later this afternoon, we will probably finish around 4:30, but we
are going to run about 15 to 20 minutes late because we have two
votes coming up now, and the last one will only be for 5 minutes
but there is no way we C£in keep the committee going.
Thursday, February 29, 1996.
GARY ELLIOTT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BIOENERGY INDUSTRIES AS-
Mr. Myers. The next witness will be Gary Elliott, President of
the National BioEnergy Industries Association. Gary, you are next.
Your prepared statement will be placed in the record, and you may
proceed as you care for the next 5 minutes.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished panel
members, for allowing me to speak here today.
I am Gary Elliott, President of the National BioEnergy Indus-
tries Association. I am also president of a small engineering con-
sulting company that consults in bioenergy areas. That is the way
I make my money. The BioEnergy Industries Association is pro
bono, volunteer, work.
I would like to read into the record today some information I
have regarding our recommendations for the budget for 1997. The
National BioEnergy Industries Association, or NBIA, as it is often
known, is the national trade organization of the biomass electric
and thermal components, suppliers, manufacturers, and project de-
We recommend a fiscal year 1997 funding level of approximately
12 percent higher than in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations. That
would bring the total to about $29.85 million in the budget, which
in direct conformity with the fiscal year 1996 appropriations Floor
language, would be equally funded for the biofuels program, which
we heard good testimony just previous to mine. So, hence, NBIA
supports an overall budget of $59.7 million for the entire bioenergy
Some background why we think this is important.
The World Resources Institute study, A New Power Base for Re-
newable Energy Policies for the Nineties and Beyond says it all.
Biomass contributed 3.1 quads of energy, but the economically ac-
cessible resource is 14 quads of energy per year in the United
States alone. The report further references carbon emissions from
electric generation with fossil plants as ranging from 484 metric
tons per gigawatt hour compared to sustainable harvested wood,
which is a negative 159.9 metric tons per gigawatt hour due to the
carbon sequestration value of biomass.
The 1991 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report
entitled Energy Technology Choices: Shaping Our Future relates
that the energy potential of biomass energy is 55 quads by the year
2000 and present capacity is over 14 quads, or over 15 percent of
our current 85 quads of the U.S. energy use. At 9 tons per acre,
the use of 192 miUion acres of potential cropland could generate 26
quads of biomass energy. Currently, over 900 million acres are
classified as crop or commercial forestland and of that total, 10 per-
cent is withheld from production for soil conservation purposes.
NBIA agrees with the DOE's national biomass power five-year
plan, fiscal year 1994 through 1998, which characterizes the U.S.
biomass power's contribution of 6,500 megawatts that results in
66,000 jobs with the realistic potential for the industry to provide
an additional 44,000 megawatts by 2010. NBIA also believes that
with U.S. Grovernment assistance, biomass power could reach $3.5
billion per year in income supporting 120,000 jobs by the year
2000, generating more than $890 million in Federal and State tax
revenues with economic growth geographically dispersed.
In conclusion, I would say NBIA believes that direct-combustion
biomass has the biggest megawatt deployment potential, in the
shortest time period, creating the most geographically dispersed
jobs of any alternative energy option. Biomass power developed on
a sustainable basis can sequester more carbon than any energy op-
tion and be more easily integrated into conventional energy facili-
ties at less cost than any other energy option.
As charts that I have enclosed illustrate from NBIA's 1993 issue
of Biologue magazine, the economic development potential is tre-
mendous. Our industries ask the subcommittee to support the ad-
ministration's fiscal year 1997 budget recommendations in line
with NBIA's request. The economic and environmental returns on
this investment will be swift and sure. Thank you.
Mr. Myers. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Elliott follows:]
n at i o n al
122 C ST. NW, 4th Floor . Washington, DC . 20001-2109 . 202/383-2540 . fax 202/383-2670
NATIONAL BIOENERGY INDUSTRIES
submitted to the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & WATER
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 29, 1996
The National BioEnergy Industries Association (NBIA), the national trade organization
of the biomass-electric and thermal component suppliers, manufacturers, and project
developers recommends an FY'97 funding level approximately 12% higher than the
FY'96 appropriated bioenergy budget at the U.S. Department of Energy. NBIA
recommends that a DOE Bioenergy-Electric $29.85 million budget which, in direct
conformity with the FY"96 approprations floor language, would equally ftind programs in
Bioenergy/Biofuels. Hence, NBIA supports an overall $59.70 million for the entire
The World Resources Institute study "A New Power Base: Renewable Energy Policies
for the Nineties and Beyond" says it all: using 1990 statistics biomass contributed 3.1
quads of energy, but the economically accessible resource is 14 quads of energy per year.
