Obama is expected to announce more specifics as the fourth anniversary of his April 2009 Prague speech approaches. Items on advocates' wish lists include negotiating a follow-on treaty with Russia to cover tactical and non-deployed weapons, getting the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiating a new Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty at the United Nations.

Obama floats 'Energy Security Trust' in State of the Union address
Zack Colman, The Hill
February 12, 2013

 

President Obama proposed a program in Tuesday's State of the Union address that would divert some revenues from federal oil-and-gas drilling into research for alternative fuel technology.

 

In a nod to the economic challenges facing many families, Obama cast the initiative, which he called an "Energy Security Trust," as a way to reduce household gasoline expenses.

 

"Let's ... free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we've put up with for far too long," Obama said.

 

The proposal was one of many energy items mentioned in Obama's speech, underscoring the prominent space it occupies in his second-term agenda.

 

Obama also touched on employing executive action to tackle climate change, which E2-Wire's Ben Geman has written about here.

 

Enacting the "trust" proposal, however, would require an act of Congress.

Currently, royalties from oil and gas drilling on onshore and offshore lands are shared amongst the federal Treasury and states.

 

The idea of establishing such a trust from those revenues has existed for quite some time as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

 

Obama said the funds would do just that by sparking investment in electric vehicles, biofuels and natural gas-powered cars to "shift our cars and trucks off oil for good."

 

Obama also called on Congress to green-light a network of 15 manufacturing hubs. He announced he would start three such hubs that would work with the Energy and Defense departments "to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs."

 

And Congress would be necessary to make the wind production tax credit permanent, for which Obama also pushed Tuesday.

 

The administration fought to keep the 2.2-cent per-kilowatt hour credit for wind power production alive for another year in the January deal to avert the "fiscal cliff." The wind industry and its congressional supporters are fighting for a longer term phase-out, though some conservative lawmakers oppose the idea.

 

On top of those proposals, the president floated an energy efficiency "Race to the Top" grant program that he said would alleviate financial pressure on families.

 

Under the arrangement, the federal government would offer competitive grants to states that implement policies that encourage energy efficiency and reduce waste.

 

The plan carries a goal of doubling energy efficiency by 2030, which would improve the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing by curbing energy costs, the White House said in a memo circulated Tuesday.

 

"Let's cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years. The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen," Obama said.

 

The White House said achieving those efficiency goals would also cut back on electricity blackouts and slow carbon emissions.

 

The program would mirror an earlier administration effort on education. Similar ideas had recently been promoted by former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and a coalition co-chaired by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and National Grid President Tom King.

 

Critics call Obama's silence 'deafening' on Keystone, coal and nuclear
Manuel Quinones, Environment & Energy Daily
February 13, 2013

 

Even though President Obama dedicated a significant portion of his State of the Union address to energy and climate change, critics found it telling that he failed to mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

 

"I don't go away saying this is evidence that he's going to deny the Keystone permit," said Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry. "But it swings me even more in that direction, because he did not say anything that would make me think he will support it."

 

Industry officials and some lawmakers also criticized Obama for ignoring power sources including coal and nuclear.

 

The president did tout increases in oil and natural gas production and called for speeding up oil and gas permits and cutting red tape. "After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future," he said.

 

But Terry said Obama focused too much on natural gas and renewables and not on the continued need for fossil fuel sources like the "heavy crude" that Keystone would carry.

 

"There was a part of me that was hoping that he'd say something generally positive about the efforts to bring oil, that we need to look at it more, something," Terry said. "But the silence was deafening to me."

 

American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard said Obama "recognized the oil and natural gas industry as a robust economic engine that is investing in American jobs, generating billions of dollars for the government each year and making our country more energy secure."

 

But Gerard also called for Keystone XL's approval, lifting restrictions and "standing up against unnecessary and burdensome regulations that chill economic growth."

 

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) also pressed the pipeline issue in an interview after the speech. "I believe the Keystone project is a very important project, and I was disappointed [the president] didn't say anything about the project, which is important in North American energy independence," she said.

