From haynes@GA.com Thu Aug 21 09:48:35 2003
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:51:52 -0400
From: Mark Haynes
To: hoffman@aa.washington.edu, hassam@umd.edu, ahg@lanl.gov, wootton1@llnl.gov,
ahb17@columbia.edu, awong@physics.ucla.edu, azwicker@pppl.gov,
anne.davies@science.doe.gov, kritz@plasma.physics.lehigh.edu,
bperry@u.washington.edu, ripin@ieee.org, berman@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu,
ben.cross@srs.gov, ben.weakley@science.doe.gov,
thomas.vanek@science.doe.gov, barletta@lbl.gov, bdorland@ipr.umd.edu,
wtang@pppl.gov, rmcc@lle.rochester.edu, perret1@llnl.gov,
chapman@loki.physics.wisc.edu, remington2@llnl.gov,
carol.danielson@gat.com, cbaker@vlt.ucsd.edu, chriscar@princeton.edu,
chris.hamilton@gat.com, schomer1@llnl.gov, clayton@engr.wisc.edu,
dmeade@mailserver.pppl.gov, druzic@uiuc.edu, dgwaltney@cgagroup.com,
dvenable@howard.edu, correll1@llnl.gov, escime@wvu.edu,
furtek@sio.ucsd.edu, mccusker@u.washington.edu, ess9@columbia.edu,
najmabadi@fusion.ucsd.edu, fwessel@uci.edu, g_miley@uiuc.edu,
kulcinski@engr.wisc.edu, navratil@columbia.edu,
bateman@plasma.physics.lehigh.edu, gottfried.besenbruch@gat.com,
bglogan@lbl.gov, moses@engr.wisc.edu, hberk@mail.utexas.edu,
hugh_d_hanes@brushwellman.com, hutch@psfc.mit.edu,
jack.bagley@battelle.org, jcrowley@mit.edu, dahlburg@fusion.gat.com,
callen@engr.wisc.edu, drake@poynting.UMD.EDU, lakeja@inel.gov,
lyonjf@fed.ornl.gov, vandam@physics.utexas.edu, cary@colorado.edu,
jdeloope@pppl.gov, sl758@columbia.edu, lindl1@llnl.gov, perkins3@llnl.gov,
sethian@this.nrl.navy.mil, jwillis@fusion.doe.gov, juliev@pacbell.net,
kate.bannan@ucdc.edu, kathryne.m.thorpe@cpmx.mail.saic.com,
kathryna@mit.edu, ken.schultz@gat.com, kurts@lanl.gov,
larry.stewart@gat.com, berryla@ornl.gov, norman@ga.radix.net,
linden.blue@gat.com, lloyd.brown@gat.com, mbrown3@cc.swarthmore.edu,
campbell@fusion.gat.com, mauel@columbia.edu, Porkolab@psfc.mit.edu,
fisch@princeton.edu, sauthoff@pppl.gov, rivenberg@psfc.mit.edu,
thomas@psfc.mit.edu, peterson@nuc.berkeley.edu, peter.politzer@gat.com,
fonck@engr.wisc.edu, raedwards@lbl.gov, norsetter@mail.bascom.wisc.edu,
rhawryluk@pppl.gov, rdh@physics.utexas.edu, rich.callis@gat.com,
rick.lee@gat.com, temkin@psfc.mit.edu, rgoldston@pppl.gov,
robangerter@lbl.gov, ron.stambaugh@gat.com, rwgould@caltech.edu,
stewart@physics.utexas.edu, scott.sudduth@ucdc.edu, sdale@utsystem.edu,
milorasl@ornl.gov, 72570.707@compuserve.com, knowlton@physics.auburn.edu,
cowley@physics.ucla.edu, obenschain@this.nrl.navy.mil,
prager@juno.physics.wisc.edu, ransdell@calinst.org, tobys@aau.edu,
jarboe@aa.washington.edu, tony.taylor@gat.com, vincent.chan@gat.com,
weston.stacey@me.gatech.edu, david.carreiro@mail.house.gov,
chapman@juno.physics.wisc.edu, wbgaust@sandia.gov, zpt@vms.cis.pitt.edu,
freidberg@psfc.mit.edu, dah5@cornell.edu, terry@juno.physics.wisc.edu,
pmb@romeo.caltech.edu, sluckhardt@ucsd.edu, km3@inel.gov,
rosenblu@fusion.gat.com, smuntau@magnet.fsu.edu, houlbergwa@ornl.gov,
birdsall@eecs.berkeley.edu, michael.roberts@science.doe.gov,
jcreardon@facstaff.wisc.edu, garstka@engr.wisc.edu, willms@lanl.gov,
bbauer@physics.unr.edu, rgrad@deans.umd.edu, haynes@GA.com,
kulcinski@engr.wisc.edu, abdou@fusion.ucla.edu, kathryna@mit.edu,
david.andrews@ost.oxinst.com, ginsberg@aps.org, meier5@llnl.gov,
jmvw@mit.edu
Subject: Fusion Update
Both the House and Senate have now departed for the annual August Congressional recess, not to return until after Labor Day. Here's the status of fusion related legislation and funding:
APPROPRIATIONS
Although the Senate Appropriations Committee completed its work on the FY 04 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, the full Senate did not pass the bill prior to departing. Although the exact schedule for the Senate to revisit the bill is not known, completion of work on all of the 13 regular Appropriations bills (of which Energy and Water is one) will be at the top of the agenda after the recess. The House has already passed its version of the bill, so the bill is expected to move quickly to House / Senate conference as soon as the Senate passes it. See our recent e-mail updates for the details of the bills.
