Watching Government: Considering energy R&D

June 22, 2015
Moving from research to development (R&D) became a recurring question as the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered 43 separate bills on June 9.

Moving from research to development (R&D) became a recurring question as the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered 43 separate bills on June 9. At least six dealt with energy R&D. Discussing so many measures at once produced a predictable muddle. But committee members and witnesses made some important points.

"We’re very concerned about the lack of American investment in energy research. It’s very critical," said Norman Augustine, a board member at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Long-term R&D is needed, but it’s not clear who will do it, Augustine told the committee. Industry might, but it tends to invest more in development than research, which requires a longer-term commitment than many shareholders are willing to allow, he said.

Augustine said federal energy research support has fallen significantly. "The extent of America’s disinvestment in research is such that America now ranks 29th among developed nations in the fraction of research that is governmentally funded," he said.

"It is projected that within about 5 years, China will surpass the US in research funding as both a fraction of [gross domestic product] and in absolute terms," he warned. "This does not portend well for national security, jobs, the economy, or the well-being of America’s citizens."

Augustine said National Energy Technology Laboratories still play an important role in doing high-risk, long-term research that industry is not willing to undertake. "But its research is of no value if it isn’t translated into industrial uses," he said.

Neither the 114th Congress nor the Obama administration are likely to do that in today’s political climate. Committee members still brought up energy R&D’s proven benefits.

Supporting new efforts

Al Franken (D-Minn.) mentioned the federal government’s positive role in early hydraulic fracturing research, and asked Lynn Orr, the US Department of Energy’s undersecretary for science and energy, if it could extend to energy storage systems.

"If you think of what a game-changer fracing has been and recognize how much of it came out of government research, we would be negligent in not investing in storage research," Orr responded.

Research shouldn’t be confined to emerging technologies, suggested Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). "We have a lot of fracing going on in my home state, but we’re only recovering about 5% of what’s there," he said. Witness Mark Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, responded that recovering more of the other 95% would have an even bigger impact.

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alas.), the committee’s chair, observed as the hearing concluded that research is essential. "But it’s also important to make sure new laws aren’t passed which answer an immediate need but potentially could make matters worse in the future," she said.