 

The policy blueprint the White House released to accompany the speech also backed oil and gas but was clear about the president's intention to move away from fossil fuels.

 

"While the United States will continue to rely on responsibly produced oil and gas in the near term," it said, "President Obama is committed to a long-term policy that allows us to transition to cleaner alternatives, continuing to increase our energy security."

 

Coal and nuclear

Like last year, Obama did not mention either nuclear energy or coal.

"I was very disappointed about that, especially when coal plays such a major part of our energy mix," said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. "We need a partnership with our government to have the technology that we're able to use it in the best fashion we can."

 

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a prominent member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was not surprised by the president's leaving coal out, because of the administration's troubled relationship with the industry. "I wish he would have talked about nuclear a little bit," he added. "If you're really going to move on climate, you gotta have nuclear power."

 

While Alex Flint, senior vice president of governmental affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, did not complain about the absence of nuclear issues in the speech, he pressed for the industry.

 

"It is imperative that nuclear energy facilities continue to play a key role in the mix of electricity sources for U.S. energy, environmental and economic goals to be achieved," he said in a statement.

 

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity took a more conciliatory tone compared with last year. The group's new CEO, Mike Duncan, had urged the president to reaffirm his commitment to clean coal.

 

"We're encouraged by the president's emphasis on technology as a path forward for America's energy future," Duncan said after the speech. "Our members know that clean coal technology is an important step along that path.

 

He added, "If America does not lead the way in making clean coal available on a commercial scale, we can be assured other countries will."

 

Budget for MOX Program Cut by 75 Percent
Danielle Brian, Project on Government Oversight
February 11, 2013

 

The beleaguered Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) program at the Savannah River Site was targeted for possible cancellation last fall, but ongoing discussions resulted in a recent lifeline offered by a top Department of Energy official, which appears to have been accepted by the White House.

 

Under a plan brokered by Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, the MOX facility would see its funding cut by 75 percent--rather than being eliminated entirely--according to sources who have seen parts of the recently released White House Office of Management and Budget "Passback" budget document being circulated on Capitol Hill. The Department of Defense, the State Department, and the DOE had tentatively agreed to zero-out the program, which is designed to convert weapons-grade plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. The MOX program is 300 percent over budget, a decade behind schedule, and has sparked zero interest from potential customers.

 

The funding cut will still result in a savings of approximately $3 billion over five years from planned spending. Poneman's plan provides more than a billion dollars in funding over the next five years to finish basic construction such as putting a roof on the building, as well as to provide funds to explore alternatives for the ongoing problem of plutonium disposition. Given that the roof is scheduled to be completed next month, and there is no other current mission for the building, it is unclear what the additional funding would accomplish.

 

On February 5, the Project On Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote to President Obama that "the program should be cut entirely. All federal agencies need to halt wasteful spending in the current fiscal environment, and MOX is a prime candidate."

 

In addition, sources who have reviewed parts of the budget Passback say the Administration also plans to move the entire B83 nuclear bomb program into reserve, and that the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 will get a billion-dollar boost in funding.

 

Senate Appropriations Committee Announces Subcommittee Assignments
Senate Appropriations Committee
February 12, 2013

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. − The Senate Appropriations Committee today unveiled its subcommittee memberships for the 113th Congress. The Committee again has 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans, and welcomes six new members: Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Mike Johanns (R-NE), and John Boozman (R-AR).

 

 

Democratic Members
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Chairwoman)
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Tim Johnson
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator Tom Udall

 

Republican Members
Senator Lamar Alexander (Ranking)
Senator Thad Cochran
Senator Mitch McConnell
Senator Richard Shelby
Senator Susan Collins
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator John Hoeven

 

The remaining subcommittee assignments can be seen at the link above.

 

Senate Dems aim to have sequester bill ready by Thursday
Erik Wasson and Bernie Becker, The Hill
February 11, 2013

 

Senate Democrats are aiming to produce a bill to replace the sequester by Thursday, according to Democratic aides.

 

The bill would include tax increases and spending cuts, and it would replace the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.