FUSION ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT
As you will recall, legislation authorizing the Department of Energy to join or undertake a burning plasma experiment and to strengthen the domestic fusion energy sciences program has been introduced in both the House and Senate this year. In the House, the legislation introduced by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Congressman George Nethercutt (R-WA) and several others was modified by the House Science Committee and ultimately passed as part of the House version of comprehensive energy policy legislation (H.R. 6)
In the Senate, things have not been so "clean cut", so prepare yourself for a somewhat confusing story: just prior to departing for the August recess, the Senate, in a successful attempt to break a bad legislative log-jam on the "Republican" comprehensive energy bill, unexpectedly took up and passed the "Democratic" comprehensive energy bill that was passed last Congress when the Democrats were the majority party in the Senate. This maneuver, which was suggested by the Senate Democratic leadership, allows the Senate to go to conference with the House and work for a compromise bill (see story pasted below).
So, what does this mean for fusion? You may recall that last Congress, the text of the fusion energy bill was not "informed" by the U.S. move toward rejoining the ITER negotiations, so that when the Senate picked up and passed last year's bill (as described above), it also passed an outdated version of the fusion legislation.
Although the specific resolution of the fusion language in the upcoming House / Senate conference is unknown, suffice it to say that both sides are aware of this problem and both sides will seek to ultimately agree on language that more correctly reflects the current state of affairs vis a vis ITER, FIRE and the domestic program.
Pasted below for your information, you will find the House passed version of the fusion legislation plus last year's Senate version (which, as described above, has become this year's version). Again, the House / Senate conference will ultimately adopt something that looks much more like the House version.
We will keep you informed of events when Congress comes back in September.
Kate Bannan (U of California) (202) 974-6311
Chris Carter (Princeton U.) (202) 639-8420
Jason Van Wey (MIT) (202) 789-1828
Mark Haynes (202) 496-8209
Dobie McArthur (GA) (202) 496-8216
Elaine McCusker (U of Washington) (202) 624-1426
_____________________________
Fusion Language as passed by the House (in H.R. 6):
SEC. 21611. ITER.
(a) IN GENERAL- The United States is authorized to participate in ITER in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(b) AGREEMENT- (1) The Secretary is authorized to negotiate an agreement for United States participation in ITER.
(2) Any agreement for United States participation in ITER shall, at a minimum--
(A) clearly define the United States financial contribution to construction and operating costs;
(B) ensure that the share of ITER's high-technology components manufactured in the United States is at least proportionate to the United States financial contribution to ITER;
(C) ensure that the United States will not be financially responsible for cost overruns in components manufactured in other ITER participating countries;
(D) guarantee the United States full access to all data generated by ITER;
(E) enable United States researchers to propose and carry out an equitable share of the experiments at ITER;
(F) provide the United States with a role in all collective decisionmaking related to ITER; and
(G) describe the process for discontinuing or decommissioning ITER and any United States role in those processes.
