NHA Committee Members Spend Time on Capitol Hill
NHA Home • NHA News Index

by Debbi Smith, National Hydrogen Association

On June 16^th the NHA Legislative Affairs Council held its second meeting of 2004. The issue: House of Representatives cuts in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget appropriated through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.

The House Subcommittee zeroed out the education and cross-cutting analysis request of $7 million and the $24 million in funds to be awarded to the national lab partners of the “Grand Storage Challenge” Centers of Excellence.  These cuts affect several NHA members and the education and outreach work of the NHA.

In addition, the House stated “The Committee expects that the House and Senate will designate during conference certain Congressionally-directed projects within the various energy supply programs.” In other words, be prepared for earmarks during the conference committee.

According to the Appropriations Committee report which accompanies the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, Chairman Hobson (R-OH) said the Grand Storage Challenge was not competed openly and was instead, competed only between national laboratories. In strong language, the Committee chairman took the Department of Energy to task for not complying with the Hydrogen Energy Future Act of 1996 (PL# 104-271) and for ignoring the recommendations by the Subcommittee in the FY 2004 appropriations report, by not requiring sufficient cost share for the awarded projects.

At the June16^th meeting of the NHA Legislative Affairs Council, members and staff asked DoE for comments on the language in the FY2005 House committee report. DoE stated that National Labs cannot compete against industry, by law, so the competition could not pit national labs directly against private industry. Furthermore, DoE was under the impression that since it had competed all hydrogen work except Congressionally-directed spending (earmarks) and work done by national labs, last year’s Committee report language (FY 2004 funds) directing DoE to “compete the hydrogen research program to the fullest extent possible,” was interpreted to mean that the national lab research had to also be competed.

With respect to the cost-share requirement, DoE claimed they were in compliance with The Hydrogen Future Act and actually sought more cost-share than required by law. PL# 104-271 does not require cost-share for R&D projects, but DoE required 20% cost-share from the private sector even though storage is still considered to be research and high-risk. The 50% cost-share in The Hydrogen Future Act is for industry demonstration projects (Section 105). Since a number of the participants in the Grand Storage Challenge are universities, 50% cost-share would be prohibitive and did not apply in this case, reasoned DoE.

The FY2005 Committee report language did not explain why the education portion of the DoE request was cut completely.

The Legislative Affairs Council members then spent a brainstorming session to craft the message to take to Capitol Hill in the afternoon. After a lively discussion, the following points formed the message in support of the simple request, “Please overturn the House mark.”

• The Hydrogen Roadmap, which is the basis of the Department of Energy’s hydrogen program, was crafted in a partnership with the federal government, private industry and academia. The private sector is behind the roadmap, and has committed resources to help the federal government bring it to fruition but will only continue to partner with the federal government if funding is consistent.
• The key to developing the hydrogen infrastructure is storage—whether hydrogen is stored in a fixed location or on some form of transportation, it is a key hurdle to be overcome and requires accelerated research to overcome it.
• DoE has addressed the criticisms by the Committee and states that the National Labs cannot compete with the private sector, by law.
• A 50% cost-share by universities and small businesses is cost-prohibitive.
• Education is a key commercialization barrier to implementing hydrogen. All the best research, all the great demonstrations that lead to product development mean nothing if an educated consumer does not exist to receive them.
• Congressionally-directed programs do not allow for consistency of funding because funds are taken away from the core program.

The NHA council met with staff members from the offices of Senators Conrad Burns (R-MT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Tom Harkin (D-IA). All Senators are on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. At the time of the writing of this article, the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee had not yet marked the appropriations bill.

NHA members: for further information on appropriations affecting hydrogen and fuel cells, see the NHA’s quarterly publication The Legislative Update located on the Member’s Only page at www.HydrogenAssociation.org.
©2003. All Rights Reserved. A Publication of the National Hydrogen Association.
This material may not be reproduced in any form without permission.

NHA Home • Return to NHA News Index