In January 1997, the President commissioned the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) on energy research and development to study the energy research and development requirements for the next two decades. The Energy Research and Development Panel of the PCAST, in its November 1997 report, "Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century," stated that the establishment of nuclear energy as a viable and expandable energy option was important and that a properly focused R&D effort was needed to address the long-term barriers to the expanded use of nuclear energy. These barriers include proliferation of nuclear material, reactor safety, nuclear waste, and economics of nuclear plants. The PCAST panel further recommended that the Department reinvigorate its nuclear energy research and development activities to address these barriers with a new research approach based on competitive selection of research proposals from universities, national laboratories and industry. In response, the Department proposed the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) to address key issues affecting the future of nuclear fission as an energy source. Implementation of NERI will achieve the fundamental change in management approach recommended by the Energy 2 Research and Development Panel of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to encourage and foster innovation and new ideas from the R&D community at large. In defining the NERI program, DOE plans to follow the PCAST advice "not to be too specific and to allow the prospective performers maximum latitude to propose potentially promising studies or projects." To shape the program and its management approach, DOE is sponsoring a workshop on April 23-24, 1998, to develop the direction for nuclear energy research for the next decade. The purpose of the workshop is to generate new scientific and technical topic areas for nuclear energy research and provide input to DOE in preparation for the subsequent call for research proposals. In addition, the Department is establishing the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to provide independent advice on the direction and conduct of NERI and other R&D programs sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The Department is currently in the process of establishing the committee with plans to have the membership established and the first committee meeting convened by early this summer. Input from both the workshop and the advisory committee is necessary before the specifics of the NERI process can be finalized. However, the underlying solicitation, evaluation and award framework will reflect PCAST's guidance. Proposals received will, as recommended by PCAST, undergo a two-stage review process: "first a peer review to judge the scientific and technical quality, and second, for those proposals judged to be of the highest merit, a review to assess the relevance to the missions of DOE." 49-799 98-8 Mr. ROEMER. I'm a very, very strong supporter of the Federal Laboratories. I think they're doing some great research for the country. We need to continue to push them in new directions and make sure that in the future they continue to work with our universities in more creative ways and with the private sector in more innovative ways as well, too. AVAILABILITY OF 80-MILES-PER-GALLON VEHICLE Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Reicher, if I could ask you a question aboutyou and I talked briefly in the past about the development of this 80-miles-per-gallon engine that's done in conjunction with the Big Three. We're talking about the Year 2004 or so for a prototype. What are we talking about some kind of delivery of more than a prototype that people could buy? Is this realistic, that it's going to be 80 miles per gallon, and what is the timeframe for some of the heavier vehicles, where we're trending for more and more consumers buying the vans and the sport utility vehicles, and what we can do in that respect as well? Mr. REICHER. Mr. Roemer, let me respond to those three questions. First, is this a realistic goal? I think when this partnership started out a few years ago, it was quite a very legitimate question a lot of people asked: Could we really achieve an 80-mile-per-gallon car, six passengers, that had all the performance characteristics people want at an affordable price? I think what Detroit rolled out a month or two ago demonstrates that, from the technological perspective, this goal is feasible. PRICE IN 2004 OF 80-MILES-PER-GALLON PROTOTYPE VEHICLE Mr. ROEMER. What's the price in 2004 for a prototype on that? Mr. REICHER. The actual commercial vehicle would be no moreI think the additional increment on the order of plus 10 or 15 percent relative to a vehicle at that time with the same characteristics. So there is definitely a price cap that this program is working within because they know-and Detroit is realistic about thisthey know they have to build an affordable vehicle if these are going to be sold. Two thousand and four is the date for a production prototype, as you mentioned. That is a vehicle that would be ready in the 1-to2-year timeframe, as I understand it, to go into actual production, putting real 80-plus mile-per-gallon vehicles on the road in the 2006 or so timeframe. The tax credits, for example, that we have requested from Congress related to these high-mileage vehicles would kick in at that point to improve the sale of these cars. You asked about heavy vehicles and the progress we're making there. There is a great deal of progress to date in advancing clean diesel technology that can be used for sport utility vehicles and vans to improve the efficiency of their use. I think we can see progress in that area on an even quicker timeframe in moving those cleaner diesels into those cars. Beyond that, we hope that we can borrow from the PNGV programs some technology that will make these heavier vehicles even more efficient. Mr. ROEMER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Foley. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NUMBER OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PERMANENTLY SHUT DOWN IN THE PAST 2 YEARS DUE TO ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS Mr. Magwood, on page 8 in your written testimony, you say that 24 nuclear power plants are projected to retire prior to expiration of their operating licenses due to plant economics and aging degradation of plant components. How many nuclear power plants have permanently shut down due to economic constraints in the past 2 years? Mr. MAGWOOD. In the past 2 years, for economic reasons, only two nuclear reactors have shut down. WHEN WILL TAXPAYERS STOP HAVING TO SUBSIDIZE THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY? Mr. FOLEY. At what point will the taxpayers stop having to subsidize this industry? Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, I don't think that the taxpayers do subsidize the industry at this point. I think what we do at the Department of Energy is try to advance the state-of-the-art technologies to make these plants as safe and efficient as we possibly can for very important national strategic reasons. Among the reasons that we think it's important to do that is to advance national goals to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. If you look at the role that nuclear power plays in reducing those greenhouse gases in the United States, it's very clear that losing nuclear power plants as a major contributor to the U.S. electric utility infrastructure would require us to take much harsher actions than we would otherwise, more expensive actions possibly than we would otherwise, to meet the goals than we would otherwise. So we think it's a good investment, a very inexpensive investment, to keep those plants online to meet all our national environmental goals. DOE'S PROPOSED NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION Mr. FOLEY. On page 7 in your written statement, you say that the Department of Energy's proposed Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program will be coordinated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that duplication of R&D efforts do not occur. Isn't it more efficient to have the NRC conduct this research and not have two agencies attempt to not to duplicate each other's efforts? Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, when I was at NRC last week, I asked them a question very close to that, and we agreed very quickly that the missions of the two organizations are so different that it wouldn't be practical for them to undertake some of the research that we're proposing to undertake. Let me give you an example. One of the technologies that we would like to pursue as part of our Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program is a technology that allows you to monitor the aging degradation of electric cables for power plants. This technology has been derived from the defense programs activities. It was originally developed to analyze the condition of nuclear weapons, and we're proposing to adapt it for use in nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no program at this point to look at technologies like that, but if we do develop it, it would be their role to confirm that what we have done, or what someone has done to develop this technology to be used in nuclear power plants works as advertised. So NRC has a confirmatory role, not a developmental role. They don't try to solve problems; they try to prove that technologies that do address problems work as they're supposed to. So the roles are very different, and NRC would never want to take on the roles that we're proposing. It's not in their mission; it's not something that would be appropriate for them to do as a regulator. ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROPOSED NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION AND NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE PROGRAMS Mr. FOLEY. The request from NEPO and the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative include the establishment of an advisory committee by your office, which is supposed to provide an independent view on which research programs get funded. Who will pick the members of this committee? Mr. MAGWOOD. The members will be picked by the Secretary of Energy after input from virtually anyone who cares to submit names. We will provide a list of candidates to the Secretary, and this list will have to be very balanced both in terms of people familiar with nuclear technology and people who are critics of nuclear technology. We expect to have a very balanced committee. DOE'S PROPOSED NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND FUNDING OF ADVANCED REACTOR PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY CONGRESS Mr. FOLEY. Turning to page 2 in your written testimony, you've listed advanced reactors as an example of possible research to be conducted under the NERI. Is there any possibility of funding major advanced reactor programs which have been specifically terminated by Congress in the past? Mr. MAGWOOD. Such as the high-temperature gas reactor or something like that? I was asked that question yesterday. I guess from the legal perspective it's not precluded, but we don't believe that's the sort of technologies that people will be proposing to us. I expect, and what I've heard so far, that we're going to see a whole new generation of technologies being proposed, things that really DOE has not yet investigated, and certainly not something we've started terminating. So I don't expect to see old technologies resurrected. Mr. FOLEY. As the author of the amendments to strike funding for those, I'll be watching. Thank you. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Foley. Mr. Doyle. Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Godley, I don't want you to feel left out there, so I'm going to start with some questions for you. I'm going to ask you four questions. I'll ask them upfront, and maybe you can give us |