(c) PLAN- The Secretary, in consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, shall develop a plan for the participation of United States scientists in ITER that shall include the United States research agenda for ITER, methods to evaluate whether ITER is promoting progress toward making fusion a reliable and affordable source of power, and a description of how work at ITER will relate to other elements of the United States fusion program. The Secretary shall request a review of the plan by the National Academy of Sciences .
(d) LIMITATION- No funds shall be expended for the construction of ITER until the Secretary has transmitted to the Congress--
(1) the agreement negotiated pursuant to subsection (b) and 120 days have elapsed since that transmission;
(2) a report describing the management structure of ITER and providing a fixed dollar estimate of the cost of United States participation in the construction of ITER, and 120 days have elapsed since that transmission;
(3) a report describing how United States participation in ITER will be funded without reducing funding for other programs in the Office of Science, including other fusion programs, and 60 days have elapsed since that transmission; and
(4) the plan required by subsection (c) (but not the National Academy of Sciences review of that plan), and 60 days have elapsed since that transmission.
(e) DEFINITIONS- In this section--
(1) the term `construction' means the physical construction of the ITER facility, and the physical construction, purchase, or manufacture of equipment or components that are specifically designed for the ITER facility, but does not mean the design of the facility, equipment, or components; and
(2) the term `ITER' means the international burning plasma fusion research project in which the President announced United States participation on January 30, 2003.
SEC. 21612. PLAN FOR FUSION EXPERIMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL- If at any time during the negotiations on ITER, the Secretary determines that construction and operation of ITER is unlikely or infeasible, the Secretary shall send to Congress, as part of the budget request for the following year, a plan for implementing the domestic burning plasma experiment known as FIRE, including costs and schedules for such a plan. The Secretary shall refine such plan in full consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and shall also transmit such plan to the National Academy of Sciences for review.
(b) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section--
(1) the term `ITER' has the meaning given that term in section 21611; and
(2) the term `FIRE' means the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment, the fusion research experiment for which design work has been supported by the Department as a possible alternative burning plasma experiment in the event that ITER fails to move forward.
SEC. 21613. PLAN FOR FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM.
(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY- It shall be the policy of the United States to conduct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to provide for the scientific, engineering, and commercial infrastructure necessary to ensure that the United States is competitive with other nations in providing fusion energy for its own needs and the needs of other nations, including by demonstrating electric power or hydrogen production for the United States energy grid utilizing fusion energy at the earliest date possible.
(b) FUSION ENERGY PLAN-
(1) IN GENERAL- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a plan for carrying out the policy set forth in subsection (a), including cost estimates, proposed budgets, potential international partners, and specific programs for implementing such policy.
(2) REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN- Such plan shall also ensure that--
(A) existing fusion research facilities are more fully utilized;
(B) fusion science, technology, theory, advanced computation, modeling, and simulation are strengthened;
(C) new magnetic and inertial fusion research facilities are selected based on scientific innovation, cost effectiveness, and their potential to advance the goal of practical fusion energy at the earliest date possible;
(D) such facilities that are selected are funded at a cost-effective rate;
(E) communication of scientific results and methods between the fusion energy science community and the broader scientific and technology communities is improved;
(F) inertial confinement fusion facilities are utilized to the extent practicable for the purpose of inertial fusion energy research and development; and
(G) attractive alternative inertial and magnetic fusion energy approaches are more fully explored.
(3) REPORT ON FUSION MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT- In addition, the plan required by this subsection shall also address the status of, and to the degree possible, the costs and schedules for--
(A) the design and implementation of international or national facilities for the testing of fusion materials; and
(B) the design and implementation of international or national facilities for the testing and development of key fusion technologies.
Fusion Energy Sciences Act as Passed by the Senate (in 2003 and 2002):
S.1766
Energy Policy Act of 2002 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 1254. FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM AND PLANNING.
(a) Overall Plan for Fusion Energy Sciences Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary, after consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, shall develop and transmit to the Congress a plan to ensure a strong scientific base for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program within the Office of Science and to enable the experiments described in subsections (b) and (c).
(2) OBJECTIVES OF PLAN- The plan under this subsection shall include as its objectives--
(A) to ensure that existing fusion research facilities and equipment are more fully utilized with appropriate measurements and control tools;
(B) to ensure a strengthened fusion science theory and computational base;
(C) to encourage and ensure that the selection of and funding for new magnetic and inertial fusion research facilities is based on scientific innovation and cost effectiveness;
(D) to improve the communication of scientific results and methods between the fusion science community and the wider scientific community;
(E) to ensure that adequate support is provided to optimize the design of the magnetic fusion burning plasma experiments referred to in subsections (b) and (c); and
(F) to ensure that inertial confinement fusion facilities are utilized to the extent practicable for the purpose of inertial fusion energy research and development.
