CPC 1730 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. …

  CPC                        1730 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
                                       SUITE 707
                                 WASHINGTON, DC 20036
Climate Policy Center
                                    PH 202-775-5190
                                    FX 202-776-0994



 www.cpc-inc.org
                           29 March 2007

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

     Roger Dower
                           Chairman Bart Gordon
      Chairman             House Science and Technology Committee
  Claudia P. Schechter
                           2320 Rayburn House Office Building
   Vice Chairperson        Washington, DC 20515-6301
     Scott Barrett
                           Attention: Stacy Steep

 William L. Bryan, Jr.     Dear Chairman Gordon,
  Marianne Ginsburg

   Charles O. Moore
                           This letter responds to your request for comments and recommendations on HR
      Treasurer            364, legislation to establish an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy
   Susan F. Tierney
                           (ARPA-E). We appreciate your inviting the Climate Policy Center to offer
                           comments on this legislation as part of your outreach effort.
  Jonathan B. Wiener

                           We strongly support your legislation and believe that the creation of an ARPA-E
    Rafe Pomerance         is an essential component to the development of transformational energy
       President
                           technologies. The National Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above the
   Brooks B. Yeager        Gathering Storm, makes clear that the creation of such an entity, modeled after
Executive Vice President
                           the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
                           provides the optimal organizational structure, unfettered by the organizational and
      ADVISORS             cultural constraints of traditional government research and development, to tackle
    J. W. Anderson         the difficult problems of energy and national security, national competitiveness
     Peter Barnes
                           and climate change,.
   Richard Benedick
                           It is important that ARPA-E be given the flexibility and freedom to develop
    Michel Gelobter        technology wherever that might lead. It should be chartered to explore high pay-
   Lawrence Goulder
                           off, high risk, transformational technologies. It should not be encumbered by
                           Congressional designations of favorite technologies. Such designation would only
    Roy E. Hamme
                           duplicate existing, yet essential, basic research and development already being
   Thomas C. