Measure Provides Approx. $600 Million For DOE Fossil Energy R&D
Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
7/11/2014
The House voted late this week to approve the Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which funds the Department of Energy’s fossil energy R&D efforts, after two days of debate that saw Democrats try several times without success to shift funds from fossil energy programs to other DOE programs. The bill provides a total of $593 million for DOE’s fossil energy R&D programs, a 25 percent increase from the Department’s request and a 4 percent increase from current funding levels. Coal research would receive $397 million, 31 percent above the request, and slightly higher than 2014 enacted levels. Carbon capture would be funded at $90 million, a 17 percent increase from the request, but a 2 percent decrease from 2014 enacted levels. Carbon storage also takes a hit from 2014 levels decreasing 9 percent at a funding level of $100 million, 25 percent above the request.
Earlier this week, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy threatening to veto the House bill over a number of concerns. “The bill significantly underfunds critical investments that develop American energy sources to build a clean and secure energy future, support the emerging clean energy technologies that create high-quality jobs, and enhance the Nation’s economic competiveness,” the White House said, going on to say, “The Administration strongly objects to the funding level of $1.8 billion provided in the bill for renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and energy efficiency programs, a $546 million reduction below the FY 2015 Budget request. This reduced funding level will stifle Federal investment in innovative clean energy research and development (R&D) at a time of significant global competition and progress.”
Democrats Unsuccessful in Passing Energy Efficiency Amendments
House Democrats echoed the administration’s sentiment on the floor, introducing numerous amendments which would re-allocate funds from fossil energy programs to energy efficiency and renewables programs. “We are on the cusp of a technological revolution when it comes to energy and energy efficiency. Look at what is happening all across America. We have a very diverse portfolio. But this budget today is skewed a little bit. It chops energy efficiency and renewable energy that has sufficient great potential to create jobs and it is a little too heavy on some of the fossil fuel areas,” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said in proposing an amendment which would have increased energy efficiency and renewables funding by $112,686,000 and decreased fossil fuel funding by $165 million.
In response to the Castor amendment Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) defended the committee’s proposed bill. “What we did in this bill, actually, was refocus some of the administration’s requested increases in the renewable energy arena to where we actually use energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas provide 82 percent of the electricity in this country, of the energy used in this Nation’s homes and businesses, 82 percent. Reducing the fossil energy research—they are studying things like how heat can more efficiently be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with the nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power. The amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation’s fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible.”
NETL Protected in McKinley Amendment
Under an amendment introduced by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.V.) which passed by voice vote, no funds from the bill “may be used to transform the National Energy Technology Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory, or to consolidate or close the National Energy Technology Laboratory. “ Speaking on the floor, McKinley said that the amendment was made to ensure that efforts to privatize or consolidate NETL were not successful. “People looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist,” McKinley said on the floor.
For Senate, Path Forward Murky
It remains unclear when—or how—lawmakers might conference with their Senate counterparts. Senate action on their version of the spending bill stalled earlier this month over concerns about a controversial amendment planned by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dealing with the regulation of carbon emissions, and with the markup of the bill postponed, Congressional aides say there is no guarantee that the bill will ever see action at the committee level. “So far I don’t see a path forward,” one Congressional aide told GHG Monitor. What’s more likely is that the bill will be folded into an omnibus appropriations package or treated as part of a Continuing Resolution that would fund the government at least until after the mid-term elections in November.