The report further references carbon emissions from electric generation with fossil plants
ranging from 484 metric tons per GWh compared to sustainable harvested wood at -159.9
metric tons per GWh (net) due to the carbon sequestration value of biomass.
The 1 992 study released by Johansson, Kelly, Reddy and Williams as fodder for the UN
Global Warming meeting in Rio, noted that biomass energy accounted for 14.7 percent of
the world's energy. Under the biomass potential review, the study shows that nearly ten
percent of the world's energy use could be sustainably harvested from crop, forest, and
manure residues, 3 1 .2 exajoules of a total of 373 exajoules worldwide. If sustainable
biomass was grown on plantations, the potential would be 266.9 exajoules, or in other
words, the globe could rely on sustainable biomass for its primary energy supply.
In the April 1992 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Study, "Fueling
Development: Energy Technologies for Developing Countries," 35 percent of the
developing world uses biomass energy, mostly inefficiently. Bringing on more efficient
combustion technology could more than double the energy output of biomass energy
where 65 percent of the world's population resides.
The 1991 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report entitled
"Energy Technology Choices: Shaping Our Future," relates that the energy potential of
biomass energy is 55 quads by the year 2000 and present capacity (excluding cultivated
crops and wood not used for biomass) is 14 quads, or over 15 percent of our current 85
quads of U.S. energy use. OTA quotes Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) data
which states that during the next 25 years annual crop yields are expected to average
between 5-1 1 dry tons per acre. At 9 tons per acre, the use of 192 million acres of
potential crop land could generate 26 quads of biomass energy. Currently, over 900
million acres are classified as crop land or commercial forest land and of that total, ten
percent is withheld from production for soil conservation. An average of 328 million
acres are planted annually.
The 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study, "Renewable Electric Generation:
An Assessment of Air Pollution and Prevention Potential" (researched primarily by Cathy
Zoi and Marc Chupka, both presently at the White House Office of Environment)
calculates that 3 quads of biomass energy is currently used for heat and steam generation
and 0.5 quads represents 5,427 megawatts of electricity generated. EPA estimates that
short rotation woody crops could yield an additional quad of electricity by the year 2000
and 3.5 quads of energy by 2010 without negative environmental impacts.
In a 1994 study by the World Bank, "Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review of the
Status and Costs of Selected Technologies" by Kulsum Ahmed reviews that biomass cost
history. The study shows that for plants over 20 megawatts, costs could drop from
$1 ,599 dollars per kilowatt hour to $870 per kilowatt hour by the year 2000 with
advanced biomass integrated gasifiers tied to steam injected turbines.
NBIA agrees with DOE's National Biomass Power Five Year Plan FY'94-FY'98, which
characterizes the U.S. biomass power's contribution of 6,500 megawatts that results in
66,000 jobs with the realistic potential for the industry to provide an additional 44,000
megawatts by 2010. NBIA also believes that with U.S. government assistance, biomass
power could reach $3.5 billion per year in income supporting 120,000 jobs by the year
2000, generating more than $890 million in federal and state tax revenues with economic
growth geographically dispersed.
Biomass power is an important investment and biomass power can meet the common
objectives to dramatically re-industrialize the United States with environmentally benign
NBIA'S FV97 DOE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIOENERGY
Bioenergy/Bioelectric FY'95 - ^97
• Cap Equipment
** - Regional Biomass Energy Programs and the Feedstoclc Development Program were solely funded out
of the biofuels RD&D program, not electric, during FY'95 and '96.
* - Regional Biomass Energy Programs and the Feedstock Development Program equally shared between
the Bioenergy/Biofuels RD&D program and Bioenergy-Electric Programs.
The goal of this program is to enhance conversion efficiencies of the different set of
direct-combustion biomass applications which includes ways to characterize and lessen
emissions and ash. To this end, cost-shared validation tests of steam injected turbines,
hot gas clean-up systems, test bums for ash deposition alleviation, and feedstock
preparation are essential. NBIA urges an increase of $450,000 for this program, and a
dollar-for-dollar requirement for cost-shared collaboration with the biomass combustion
industry in enhancing existing commercial technologies.
NBIA strongly supports this program as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
implementation as well as the Climate Change Action Plan.
