Organizational charts: possibly the most boring topic you can imagine. So why is the reorganization of a federal agency (in this case the Department of Energy, or DOE) the subject of a January 30Congressional hearingin the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee? I listened in to the live webcast of the hearing so that I could get the low-down on what this reorganization could mean for the future of basic and applied research at DOE. Early indications are that theadministration will seek to cut clean energy research by 72 percent.
A Tale of Two Org Charts
Back in December, Energy Secretary Perryannouncedthat his agency is planning to “modernize” its internal organizational structure “to advance its policy goals consistent with its statutory requirements.” That means a neworg chart. It includes a big change from the previous administration: splitting the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy into two: The Office of the Under Secretary for Science and the Office of the Under Secretary for Energy. Sounds harmless enough—why should this matter? While reasonable people disagree on what impact this may have on DOE’s operations and priorities—see this伟大的总结部分—this change is potentially significant to our nation’s science and research enterprises and worth keeping an eye on.
Theprevious org chart, established by former Energy Secretary Moniz in 2013, combined the two Under Secretary positions. Moniz justified the change, arguing that thedepartment required“the ability to closely integrate and move quickly among basic science, applied research, technology demonstration, and deployment” and that there was an advantage to having the majority of the National Labs within one department. He also highlighted the change as necessary for the innovation ecosystem for clean energy, which was critical for implementing President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. However, in March 2017, the current presidentrescindedthe Climate Action Plan, along with awhole host of other effortsaimed at addressing climate change.
Justification
Instead of drawing attention to the administration’s ongoing workto sideline efforts to address climate change, Secretary Perry’s team refers to this DOE reorganization as “modernizing” the agency. Ironically, dividing Energy and Science into different offices returns the agency closer tohow it was organized a decade ago. The witnesses from the Congressional hearing, the two men nominated and confirmed to lead the two new offices, suggested that this change was consistent with the intent of Congress. Congressman Beyer (VA-08) pushed back on the implication that former Secretary Moniz acted improperly in splitting them up; reading from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (seevideoat about 1:16:07), he noted that the responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Science include both “basic and applied research” and suggested that the applied energy technologies offices could well fall under the purview of the Office of Science according to the statute.
In any case, theSecretary of Energy has broad discretionto organize the department and his own team as he sees fit, consistent with the law. The whole question of Congressional intent, in the end, appears to be a red herring. Thereal reason behind this change(justified by claims of modernization and Congressional intent) is to establish anartificial wall between basic and applied science.This could give leeway to the Administration to push for even deeper cuts for whatever it deems to be applied research—which could include a wide range of vital programs in clean energy and energy efficiency, our national labs, the applied energy technology offices, and R&D that supports the clean energy innovation ecosystem. Simply put, by separating the two offices Secretary Perry is laying the groundwork for the administration to cleave the research efforts they don’t want out of the DOE.
How will this happen? The President’s FY 2018 budget, released almost a year ago, offers a clue: It proposed thelargest reduction in funding for scientific researchseen in the last 40 years. What’s worse, the administrationclearly prioritizes“basic and early-stage” R&D, but continues to suggest that “applied research”—especially technologies that are near commercialization—are best left to the private sector and not worthy of federal investments. In this week’s House hearing, several committee members questioned the witnesses about the distinction between basic and early-stage research and its implications for budget priorities, and the Under Secretariesindicated that they did not supportmany of the cuts that were proposed by the administration last year.
The chart below shows how last year’s budget proposal included much greater cuts for applied research compared to basic research. Basic Energy Sciences, within the Office of Science, was slated for a 16 percent cut, but many of the applied technology offices were facing cuts upwards of nearly 70 percent or more, including research on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).What’s in store for this year’s proposal?
Our National Labs: A “Crown Jewel”
Interestingly, Secretary Perry hasrepeatedly promisedto defend DOE scientists and research,calling the nation’s 17 National Labs a “crown jewel.”He should know that the National Labs work on both basic and applied research becausesolving real-world problems requires both. DOE’s Labs develop and invest inbreakthrough technologiesthat are too risky or too expensive for the private sector, and represent awise investment纳税人的money.
The ideological distinction between basic and applied research creates anartificial barrier which makes it harder for us to innovate and make breakthroughs. In DOE’s case, itwill devastate the work of the National Labs—which are vitally important to our scientific competitiveness—and could force massive job losses in these institutions that are vital to local economies.
We’re Watching
In all the hoopla following the President’s first国情咨文address, we’re paying attention to his ongoing attacks on clean energy. We’ll be watching to see how this reorganization at DOE pans out. We’ll be watching the White House budget proposal (which could be released in just a few weeks) to see his flawed priorities. In fact, our team has already been following these attacks—from DOE’sbogus FERC proposalaimed at bailing out uneconomic coal and nuclear plants that wasultimately rejected, to the president’s decision to slap a 30 percent tariff on foreign made solar panels thatthreatens thousands of installer jobsin one of the fastest growing industries today. Be sure to followthis ongoing blog series,where we will spotlight administration efforts to hamper the development of clean energy.