(b) Plan for United States Fusion Experiment-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, after consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, shall develop a plan for construction in the United States of a magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment for the purpose of accelerating scientific understanding of fusion plasmas. The Secretary shall request a review of the plan by the National Academy of Sciences and shall transmit the plan and the review to the Congress by July 1, 2004.
(2) REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN- The plan described in paragraph (1) shall
(A) address key burning plasma physics issues; and
(B) include specific information on the scientific capabilities of the proposed experiment, the relevance of these capabilities to the goal of practical fusion energy , and the overall design of the experiment including its estimated cost and potential construction sites.
(c) PLAN FOR PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL EXPERIMENT- In addition to the plan described in subsection (b), the Secretary, after consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, may also develop a plan for United States participation in an international burning plasma experiment for the same purpose, whose construction is found by the Secretary to be highly likely and where United States participation is cost-effective relative to the cost and scientific benefits of a domestic experiment described in subsection (b). If the Secretary elects to develop a plan under this subsection, he shall include the information described in subsection (b)(2), and an estimate of the cost of United States participation in such an international experiment. The Secretary shall request a review by the National Academy of Sciences of a plan developed under this subsection, and shall transmit the plan and the review to the Congress no later than July 1, 2004.
(d) AUTHORIZATION FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The Secretary, through the Office of Science, may conduct any research and development necessary to fully develop the plans described in this section.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- From amounts authorized under section 1251(b) for fiscal year 2003, $335,000,000 are authorized for fiscal year 2003 for activities under this section and for activities of the Fusion Energy Sciences Program.
________________________
News story which has some good background on the overall Senate energy policy bill
Energy policy
The Senate on Thursday passed an energy bill that had been crafted in
the 107th Congress, an unexpected shift in direction that enabled
lawmakers to restore momentum to a measure that appeared to be stalling
as a result of a partisan dispute over judicial nominations.
After a day of recriminations, closed-door negotiations and party
caucuses, senators averted an impasse over energy legislation by
reaching an unusual unanimous consent agreement to take up last year's
energy bill (S 517) with no amendments. The bill then passed on an 84-14
vote.
That bill had passed a Democratic-controlled Senate on an 88-11 vote.
"I never thought it possible to pass a Democratic bill in a
Republican-controlled Congress," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.) said Thursday night.
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) observed just prior to the Thursday
night vote: "It's been a fascinating day -- a little bit unusual."
Frist described the surprise agreement as a breakthrough. "The Democrats
opened the door this morning. ... We walked right through that door,"
Frist said.
The idea originated with Daschle, who made an offhand suggestion to
Frist during an acrimonious exchange on the floor Thursday morning.
Frist's stated goal of passing an energy bill (S 14) before the August
recess had all but vanished after Republican leaders interrupted debate
to bring to the floor controversial judicial nominations, sparking a
partisan floor battle Wednesday night and bringing the energy bill
debate to a screeching halt.
Frist filed a cloture motion Wednesday night to end debate on the energy
bill as it became evident the bill would not be completed before the
Senate left today for the August recess.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who authored this year's energy bill as
chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he
was pleased with the surprising outcome because he will chair the
upcoming House-Senate conference.
"We're going to conference on last year's bill, but the reason I'm happy
is because I'll be rewriting that bill," Domenici told reporters.
With Republicans controlling both the Senate and House this year, the
bill that emerges from conference will have more production measures,
more research money and stronger nuclear provisions, Domenici said.
Domenici said he was not worried that the conference report must be
approved by a closely divided Senate with 51 votes required for passage;
Republicans have exactly 51 members.
Daschle stressed that the agreement to pass last year's bill did not
commit Democrats to support whatever emerges from the conference in the
fall.
"This (agreement) only gets us to conference. After that, it's wide
open," Daschle said.
Side agreements: The agreement brokered Thursday contains two
conditions.
First, Democrats will be permitted to offer amendments dealing with
manipulation of energy markets during debate in the fall on either the
fiscal 2004 agriculture appropriations bill or the energy and water
funding bill.