 

With both houses of Congress scheduled to be out of Washington next week, Senate Democrats hope producing a package this week would allow them to sell their measure to constituents back home during the recess and pressure Republicans to act to prevent the cuts, one aide said.

 

The sequester, which most members in both parties say will damage national security with its cuts to the Pentagon and other programs, is set to take effect on March 1, leaving Congress little time to act before the Presidents Day recess next week.

 

If the full caucus approves the draft plan, it could be formally introduced on the floor Thursday, one aide said.

 

The bill's introduction could set off a series of procedural motions that would take days to complete.

 

Democrats are putting the finishing touches on the provisions for the sequestration package, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to present the details as early as Tuesday to the full caucus, aides said.

 

Democratic aides stressed Monday that their proposal was not yet complete.

 

Aides have said elements of the package could reflect a plan offered last week by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the top Democrat at the House Budget Committee. That measure would eliminate subsidies to the farm industry, scrap tax preferences used by oil-and-gas companies and implement a new minimum tax rate on people making seven figures annually -- the proposal commonly known as the "Buffett Rule."

 

The New York Times reported Monday that Senate Democrats were closing in on a $120 billion package that would include elements of the Van Hollen proposal.

 

Senate Democrats from energy-producing states, including a couple that are up for reelection in 2014, have balked at the oil-and-gas proposal in the past.

 

Other Democrats, including Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a member of leadership, could take issue with ending direct payments to farmers now, because it could make it more difficult to complete a five-year farm bill that includes deficit reduction.

 

House Republicans in the last Congress voted twice to replace the sequester with a mix of discretionary cuts and cuts to mandatory spending such as farm programs and entitlement benefits. There are no immediate plans to move that bill again in this Congress, sources have said.

 

The White House at this point is deferring to Senate Democrats to take the lead on a sequester replacement. President Obama last week called on Congress to at least pass a short-term delay as wider budget matters are worked out.

 

The $85 billion in spending cuts this year is the first part of nine years' worth of spending cuts agreed to in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Those cuts would shave $1.2 trillion from deficits when interest savings are factored in.

 

Obama has said he is still holding out for a larger agreement to replace the next eight years of cuts. He has called for hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues from ending tax breaks, but he said a concession on entitlement benefits that he has offered in the past remains on the table. In talks with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last year, Obama offered to adopt a less generous way of adjusting benefits in government programs for inflation, called the chained consumer price index.

 

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that while that offer remains on the table, Obama was now opposed to raising the eligibility age for Medicare, even though the White House put that on the table in past talks.

 

So far, most Republicans are insisting that the sequester be replaced with spending cuts alone. The bills approved by the House last year included $315 billion in new spending cuts; given the $600 billion in tax hikes agreed to as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal earlier this year, Republicans say the revenue discussion is over.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asking him to cancel the Presidents Day recess until a sequester replacement is agreed to.

 

Separately on Monday, Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced a bill that would close corporate tax breaks in order to raise $189 billion to replace the sequester cuts.

 

The Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act aims to make it more difficult for multinational companies to avoid paying taxes on profits earned outside the United States. It would change the tax treatment of stock options and derivatives, and it would increase taxes on hedge fund managers by closing the "carried interest" tax break.

 

Levin said last week he would be pushing to get elements of his bill into any sequester replacement legislation his party comes up with.

 

Blood Pressure Rises Around the Beltway as Sequester Looms Larger
Charlie Cook, National Journal
February 11, 2013

 

Don't be surprised if the barometric pressure in Washington's atmosphere and the blood pressures of many Beltway denizens shoot up this week. As emotional, important, and timely as the debates over immigration and gun control are, the increasing likelihood that budget sequestration will, in fact, kick in March 1 is just now starting to sink in.

 

As veteran lobbyist and appropriations guru Billy Moore said in a Feb. 10 memo to clients, "The cuts will reduce domestic programs by 5.1 percent and defense by 8 percent, but since they come in the middle of the fiscal year, the impact is closer to 9 percent for nondefense and 13 percent for defense programs." And he noted that most agencies will likely see "14-day furloughs for employees and layoffs for new hires," potentially harming such things as "meat inspection, customs, and law enforcement."

