Energy Act Provisions: On Hold

August / September 2006 By: Chris Silva Volume 4 Number 4

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

Congress has put on the brakes rather than move forward with funding all of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act—€”including money for a technology transfer fund—€” due to what it says is inactivity from the Department of Energy in preparing the necessary infrastructure to install its provisions. The DOE has yet to appoint a new technology transfer coordinator and still hasn't sent Congress a working group report on tech transfer recommendations that was due five months ago.

The Energy Policy Act (EPACT), which was signed into law by President Bush last summer, stipulates that DOE skim off the top of some of its agencies' budgets to the tune of .9 percent, or $24 million, to help create the Technology Commercialization Fund. But neither the House nor the Senate included in their proposed FY 2007 budgets funding for the Technology Commercialization Fund as it was originally intended in EPACT. The House seeks to eliminate the tech transfer resources altogether and the Senate has asked that the funds be redirected to DOE's Office of Science to be applied towards nuclear medicine research.

"The technology transfer commercialization fund we created in the Energy Policy Act is an important provision, and when we get it up and running we want to get it right," said Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. "Unfortunately, the Department of Energy hasn't yet taken the actions needed to put the new fund in place. The Senate Energy and Water bill gives the department some lead time to get organized and address this issue. In the meantime, we'll use that funding to address a critical shortfall in the Office of Science budget, which is funding for nuclear medicine research."

The House, which approved its energy and water budget May 25 (H.R. 5427), said it eliminated the tech transfer fund in its proposal because it did not want to draw money from existing DOE agency budgets for the purpose of creating a new one. "We oppose any DOE activity that is funded by a tax on other DOE activities," said Sara Perkins, spokeswoman for Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. "Such a tax," Perkins told Innovation, "has the effect of reducing the money we appropriate for specific programs/projects/activities so that it can be spent on other activities that were not part of the budget request."

EPACT directed DOE to draw funds from areas such as nuclear and fossil energy; energy efficiency and renewable energy and electricity delivery and energy reliability. However, DOE has been trying to determine if it could extract the funding from other sources. For example, the department was investigating ways to increase the tech transfer fund to $38 million by also drawing resources from the Office of Science, said Kathryn Clay, professional staff member with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, such a move could potentially take make money away from basic tech transfer research, she said.

"The Department of Energy is still trying to figure out how to implement this provision," Clay said, adding that the Senate fears DOE may be trying to simply "re-label existing efforts" rather than create a brand new resource fund and name a new tech transfer coordinator, as directed by EPACT.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), ranking Democrat on the Senate energy panel, has also been dubious about DOE's readiness to tackle EPACT. "It is my hope that this year we actually set aside funds for tech transfer, as directed in the Energy Policy Act," he said. "Technology transfer is a very important mission of the Department of Energy. Over the years, the economies of states have benefited tremendously from tech transfer and I believe we should focus more attention on this initiative."

While DOE did not comment specifically about suggestions that it's unprepared to implement components of EPACT, it did say it intends to carry out its requirements. "The department remains committed to improving its technology transfer activities and meeting the requirements set forth by EPACT as a means to enhance its ability to meet it strategic goals and support economic growth for the nation," DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said. She said DOE did execute over 11,000 tech transfer-related transactions in FY 2005, including cooperative research and development, licensing and user facility agreements.

Under EPACT, however, the new technology transfer coordinator would allow for the first time the oversight of all DOE tech transfer efforts by a single person. The bill also calls for the creation of advanced energy technology transfer centers, which would be situated near federal DOE labs to help the government spin R&D technologies out to the private sector for purposes of advancement to market. But without the working group report from DOE to Congress, and without the $24 million in funding that was slated for the tech transfer office, it's difficult to see any provisions from EPACT coming to fruition in fiscal 2007.

Chris Silva reports for Innovation from Washington, D.C.