NBIA believes these funds should be directed in dollar-for-dollar cost-shared projects
with industry with the following breakdown:
1. Whole Tree Energy : $3.5 million for the first installment of a multi-year project with
the existing consortium to operationalize the first Whole Tree Energy facility. This
project can leverage large-scale biomass power plants which increase efficiency, meet
emissions requirements, and lowers harvesting and feedstocks preparation costs of
2. Advanced Combustion Initiative : $7.5 million for cost-shared validation of existing
advanced combustion technology which has immediate market impact including
companies in position to manufacture and utility or other endusers ready to purchase
upon successful validation of performance.
3. Wood/Coal Cofiring : $1 .5 million competitively cost-shared in at least five projects
where a project would establish sustainable biomass markets tied to both existing
feedstocks, wood/agricultural wastes, and dedicated crops.
4. Agricultural Revitalization : $2.0 million to utilize existing sites whether it be sugar
production, rice hulls or peanut shells, or other feedstocks to insure the increase use of
biomass production to make food production more competitive which could include
the production of other products such as ethanol.
The basis of this program is dollar-for-dollar cost-shared deployment with our industry
and the enduser. NBIA plans to work with DOE, the United BioEnergy
Commercialization Association (UBECA) and others to insure this program is realistic
Feedstock D evelopment
NBIA has aggressively supported the program administered by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratories (ORNL). The Biofuels Feedstock Development Program (supporting short-
rotation woody and herbaceous energy feedstock research) is an essential ingredient for a
sustainable biomass power industry as well as a sustainable liquid fuels industry in the
United States. NBIA proposes the program ought to be raised to $6 million for a $2
million increase as a cost-shared activity with farmers and woodlot owners as a way to
build sustainable dedicated crops tied to existing or new biomass combustion plants on
conservation reserve, forestland (including National Parks and Interior lands) so as to
institutionalize the use of this emerging resource.
Re gional Biomass Energy Programs
NBIA believes that the Regional Biomass Energy Programs are the most effective
technology transfer program supported by DOE, and they are essential to meet the goals
of the Biomass Power Five Year Plan. To this end, NBIA believes an increase to $6
million of which some fiinding ought to be provided regionally and on a cost-shared basis
with industry for project feasibility studies as a way to provide the initial "due diligence"
to begin an aggressive project development cycle in the United States.
NBIA believes that several other programs under the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Section of the U.S. Department of Energy are worth support. The Committee on
Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade (CORECT) supported by the International
program has been a critical factor in our expanding world markets. NBIA, as a member
of the renewable energy trade consortium (the U.S. Export Council for Renewable
Energy or US/ECRE) recommends an enhanced level for project identification,
pre feasibility assistance through the International Fund for Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency (IFREE), and multilateral assistance via IFREE, FFNESSE and related
multilateral bank programs. Funding should be no less than $6.5 million with the
international line item equally distributed between CORECT, America's 21st Century
and Joint Implementation.
NBIA believes that direct-combustion biomass has the biggest megawatt deployment
potential, in the shortest time period, creating the most geographically dispersed jobs of
any alternative energy option. Biomass power developed on a sustainable basis can
sequester more carbon than any energy option and be more easily integrated with
conventional energy facilities at less cost than any other energy option. As the following
charts illustrate, from NBIA's 1993 issue of Biologue magazine, the economic
development potential is great. Our industries ask the Subcommittee to support the
Administration's FY"97 budget recommendations in line with NBIA's request. The
economic and environmental returns on this investment will be swift and sure.
1992 1997 2000
PROIECTED AKNUJU. NET IMCOME FOB OA
Table 1 - Projections for 1995
Annual Biofuels-Related Job Creation
Great Lakes Region
Agriculture & Forestry
Fabricated Metal Products
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Repair & Maintenance
♦Source: Council of Great Lakes Governors (CGLG), "Biomass Resources: Generating Jobs and Energy,'
prepared for the Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program, November 1985, p. 5.
Table 2 - Industry Wood Energy
Direct Jobs & Income by Employment Category (1985)
Number of Jobs
Total Income (1985 S's)
Chip & Mill Residue Truckers
Wood Power Plant Personnel
Before Tax Profit of Chipping
Table 3 - Residential Wood Energy
Direct Jobs & Income by Employment Category (1985)
Number of Jobs
Loggers & Firewood Dealers
Chimney Sweeps & Appliance
Clerical Support Staff
Before Tax Profit of Chipping
♦Source: CONEG, p.