 

The thinking behind sequestration was that the penalty for not sufficiently reducing the deficit would be so draconian that members of Congress would do whatever it took to avoid it. No one realized that quite a few members from both parties would prefer sequestration to making the painful concessions necessary for compromise--but that's where we are.

 

The cuts are becoming a real possibility because enough Democrats and liberals feel that sequestration beats the alternative. Social Security, Medicaid, and, to a lesser extent, Medicare would be exempted from the $85 billion in spending cuts, meaning the budget ax would fall more heavily on defense than domestic spending. But it remains to be seen whether this thinking will hold up as affected constituencies begin to scream murder.

 

At the same time, the days when Republicans and conservatives (of either party) would have seen such levels of defense cuts as nothing short of treasonous are over. GOP lobbyists privately estimate that as many as two-thirds of House Republicans see the defense budget as bloated, and say they aren't willing to trade away domestic spending cuts to preserve Pentagon spending at or near current levels.

 

Meanwhile, the relationship between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner has deteriorated to the point that Boehner doesn't trust Obama and says he will never negotiate with him again, and the president sees Boehner as unable to carry enough of his own members to close a deal. So any agreement is probably going to have to be done the old-fashioned way, through regular order: writing and passing bills by committees; debating on the floor; and voting, with a joint House-Senate conference convened to iron out the differences--the way the legislative process is supposed to work and once did.

 

The general feeling among Republicans is that, because they caved in during the year-end, fiscal-cliff fight, they have to dig in on additional tax increases and make Democrats agree to substantial revenue cuts. The no-additional-taxes position might have some give to it. Democrats will likely offer some politically dicey amendments that in the big picture won't add up to much more than chump change--for example cutting the deductibility of corporate aircraft--but Republicans might not want to lay across the railroad tracks to oppose cuts like these. Keep an eye out for the "carried interest" issue, the provision that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to have certain income taxed at lower, more favorable rates than normal, earned income. It's a lot of money for them and an issue that has enormous political fundraising implications.

 

One thing to be mindful of is that for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, holding a vote on another tax increase is not an option. If this were to happen, he would essentially be handing a potential tea-party opponent in next year's Kentucky GOP primary a key issue. McConnell is hardly the only Republican in the Senate or the House with primary stress weighing heavily on his shoulders.

 

One reason this legislative catastrophe is becoming more likely is that communications and understanding between the two sides has deteriorated to the point that neither side has a clear or realistic idea of how much the other side is willing or able to bend. In the budget debacle of a year and a half ago, many believe that after a tentative deal had been reached, Obama pushed Boehner to compromise still more, to the point that the Republican speaker couldn't remotely win sufficient GOP caucus support for the deal to pass.

 

Meanwhile, corporate CEOs are flying to Washington to hector Congress to deal with the budget problem. Some old-time Hill experts suggest that these captains of industry would accomplish more if they fanned out across the country in an attempt to build public support for compromise, because grassroots pressure would enable more members to go along with a deal. Members need air cover back home--support that business leaders could provide, rather than tiresome lectures in Washington press conferences and at photo ops.

 

Congress Can Approve a Budget This Year, Lawmakers Say
Kellie Lunney, Government Executive
February 12, 2013

 

House Budget Committee lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed optimism on Tuesday that Congress would craft a fiscal 2014 budget this year.

 

It's possible the House and Senate each will pass a budget resolution by the early fall, paving the way for a conference committee and the regular appropriations process to unfold -- a feat that has eluded Congress in recent years, said House Budget Committee Vice Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., during a discussion of fiscal issues with reporters at the National Press Club in Washington.

 

Price said there was "enough" time to get a budget hammered out before lawmakers begin campaigning for their 2014 mid-term elections in late summer and early fall this year. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who headlined Tuesday's event with Price, also said he would put himself "in the hopeful and optimistic camp," regarding the 2014 budget process. The two lawmakers, however, said political will from both Republicans and Democrats to accomplish those goals is critical.

