally as well as economically, that result from the kinds of p problems that would require large team efforts and grams that we are already running today, and which the Pre mputer capability.
dent's initiative asks be expanded, both especially at the Depa leicher could answer.
ment of Energy and at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes? . Yes, just a very brief additional comment. with these faster and faster computers on the
Mr. REICHER. Just a few quick examples. In individuals' home we are making the capability available on the civil by improving the efficiency of appliances like the refrigerators a ng systems that can be switched from defense work dishwashers, and you actually can radically cut energy use an
thereby, cut pollution in a community--and a very direct linka * so that at the weapons labs, for example, we are able to do the kind of modeling of climate combus
and huge opportunities in that area. În cars, obviously, the exte kinds of key challenges that we face in the world
to which we can improve the mileage of cars, we are obviously cu ting pollution at the same time. And in industry-the steel indy
tury, the aluminum industry, pulp and paper, a whole host of indy NOAA OCEAN-OBSERVING NETWORKS
tries as we go into those facilities and work within those indu If I could, just one quick follow-up questionand plants and what comes out in the stack at the local power pla
tries to cut their energy use, what comes out the stack at tho give me your answer not here since we are out of
can be dramatically reduced. notice your comments on page 10, Dr. Lane, about
So, if- in our efforts to address carbon dioxide emissions from 2-observing networks. We had a big spat about that
localized and regional air pollutants that affect people's heal
global warming perspective, we are very clearly cutting the mo am wondering if you could let us know whether, t, the resources allocated to that aspect of this is
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, thank you. initely will respond to your question. on follows:)
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ed to submit the information for the record.)
I was hoping someone would comment on some of the researc
that is going on now, in terms of the electric car or some of tt ERT. Thank you.
technologies that are, hopefully, getting near being marketed.
Mr. REICHER. There is very exciting research, Congresswoma NICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair
and actually very exciting products coming to the market, in th in terms of the next generation of automobiles.
automobile industry. Where we are headed is essentially two area COST OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS focus on the emission fumes and the effect of
gas or diesel engines in a very efficient combination where we ca
One are hybrid automobiles that link electric motors and eithe foresee mileage on the order of in fact, our goal of 80 miles pe
gallon in a car that seats five or six people and is as affordable onse as to whether or not there is a reason why Lid, of course, around the Nation, some environ
We are also looking at fuel cell-powered vehicles. You may have
seen a few weeks ago Daimler-Chrysler announced a prototype fue can't do much control over, with emissions, we,
cell vehicle that they are working to put on the road, in partnem
ling and some of the research, and determine ur picture in cost, because it seems that, in my
an average automobile.
ship with our Government-sponsored programs, some time early in the next decade.
A whole host of car companies are focused on both of these approaches. There is a very robust partnership between Government and industry to get them on the road.
I would only add that there is also a very intense race across the globe for market share the Japanese, the Germans, U.S. manufacturers-realizing that these high-mileage, low-polluting cars are the future. And we want to make sure that U.S. workers, U.S. companies, have the lion's share of that new market as it emerges.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much.
TAX INCENTIVES FOR COAL
Mr. COSTELLO. One last question; Dr. Lane, you mentioned in your testimony about moving us away from fossil fuels as one approach to our energy policy in the 21st century. You also point out about our dependency on imported oil from overseas.
Wouldn't it be-wouldn't it make sense for us, as a Government, to encourage the partnership that we talked about earlier and to provide tax incentives in order to have utilities use the abundance of coal that we have in the United States today?
Dr. LANE. Well, Mr. Costello, I think that there is a place for R&D; there is a place for tax incentives. The Climate Change Technology Initiative is a broad initiative; it has all aspects of this. We talked earlier about the situation with coal. The report that I referred to earlier put out by PCAST on energy R&D makes this point very clearly; that we are going to need coal, but we are going to need new technologies, not the ones we currently know about. And so there is a place where we are really going to have to invest in high-risk technologies. The cost of that R&D is high enough so it is just not natural for industry to do that on its own, and that is where partnerships play a very important role
Mr. COSTELLO. We are short
Mr. COSTELLO. We are short of time, but I would just encourage
sir. Chairman CALVERT. Thank the gentlemen, and I thank our witnesses today
We are adjourned.