Table 4 - Conventional Fuels Displaced
Residential/Industrial Wood Energy Use
1 billion gallons
989 million gallons
Natural Gas & Propane
37 million tcf
1,858 million kWh
Table 5 - Estimated Economic Impact of Wood Fuels 1992
(millions of S's)
(millions of S's)
Thursday, February 29, 1996.
ADVANCED PHOTON SOURCE AND SCIENTIFIC
DAVID E. MONCTON, ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR, ARGONNE
Mr. Myers. David Moncton is associate laboratory director at Ar-
Your entire statement will be placed in the record, and if you
could keep it to 5 minutes, too, because we are due for a vote any
Mr. Moncton. Well, thanks for inviting me to testify.
I am David Moncton, the associate lab director at Argonne. I am
responsible for the Advanced Photon Source, and I wanted to begin
by thanking the committee, and particularly the chairman and
Congressman Bevill, for the support that both of you have provided
to the APS project since construction began in 1989.
We are going to have our dedication on the 1st of May, and we
remember fondly your participation in our ground-breaking cere-
mony back in June of 1989 and hope you will be able to join us
for the dedication. The project is almost a year ahead of schedule
and under budget.
Mr. Myers. Good.
Mr. Moncton. I am pleased to be able to report that success to
you and to give you the credit that you all deserve here for provid-
mg the funding on the plan that was originally established back in
1987. So within a few percent each year, we were able to receive
the plan funding levels, and that helped enormously in being able
to bring this project in on time and on budget. Not every project
has had that fate, as you well know, and I recommend it as a
model for future project funding and congratulate the committee
for being able to deliver on that.
Mr. Myers. Thank you and congratulations.
Mr. Moncton. I want to say a little about the Scientific Facili-
ties Initiative, a program launched in fiscal year 1996 to provide
adequate operating support for a variety of DOE's basic energy
sciences facilities, including neutron and synchrotron facilities,
electron and microscopy facilities, and some others.
That program has involved the addition of nearly $60 million to
the operating budget. That is about 20 percent of the total operat-
ing budget that those facilities receive, but it is almost double the
effectiveness of those facilities.
For example, at the Advanced Light Source, recently completed
facilities in the Berkeley Laboratory, they were able to increase
their hours of operations by 71 percent over the fiscal year 1995
level due to that initiative in fiscal year 1996.
The High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven would only have op-
erated at 46 percent of its potential if it were not for the scientific
facilities initiative. But as a result, it will operate at a full schedule
of 270 days and do approximately twice the number of experiments
that they would otherwise have been able to do.
These facilities have large fixed-tx)-variable cost ratios, and so
small increments of money make an enormous difference in their
effectiveness. So the community is very, very pleased that those
monies were provided in fiscal year 1996, and is planning to run
fully again in 1997, as the Department will be submitting follow-
on funds for that initiative in 1997 and then hopes that that money
will be included in the base program for BES, and we will have a
set of very important facilities running with full efficiency in the
So that is another good news story that I want to congratulate
this committee for its role in helping to provide that funding.
I would like to end by calling your attention to an area within
the facilities community that is of concern to us, and that is with
respect to the development of new neutron sources, new and up-
graded neutron sources. We have not made a major investment in
new neutron-scattering facilities in 25 years in this country, and
we desperately need to do that, and I would just encourage the
committee to give consideration to the Department's program when
it comes before this committee this budget year and next.
The Department, I believe, is planning right now, along with
OSTP and 0MB, to attempt to upgrade a number of existing facili-
ties and plan new ones after the cancellation of the Advanced Neu-
tron Source at Oak Ridge. So I would just encourage the committee
to look favorably on that question and request and thank you very
[The statement of Mr. Moncton follows:]
Testimony Before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
David E. Moncton
Associate Laboratory Director
Advanced Photon Source
Argonne National Laboratory
February 29, 1996
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of continued funding for the
Department of Energy's Scientific Facilities Initiative. As the Associate Laboratory
Director for the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory, I would like
to take a moment and thank this committee, and Representatives Myers and Bevill in
particular, for the outstanding support given to the APS Project during its construction.
Under the stewardship of this committee, the DOE Office of Basic Energy
Sciences has funded the APS at essentially the planned level since project inception in
1989. As a result of that steady support, the Project team was able to design, test, and
procure several hundred thousand complex technical components according to plan,
and install those components inside new buildings finished in time to receive them.
Project management could schedule manpower needs in accordance with technical
requirements, and fill those needs in a timely fashion. Consequently, the APS Project has
completed the commissioning process within budget and ahead of schedule. The APS