Second, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) will be
permitted to have a six-hour debate later in the year on their climate
change bill (S 139) setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions, including
carbon dioxide, and requiring significant reductions. It was unclear
when the vote would be scheduled.
Frustration on both sides reached the boiling point over the last two
days over the GOP decision to schedule daily cloture votes to end debate
on controversial judicial nominations being filibustered by Democrats,
while also trying to complete the energy bill.
Thursday's opening statements showed little hope of compromise. Daschle
called this year's Republican-crafted energy bill the "Enron Protection
Act," saying it did not go far enough to prevent manipulation of energy
markets. Daschle said last year's bill, written when Democrats
controlled the Senate, was a better product.
Frist countered: "What we have today is obstruction -- flat out
obstruction."
The energy bill was stalled as members engaged in a bitter floor debate
over federal judges and who was to blame for slowing action on the
energy bill.
By Thursday afternoon, Daschle's off-the-cuff remark to adopt last
year's energy bill had gained steam and was being seriously discussed.
Republicans and Democrats held quick party caucuses to consider the
idea.
Most members emerged to say it seemed the best solution possible.
Within an hour of the two caucus meetings, the Senate leadership put
together "an agreement in principle" for a unanimous consent request to
adopt last year's energy bill with no amendments.
White House officials attended the GOP caucus and did not object to the
unusual move, said a Hill aide who was in the meeting.
"The White House has no objections," the aide said. "They view it as a
Senate matter. The White House wants an energy bill. They're ready to go
to conference."
The House passed its energy bill (HR 6) on April 11. The Senate began
debate on this year's energy bill on May 6, but has seen only about
three weeks of debate spread over almost three months.
Energy legislation passed the House and Senate last year, but died in
conference during the final days of the 107th Congress. Almost
everything was settled except electricity restructuring and nuclear
liability insurance renewal.
"Let's pass it and move on," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said yesterday,
expressing the sentiments of many members.
Daschle said Frist's scheduling decisions were based on "extraordinary
pressure from the far right to play out their agenda. That's what you've
seen this week."
Daschle said he questioned why cloture votes on controversial
nominations had to be taken up this week. "Either energy is important or
these right-wing judges are important," Daschle said.
Winners and losers: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), ranking Democrat on the
Senate Energy Committee, said he much preferred last year's bill.
Both Senate bills include a renewable fuel standard to promote ethanol.
Last year's bill contains a climate change provision calling for
voluntary reductions on greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a
voluntary registry, but would not set an emissions cap. It also would
establish a White House office on climate change.
This year's bill was reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee in April without a climate change title. Democrats
were ready to offer an amendment this week.
Yesterday's last-minute agreement also stopped Sen. John Edwards
(D-N.C.) from offering his amendment to permit states to ignore the Bush
administration's proposed New Source Review rule for older industrial
facilities if the states had a more effective air pollution program.
Democratic staff said Edwards' amendment was within one or two votes of
passage.
Last year's Senate bill includes a renewable portfolio standard
requiring electric utilities to produce 10 percent of their generation
from renewable sources by 2020. Democrats had planned to offer a similar
amendment to this year's bill.
Both Senate bills include a federal loan guarantee for a 2,000-mile
Alaska natural gas pipeline. Neither Senate bill would open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration. The House has endorsed
ANWR drilling in both of its energy bills.
The decision to go with last year's bill was more painful for Domenici,
who saw his top priority -- a $16 billion federal loan guarantee to
build new nuclear power plants -- vanish.
Domenici wrote the loan guarantee program into his chairman's mark for
this year's Senate Energy bill. It was not part of last year's bill and
is not in the House bill.
Domenici said Thursday night that he did not intend to offer the federal
loan guarantee program at the conference, but he had in mind some
"alternatives" that would promote nuclear energy development. He
declined to elaborate.
Another issue to be sorted out in conference with the House is the size
of an energy tax incentives package. Last year's Senate bill contained a
$20.6 billion package.
This year's version is $15.5 billion. The White House wants a $9 billion
package of energy tax incentives, but both chambers have exceeded the
administration's request. -- Lynn Garner
Mark Haynes
Vice President, Energy Development
Vice President, Washington Operations
General Atomics
1899 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 496-8209
Fax: (202) 659-1110
e-mail: haynes@ga.com