 

"The question is really whether or not there is a willingness on all sides to come together and make the necessary compromises," said Van Hollen, who is ranking member of the Budget Committee. The Maryland Democrat also said the White House will "obviously" have to be "very involved" in the budget process.

 

"If there's will on both sides of the aisle to come to an agreement on the budget resolution, then I think we can do it, and Chris touched on that," Price said.

 

Price and Van Hollen outlined their respective party's approaches to deficit reduction, budget goals and spending during Tuesday's discussion, which in addition to the fiscal 2014 budget outlook, touched on the looming sequester and the continuing resolution set to expire March 27. The representatives offered few details on whether Congress would avoid the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to begin March 1, or when they would push through a package to keep the government open after the continuing resolution expires. Price said the timing for extending fiscal 2013 funding was "less important than the level of spending," though he said he wanted it squared away sooner rather than later. "Whether that comes before the sequester's dealt with -- if the sequester is dealt with in a way different from current law -- or after, it will certainly come before March 27," Price said.

 

Despite their stated optimism in improving the budget process, Van Hollen and Price on Tuesday personified the heart of the argument over current fiscal policy, going back and forth over the correct recipe for deficit reduction -- spending cuts, tax increases, or some combination of the two? Van Hollen said the parties' disagreement over what constitutes the right approach will continue to dominate the budget discussion; whether the two sides can overcome those issues will determine legislative success, he added.

 

Both men agreed that budget and deficit reduction battles reflect the larger debate over the proper role of government in the lives of citizens, a likely underlying theme during President Obama's State of the Union address to the nation on Tuesday night.

 

Sen. Boxer's ideal EPA candidate seems to describe Gina McCarthy
Ben Geman, The Hill
February 12, 2013

 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) isn't outright naming her top choice to run the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

But her description of a preferred candidate fits Gina McCarthy, EPA's top air pollution regulator, very, very nicely.

 

McCarthy, the agency's assistant administrator for air and radiation, is believed to be among the top candidates for nomination to replace outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

 

Boxer, whose committee will vet the eventual nominee, told reporters Tuesday that "there is someone I really like very much, who I hope is being considered, who is a deputy now."

 

Asked if it is current Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, Boxer said no. Asked if it is McCarthy, Boxer said "no comment" and added: "There are a lot of people who would be really good. I am looking for someone strong in the area of air."

 

McCarthy formerly headed Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection, and before that held a senior role in Republican Mitt Romney's administration when he was governor of Massachusetts.

 

Boxer said that experience working for a GOP governor "would always be a plus."

 

"Bringing bipartisanship to the table is good, bringing knowledge to the table is good, and bringing a woman to the table is really good too," Boxer said in the Capitol.

 

Notice of Availability of Draft Section 3116 Basis for Determination for Closure of H Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site
DOE Federal Register Notice
February 13, 2013

 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Draft Section 3116 Basis for Determination for Closure of the H Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (Draft HTF 3116 Basis Document) for public comment. DOE prepared the Draft HTF 3116 Basis Document pursuant to section 3116(a) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), which provides that the Secretary of Energy may, in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determine that certain waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level radioactive waste if the provisions set forth in section 3116(a) are satisfied. To make this determination, the Secretary of Energy must determine that the waste in the HTF: (1) Does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository for spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste; (2) has had highly radioactive radionuclides removed to the maximum extent practical; and (3)(A) does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level waste and will be disposed of in compliance with the  performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C and pursuant to a State approved closure plan or State-issued permit; or (3)(B) exceeds concentration limits for Class C low-level waste but will be disposed of in compliance with the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C; pursuant to a State approved closure plan or State-issued permit; and pursuant to plans developed by DOE in consultation with the NRC. Although not required by the NDAA, DOE is making the Draft HTF 3116 Basis Document available for public comment. The Draft HTF 3116 Basis Document demonstrates that the cleaned and stabilized HTF tanks, ancillary structures and their stabilized residuals at HTF closure meet the public dose limits and other criteria in section 3116. DOE is consulting with the NRC and will consider public comments before preparing a final HTF 3116 Basis Document and issuing a Secretarial determination under section 3116.

