In Energy Work, One Hand Giveth and the Other Taketh
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The New York Times
February 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — President Bush supports the development of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy. So does Congress. But their goals differ in ways that compete for research dollars and are costing some government researchers their jobs.
About one research dollar in every five appropriated by Congress for the development of renewable energy sources is for a specific project inserted directly into the budget on behalf of a member of the House or Senate, and directed to a contractor or a university in the lawmaker's state or district. When ordered to pay for such pet projects, known as earmarks, the Energy Department reduces spending on similar projects at its own laboratories.
As a result, scores of staff members at the department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, Colo., and at contractors that the lab supports are losing their jobs. Some people on Capitol Hill acknowledge that layoffs, which are to begin in a few days, seem strange, coming after Mr. Bush's proposal in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that the government spend 22 percent more on renewable energy.
In his address, Mr. Bush called for "earmark reform," although not specifically in the context of energy projects. The next morning Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman reiterated the point when he met with reporters to give some details about the administration's proposals. Even some lawmakers agree.
"We should reform the earmark process," Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, said in an interview on Thursday. Not all earmarks are bad, Mr. Boehlert said, offering as an example of a good one a Congressional requirement for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to install buoys in the Pacific to watch for tsunamis.
But earmarks are not subject to public hearings and other controls that govern most spending decisions, he pointed out. In addition, they are becoming far more common in the energy field.
An Energy Department spokeswoman, Anne Womack Kolton, said that financing in the current fiscal year for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy was $1.174 billion, nearly identical to that of the previous year. But earmarks rose to $160 million, from $105 million, she said.
David K. Garman, the under secretary of energy, said at a recent news conference, "It's almost as if renewable energy is a victim of being loved to death," with each lawmaker wanting to finance a local project.
Kei Koizumi, who is in charge of analyzing research and development policy and budgets at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, calculated that earmarks in energy research and development hit $266 million in the current fiscal year, "more than double the previous record from last year." Among the earmarked money is $495,000 for a pilot project in North Dakota to make hydrogen from wind power, $1.5 million for wind turbines in Alaska, and $500,000 for expansion of ethanol fuel pumps in several states.
Earmarks consume more than half the money for biomass research, which includes ethanol, he calculated, and one-third of wind energy.
David Goldston, the staff director of the House Science Committee, said the earmarks were government carrying on as usual.
"I suspect there's a certain amount of everybody going through normal pork barrel processes, and the Energy Department doing the usual things to handle these earmarks, without anyone realizing how it intersects with the president's proposals," he said.
While many earmark projects chosen by Congress, instead of those selected by scientific competition, may be worthwhile, analysts say that as a group, the projects tend to be in areas that are closer to commercialization, and farther from basic research.
Mr. Boehlert, the committee chairman, said the logic was apparent. "The ear marker, if you will, says, 'Hey, this is close to commercialization, and you've got jobs and something tangible you can point to in your district.' If it's long-term research, people yawn and say, 'When is that going to impact something in the economy of my state or my district?' "
Earmarks have sometimes been the cause of embarrassment, like the time in 1991 when the Senate voted $500,000 to convert Lawrence Welk's birthplace, in Strasburg, N.D., into a museum. Mr. Boehlert noted, though, that some earmarks were much more successful, like the one for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, which helped spur a renaissance in Cleveland.
