Senator Jeff Bingaman
Bingaman on Energy
February / March 2010
Volume 8 Number 1
Senator Jeff Bingaman spent most of 2009 in the trenches of the national health care debate. The New Mexico Democrat got so much press as a member of the so-called "Gang of Six" working on the controversial Senate health bill, his role as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee went largely unnoticed.
That's not to say the energy committee didn't do anything last year--not by a long shot. The committee hosted 56 hearings on energy policy, public lands, climate change, green tech, water policy, nuclear waste, wildfires and presidential nominations. Perhaps most important, the panel passed the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which lays important groundwork for the development of more clean and traditional sources of energy. The fate of that legislation--still unapproved by the full Senate--remains in limbo.
Bingaman recently sat down with Innovation to discuss his plan for leading on national energy policy in 2010, a year in which Democrats' political fortunes have turned cloudy, especially with the loss of a 60-seat majority after the Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race in January. The interview was conducted by Tom Michael, Innovation's Washington bureau chief.
Heading into the second session of the 111th Congress what are your primary objectives?
I think the main objective we have is to take the energy bill we reported out of committee last summer and see if we can add provisions to that where we might be able to develop some consensus. This is still very much in the discussion stage as to what it might include. We'd like to get that bill to the Senate floor and hopefully to the president's desk.
There has been speculation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would add your energy bill to a larger bill to tackle climate change. But in the current political climate, it seems that prospects for a climate change bill passing have dimmed. Where does that leave your bill?
I expect some time in March or April he'll have to make a decision in the Senate with regard to what we do with energy. I clearly don't want to wind up where we just don't do anything because there is not sufficient support to do everything. I think we should do what we can get agreement to do and I believe the bill is a constructive package of proposals that does have bipartisan support.
Speaking of climate change, what is your prediction for action on that front?
It's very difficult to see how we get the 60 votes in the Senate to do an economy-wide cap-and-trade system, which is what was passed through the House last summer. It doesn't mean we couldn't get agreement to do something less. I just don't frankly know the answer if we could get support to do something less.
The Senate energy committee has lesser jurisdiction over climate change legislation than the Environment and Public Works Committee. What's your committee's role?
There is a lot of interest in our committee in what kind of cap-and-trade system would make sense and how it should be structured. There are a lot of difficult questions involved with the proper design of such a system. We've had a series of hearings to try to flush out those issues and try to understand them and we'll probably continue to do that this year.
Republican Senator Bob Corker recently accused Energy Secretary Steven Chu of "slow-walking" federal efforts to create a blue-ribbon commission to look at the problem of nuclear waste. What is your reaction to that?
I thought that was an unfair criticism. The truth is it is difficult to get one of these federal advisories set up, and get the membership right and find out that you have the right balance of people and all the rest. I think Secretary Chu has been working very hard to get that done and I expect in the very near future they will announce the establishment of this commission. To say he's slow-walking means he's trying to prevent it from being done, which I think is just exactly contrary to reality.
Nuclear power advocates also lament the slow issuance of loan guarantees to the nuclear industry.
There have been a few issued. Secretary Chu is well aware that many of us in Congress are very frustrated, and he's very frustrated at our inability to get more loan guarantees approved. There are some changes in the law we need to make to facilitate the approval of loan guarantees. Some of the delay can be attributed to our ability to get the changes enacted, and some of it can be attributed to the administrative problems within the department. It's proven very difficult to get the loan guarantee approval process perfected. There are a great many applications for loan guarantees that have been pending for a long time in the Department of Energy. Some of the problem is with statutory language that we hope to get changed as part of this energy bill we've reported out of committee. Some of it is just inherent problems with getting governmental approvals accomplished.
You recently told Secretary Chu in a committee hearing that the U.S. has for a couple of decades now short-changed investment in scientific research. Do you think this administration is going to try to correct that?
We'll know when we get the administration's proposed budget. The various cap-and-trade proposals have not given the priority to the funding of this long-term research President Obama has advocated for. We wanted to once again focus the spotlight on that. Over the last decade or two, we have shortchanged research and development funding related to energy as compared to a lot of other areas we have funded more generously. We now need to get back to increasing the level of support we have for long-term research on energy. I think this is one of the areas of the economy that has been able to keep growing in spite of the economic downturn. It's been able to because of the policies we put in place, the tax policies and funding provisions. But this is not a one or two-year project transitioning from where we are today to a clean energy economy. It's going to take a decade or more, at least. We're going to have to stay at it. I hope the administration's proposed budget will reflect on that long-term commitment.
Has the administration put its money where its mouth is so far with respect to clean energy?
It certainly got more than it ever has before. There were $38 billion in new funds for clean energy type initiatives (in the economic stimulus bill). I think it's very substantial. They're still working hard to properly allocate that money so it can do the most good. The problem they will have is how they sustain a high level of funding commitments to these areas once the recovery act funds are expended. Clearly, we will not be able to do follow-on funding for a lot of this. We've got to figure out how to incent the private sector to pick up some of that funding.
Is there a consensus that energy technology is a potentially major new economic engine that government should support?
We have a general consensus, but unfortunately we're in a circumstance where many state and local governments are cutting back. Federal recovery funds are fine this year but after you get past 2010 they begin to reduce very dramatically. We hope the economy is recovered enough at the end of 2010 that the private sector will fill the gap.
Our readers are obviously very interested in technology transfer--spinning government-funded technology into the marketplace. Is DOE doing enough in that regard?
I don't think they're doing enough. But I think Secretary Chu has an appreciation for the importance of doing more. Over the years, I've broached the subject with DOE hundreds of times. It's one of the clear ways that people can identify that we can create jobs and improve our energy situation at the same time.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specified that a new position of technology transfer coordinator be created within DOE, yet those duties had simply been added by the prior administration to the under secretary of science's job responsibilities. You and Sen. Maria Cantwell recently wrote to Dr. Chu asking about DOE's inaction so far on filling the technology transfer coordinator position, and urging that it be filled with someone who is focusing on nothing but technology transfer. Have you heard back from Secretary Chu intentions with regard to that suggestion?
DOE has told my office that it has narrowed down potential candidates to short list and I anticipate that the administration will appoint someone to the position in the coming weeks.
With the U.S. economy continuing to experience major doldrums, many are looking to energy research, development and innovation to lead us back to growth. Is that reasonable?
The president is emphasizing it, the Congress is emphasizing it and much of the money in the recovery act is going to do that. It's not the only way at all. This sector of the economy is going to rise and fall with the overall economy. We can't just have a robust job creation effort in the clean-tech sector, if the rest of the economy is going down the tubes. There is congressional support in a general way. These funding priorities all come down to what the trade-offs are. But as a general matter, I think there is a level of support among Democrats and Republicans for higher funding of research and development related to energy.
Copyright © 2012 | Innovation America