 

National Guard armory proposed on Hanford land
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
February12, 2013

 

The Washington National Guard is proposing to use 5,000 acres of Hanford land to develop an armory and training grounds.

 

It has requested a 25-year or longer license from the Department of Energy that would give it permission to use land on the southern end of Hanford. The acreage is immediately west of the Hanford Patrol Academy and HAMMER training center and east of Hanford's Route 10.The proposal is part of a larger plan for closing down older armories that are more costly to maintain and could include classrooms, offices and storage in addition to land for training maneuvers, said Capt. Joseph Siemandel in Spokane.

 

The Guard would build helicopter landing pads and develop gravel roads and personnel staging areas, Major General Bret Daugherty said in a letter to DOE sent early this month. The gravel roads would be used for wheeled vehicles, but not heavy tracked equipment.

 

The location would provide opportunities for DOE and the National Guard to share training resources, the letter said. A memorandum of understanding would be developed to coordinate activities between the agencies.

 

"The opportunity to work with DOE is huge to us," Siemandel said.

 

The Guard already trains at DOE's HAMMER. There also is potential for the Guard to use the Hanford Patrol Training Academy, which includes weapons bunkers, a driving track, rifle ranges, a range instruction shooting simulator, classrooms and a live-fire shooting house on 7,500 acres. HAMMER has training structures such as a building with interchangeable mazes for search and rescue, a six-story building for rescue training and a pad with a propane-fueled fire.An armory at Hanford would allow National Guard members from the Tri-City area to drill closer to home and might help with recruiting, Siemandel said.

 

The 5,000 acres the National Guard is interested in using are planned for industrial use when they are no longer needed by DOE. There are no Hanford facilities on the land, DOE spokesman Geoff Tyree said. Most of the 586-square-mile nuclear reservation is planned to be used for preservation and conservation.

 

An armory would be considered compatible with the industrial use called for in the Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Tyree said.

 

DOE will consider the request and prepare a National Environmental Policy Act study report, which the public may comment on when a draft is finished, he said.

 

There could be benefits for the Department of Energy and the Tri-Cities if a National Guard armory is developed, Tyree said. DOE sees the potential to share some of the $500,000 annual cost of maintaining the Hanford Patrol Academy. There also could be opportunities for the Hanford patrol and federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to use the National Guard facility.

 

DOE discussed the proposal Thursday with the city of Richland, the Tri-City Development Council and the tribes.

 

TRIDEC has just started looking at the proposal and its viability, said Gary Petersen, TRIDEC vice president of Hanford programs.

 

TRIDEC, working with Benton County, the city of Richland and the Port of Benton, already has requested 1,341 acres of Hanford land north of Richland on the northwest corner of Horn Rapids Road and Stevens Drive to be used for industrial development. DOE is evaluating that and additional acreage with the goal of studying the environmental impacts of transferring 1,341 acres.

 

The acreage could support new industry that would contribute to the tax base and employ an estimated 2,400 to 3,500 workers, helping create jobs as environmental cleanup at Hanford is completed, according to TRIDEC.

 

It's not clear how the National Guard proposal and TRIDEC request would affect each other, said Gary Ballew, economic development manager for the city of Richland.

 

Richland will need more information on the exact location of the acreage the National Guard is interested in, he said. The city also will need more information on what the National Guard would build, what employment it would offer, the duration of the license for the Hanford land and what would happen to the land after the license expires, he said.

 

No schedule for developing a possible armory at Hanford has been set, according to the National Guard.

 

Office of Nuclear Energy Launches New Website 
NE Press Release
February 11, 2013

 

The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is pleased to introduce our new, updated public website: energy.gov/ne.

 

The new site was designed to help facilitate users' access to NE documents, reports and program descriptions, with an emphasis on up-to-date, easily accessible information. The new homepage features our activities and initiatives, as well as links to most recent publications and press releases. The rest of the NE site is structured to match our organization -- and enable easier navigation and more direct access to information about our programs.

