Senator Jeff Bingaman

Washington Report

Washington Report

April / May 2008 By: Jeff Bingaman Volume 6 Number 2

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

DOE Labs Can Help Us Remain Competitive

In the 1990s the Department of Energy initiated the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. PNGV—€”a cooperative agreement with the U.S. auto industry—€”aimed to develop a new class of vehicles capable of traveling 80 miles per gallon of gasoline. A number of prototype hybrid electric vehicles emerged from the partnership, and many of them were beginning to show promise. But before automakers successfully incorporated hybrid vehicles into their fleet, DOE abruptly changed course. In 2001 the Bush administration ended PNGV, choosing instead to focus on the more distant hydrogen vehicle technology.

Coincidentally, Toyota introduced the Prius in the United States that same year PNGV was canceled. And while the United States is still years away from developing hydrogen cars, Japanese automakers have gained a strong foothold in the hybrid market.

There is some concern the same scenario is playing out in the area of renewable energy. In recent decades, DOE led the world in solar energy research and development. Yet today American solar manufacturers hold only about 10 percent of the U.S. market. In contrast, Japanese companies have 20 percent of the U.S. solar market. Sharp now has the world's largest solar manufacturing facility outside Kyoto producing 300 megawatts annually, with plans to quadruple that capacity in the coming years.

Unfortunately, these are not isolated stories, and they all follow a familiar pattern: The United States goes a long way toward developing leading-edge R&D, only to lose out to countries that demonstrate a stronger commitment to bringing the research to fruition and commercializing it. In the frankest terms, other nations have established policies and made significant investments to out compete the United States, and in not making the same sustained commitment our nation's economy has suffered.

How can we end this cycle?
With DOE laboratories at the forefront of cutting-edge R&D, it's clear that the United States has the best innovation system in the world. One need only look to developments in the areas of nanoscience, solid-state-lighting and lithium ion battery technology to see the important work being done in our country. What we need to do now is provide a sustained level of support to nurture this R&D and bring it to the marketplace.

In order to accomplish this goal, we need to both ramp up federal funding in basic scientific research and give greater focus on technology transfer.
For fiscal year 2009, President Bush asked for $4.7 billion for DOE's Office of Science and $6.8 billion for the National Science Foundation. I, along with Senators Pete Domenici and Lamar Alexander, sponsored an amendment to the Senate's FY 2009 budget blueprint that urges Congress to use these numbers as a guide when developing the spending bills that fund science programs.

We're also trying to make progress in the area of commercializing laboratory-generated R&D. When we wrote the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Senator Domenici and I worked together to create a new high-level position within DOE to oversee technology transfer and commercialization at our national laboratories.
We pushed hard for this because when one person is in charge of tech transfer, it's easier to nurture and coordinate government/industry partnerships that will benefit our country for the long term.

In addition to creating the new high-level post at DOE, Domenici and I also set out to increase funding for technology transfer programs by requiring that 0.9 percent of all DOE research and redevelopment funds get set aside for spinning off innovation.

Unfortunately, DOE has not quite lived up to the spirit of the 2005 law. Rather than appointing an individual whose sole responsibility is to oversee technology transfer, the energy secretary simply added tech transfer responsibilities to the already crowded portfolio of the Department's Under Secretary for Science.
And instead of setting aside 0.9 percent of the total budget for energy R&D or about $11 million to promote commercialization, DOE has instead tried to take credit for existing commercialization activities in each DOE program, instead of developing and managing a coherent, coordinated program. There is an important difference between encouraging each program manager to re-label what they are already doing as "commercialization" and building a program that specifically focuses on commercialization—€”one that can be held to measurable benchmarks, and that provides an identifiable and consistent point of contact and outreach to U.S. industry.

When a new administration takes over in January, I will be encouraging the White House to do a better job of fulfilling both the letter and the spirit of the law.

But there is some promising news to report. DOE is working to put venture capitalists "in residence" at national laboratories to tap into their expertise on how best to commercialize technology. Efforts like these will no doubt be needed if our economy is going to benefit fully from taxpayer-funded R&D.

I will continue to look for ways to support DOE—€”both in the areas of the R&D and spinning off technology. I also intend to encourage deeper cross links between laboratories and nanoscience centers. I believe our goal should be to find ways to marry different types of research so that the sum of each bit of discovery can be greater than each individual part. For instance, the solid-state lighting industry is in desperate need of R&D assistance so that it can remain competitive against Asian companies, yet DOE's nanoscience centers have not stepped up to help. A look at recent history—€”both in the auto industry and in the area of solar energy production—€”shows that we cannot afford to walk away from an industry that is in need of a helping hand.

We are a nation of entrepreneurs. Our country has in place the best system for developing innovation and creating the next generation of high-tech, high-paying jobs. All we need to do now is to develop and execute a plan for sustained R&D funding and commercialization. In the long run, our economy will be the greatest beneficiary.

Senator Bingaman (D-N.M.) is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.