February 27, 2012 - IMM@BUCT

GOVERNMENT & POLICY
tion seeks $429 million, 19.7% less than the
$534 million Congress appropriated in 2012.
However, DOE intends to use only $347 million
of that amount. Most of the funding requested
in the 2013 proposal would be used
for coal-related research for power plant efficiency
and carbon capture technologies.
Echoing the President, Chu stressed
support for advanced manufacturing and
the need for the U.S. to ramp up manufacturing
efforts. He singled out a 2013 budget
request for $290 million to fund the Advanced
Manufacturing Office within DOE,
which is a renamed and refocused version
of DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program.
For more than a decade, that office has
been important to the chemical industry,
providing guidance and promoting industrial
energy efficiency.
Previous Administrations had slashed
the program’s funding and discussed
its elimination. In 2008, its budget was
$63 million, but in 2011, Chu sought $320
million and received $116 million from
Congress. This year’s proposal would more
than double the office’s funding.
The 2013 budget does not include money
for DOE’s controversial loan guarantee program,
which has been under attack by Republicans
in the House of Representatives.
Chu continued to stress the importance
of other federal programs to encourage
private clean energy investments, such as
the production tax credit to encourage investment
in wind and solar energy projects.
These programs, Chu said, have for the first
time since 2008 put the U.S. ahead of China
in private and government clean energy
investments, with a $47 billion to $56 billion
U.S. advantage in 2011.
When Chu presented DOE’s 2013 budget
to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources
Committee on Feb. 16, he emphasized
“tough choices” and cuts. Many senators,
however, thought the budget was too grand
and the cuts too shallow.
President Obama’s budget, committee
ranking minority member Sen. Lisa
Murkowski (R-Alaska) said, “largely ignores
the greatest threat to our economy—
the more than $15 trillion debt.”
She criticized Chu’s support for tax
credits for new energy technologies and
advanced manufacturing and efficiency programs.
But she opposed efforts to remove
some $4 billion in yearly tax breaks for oil
and gas companies, reductions Chu had underscored
in his testimony.
The conflicting themes continued
throughout the three hours senators
NIST
Research and services are slated for big gains
$ MILLIONS 2011 a 2012 b 2013 c 2012–13
CHANGE
Laboratories & services $497.4 $567.0 $648.0 14.3%
Physical Measurement Laboratory 122.5 123.9 126.5 2.1
Material Measurement Laboratory 98.3 106.3 124.8 17.4
Information Technology Laboratory 67.1 97.0 112.9 16.4
Engineering Laboratory 64.8 73.3 84.5 15.3
Standards coordination & special programs 15.4 30.5 56.8 86.2
Center for Neutron Research 41.5 41.5 40.9 -1.4
Center for Nanoscale Science & Technology 28.1 33.1 40.2 21.5
Innovations in measurement science program 20.2 20.2 20.2 0.0
Corporate services 18.8 18.5 18.5 0.0
Postdoctoral research associates program 11.0 13.0 13.0 0.0
Strategic & emerging research initiative fund 9.7 9.7 9.7 0.0
Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership 128.4 128.4 128.0 -0.3
Construction of research facilities 69.9 55.4 60.0 8.3
Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Consortia 0.0 0.0 21.0 nm
Technology Innovation Program 44.8 0.0 0.0 nm
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program 9.6 0.0 0.0 nm
TOTAL d $750.1 $750.8 $857.0 14.1%
a Actual adjusted for NIST internal reorganization. b Enacted. c Proposed. d Excludes one-time revitalization funds
for the Wireless Innovation Fund ($300 million) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ($1 billion).
nm = not meaningful. SOURCE: National Institute of Standards & Technology
peppered Chu with questions. They criticized
Chu for offering loans and support
to clean energy companies, but equally
blasted him for not offering loans, grants,
and research support for industries in
their particular states. The hypocrisy was
bipartisan.
DOE’s proposal is unlikely to survive
in its current form in a deeply divided
Congress during a volatile election year. In
2012, Chu sought $29.5 billion and wound
up with $3 billion less. —JEFF JOHNSON
COMMERCE: R&D
FUNDING IS UP AT
NIST, DOWN AT NOAA
Both research agencies of the Department
of Commerce—the National Institute of
Standards & Technology (NIST) and the
USDA
Food research takes a hit
$ MILLIONS 2011 a 2012 b 2013 c 2012–13
CHANGE
National Institute of Food & Agriculture $1,356 $1,353 $1,271 -6.1%
Agricultural Research Service 1,164 1,126 1,130 0.4
National Agricultural Statistics Service 156 159 179 12.6
Economic Research Service 82 78 77 -1.3
TOTAL $2,758 $2,716 $2,657 -2.2%
a Actual. b Enacted. c Proposed. SOURCE: U. S. Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)—would receive funding
boosts in the 2013 budget. The increase in
NIST’s budget would keep the agency’s
core internal labs on an extended budgetdoubling
track.
NIST would be particularly rewarded
by the emphasis on manufacturing to support
the economic recovery. The agency’s
budget would increase 14.1%,
to $857 million. Nearly half of
the increase would go “to support
NIST’s efforts in promoting
emerging manufacturing
challenges in new technology areas like
biomanufacturing, nanomanufacturing,
14.1%
NIST
advanced materials, and systems technologies
like smart manufacturing,” NIST Director
Patrick D. Gallagher said at a budget
briefing.
For example, the $45 million Measure-
WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG 44 FEBRUARY 27, 2012