DOE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1982 (Part 2) HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 3, 1981-NUCLEAR ENERGY MARCH 4, 1981-ELECTRIC UTILITIES MARCH 5, 1981-ADMINISTRATION ENERGY POLICIES APRIL 1, 1981-RENEWABLE ENERGY APRIL 2, 1981-NUCLEAR ENERGY 81-102 O Serial No. 97-9 Printed for the use of the U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1981 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York ANTHONY TOBY MOFFETT, Connecticut JIM SANTINI, Nevada EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama W. J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana RALPH M. HALL, Texas JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois TOM CORCORAN, Illinois WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California CLEVE BENEDICT, West Virginia THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR., Virginia Bauer, Douglas C., senior vice president, Edison Electric Institute Clark, Robert W., president, Goodyear Aerospace Corp...... Rachlin, Michael S., vice president, government relations, the Garrett Renhult, James F., assistant manager, the Garrett Corp. Russell, John J., chairman, customer relations, conservation, and energy management, Executive Advisory Committee, Edison Electric Insti- Wallace, Larry J., chairman, Indiana Public Service Commission... Material submitted for the record by: American Nuclear Energy Council, letter dated March 16, 1981, from John T. Conway to Chairman Ottinger, enclosing additional material Memorandum and attachments from Harry A. Jones, Acting Assist- ant Secretary, to Secretary Edwards re financing the strategic (HD) Material submitted for the record by-Continued Page Responses to subcommittee questions, submitted by Frank DeGeorge.. 1180 1378 Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Commerce: Staff memorandum re breakdown of DOE conservation and renewable energy budgets.... 1344 McEwen, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, statement 893 DOE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982 NUCLEAR ENERGY TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1981 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richard L. Ottinger (chairman) presiding. Mr. OTTINGER. The subcommittee will come to order. This afternoon the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power continues its hearings on the impact of proposed budget changes on various programs within the Department of Energy. Today the subcommittee meets to receive testimony from public witnesses on the Department's nuclear energy programs. Last week the subcommittee received testimony concerning the new administration's proposal to eliminate or substantially reduce the budget of numerous programs, such as conservation and alcohol fuels, which offer near-term benefits. The subject of today's hearing is in marked contrast with those prior hearings in that there is both some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we are finally reviewing an administration energy program which reportedly will not be seriously cut, and the bad news, at least from my standpoint, is the nuclear program. It is completely beyond my comprehension why, with electricity consuming only 9.1 percent of our total oil consumption, we should be spending more than 50 percent of the revised civilian energy budget on nuclear energy for electricity production, to say nothing of the $4.5 billion spent on the military side of DOE's nuclear budget. It also raises the question of whether there isn't some lack of confidence on behalf of the industry, and the ability of nuclear energy to survive in the marketplace if we are, indeed, going to deregulate and take away subsidies from all other forms of energy, and increase subsidies for nuclear energy. I understand that some people feel, nevertheless, that in the past few years the nuclear program has operated under severe budget constraints and has not grown in proportion to other energy programs. As a result some nuclear programs, such as the new enrichment facility, are in serious jeopardy. However, increases in the funding for nonnuclear alternatives represented a commitment on the part of the Congress to develop a balanced energy policy which provided both near-term and long |