BY NICOLE DUARTE, Times of Northwest Indiana Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON, D.C. | Members of Congress and public interest groups faulted a new U.S. Department of Energy plan Wednesday they say promotes alternative energy technologies while failing to secure adequate funding for research and development.
The criticism came at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy, which heard testimony on the plan prepared by the department's Climate Change Technology Program to stimulate development in alternative fuels and other strategies for reducing greenhouse gases.
Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman has defended the technology program by arguing that despite severe budget constraints and staff limitations, it addresses "long-term climate change technology challenges broadly and substantively."
House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert, R-N.Y., and Rep. Judy Biggert R-Ill., chair of the energy subcommittee, called the plan "insufficient."
One of the most significant complaints was the lack of funding for new technology development. The program currently funds only existing federal programs that happen to conform with the climate change technology program's aims.
The energy department reported in 2006 that the government invested $3.01 billion in climate change technology.
Daniel M. Kammen, a professor in the University of California at Berkeley Energy group, said in written testimony that the current funding levels were "five to 10 times below their socially optimal levels." He estimated that to return atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to their pre-industrial state would require $15 to $30 billion annually.
Cummins Inc., a Columbus, Ind., engine manufacturer, is among the companies that have committed themselves to develop engine technology that reduces harmful emissions.
"A key program driver for Cummins is to ensure that these technical advances are commercially viable," Christine Vujovich, Cummins vice president of marketing and environmental policy, said in a news release.
Many companies cannot afford to pursue innovations with unknown financial returns.
Energy analysts said government funding insulates companies hesitant to assume high-risk research and development. For example, by Indiana law, any public institution with a coal-fired boiler is required to burn only Indiana coal. Some analysts argue this kind of protection helps companies justify the expense of experimenting with new technologies.