 

NE's primary mission is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.

The program is guided by four research objectives:

 

1) Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
2) Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change goals.
3) Develop sustainable fuel cycles.
4) Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

So far, the Department has transitioned many of its small staff offices to the Energy.gov platform, a move that has already saved DOE about $1.5 million. Meanwhile, site traffic has increased more than threefold. When complete, the overall website transition will help reduce and avoid costs, saving the Department $10 million annually, and improve the Department's communications infrastructure.

 

We're excited to join Energy.gov and hope you enjoy the new look and feel of our site. Visit us at the new Nuclear Energy website, and check back for more updates as we move forward.

 

End the boom-and-bust cycle of federal clean energy policy
Phyllis Cuttino, The Pew Charitable Trusts
February 12, 2013

 

Business leaders across our nation are demanding direction from Congress and the Obama administration on clean energy policies, seeking an established set of rules and regulations. This unusual push for government guidance comes because the industry knows it needs a shared blueprint to make the investment decisions that will grow businesses, reward shareholders, and create jobs. The production tax credit, for example, has demonstrated the positive impact of federal incentives to attract private investment in wind energy.

 

Last year Pew organized a series of closed-door roundtable discussions with business leaders across the country -- in such diverse places as Golden, Colo.; Jackson, Miss.; and New York City -- to evaluate strategies for improving America's position in the global clean energy race. The message we heard was the same: Private investment, manufacturing, and deployment of renewable power in the United States are being constrained due to the lack of long-term, consistent federal energy policies.

 

Sadly, these business leaders are no nearer to that desired set of policies than a year ago. Yet as Washington fails to act the clean energy industry is gathering momentum around the world. Technological advances and growing international competition are dramatically lowering the cost of emerging technologies. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the cost of wind power declined by 90 percent since 1980, meaning wind is now cost-competitive with more traditional power sources in many markets.

What's more, private investment in clean energy is exploding across the globe. Our research shows that clean technology investment increased by 600 percent from 2004 to 2011, to a record $263 billion. As a result, markets for clean energy goods and services are growing. A global competition has developed among companies and countries alike.

 

In the United States, however, the outlook is less positive. America helped pioneer a wide variety of advanced energy technologies but we are now in a precarious competitive position. We are no longer the sole clean-energy superpower, and our position in innovation, manufacturing, and deployment is being challenged by competitors in Europe and Asia.

 

Take solar power. Over the past decade, manufacturing leadership shifted from the United States to Japan, Europe, and China. Shipments of solar cells and modules from China to the United States rose by more than 300 percent in both 2010 and 2011. The value of U.S. solar equipment exports to China during the same time decreased by 22 percent and 20 percent.

 

Among the top 10 ten wind manufacturers, which account for 80 percent of the global market, there is only one U.S. business compared to four Chinese and four European companies.

 

We can't afford to let valuable high-skill clean energy jobs slip away, especially when many economists expect overall hiring rates to remain sluggish for much of 2013. This is why federal policy matters. State and local governments play a vital role in the U.S. clean energy sector's development, but in our discussions last year business leaders from across America stressed that federal energy policy lacks a clear purpose or direction.

 

To address this problem, these business leaders urged Congress and the White House to establish a clean energy standard to guide investment for the long term and significantly increase research and development programs. Other policy recommendations included enacting a multiyear, but time-limited, extension of tax credits for clean energy sources.

 

Business leaders also were clear that any U.S. government role in clean energy should be limited, stressing they believed the private sector overall is best equipped to mobilize capital and absorb the risks or rewards for developing new technologies. Federal policymakers, however, must help provide a level playing field for U.S. clean energy manufacturers competing with European and Asian firms that benefit from public programs that drive international private investment.

 

We must end the episodic, boom-and-bust nature of federal clean energy policy that saddles American businesses today. Only long-term policies will provide the certainty needed to spur private investment, create jobs, and strengthen our competitiveness in the global marketplace.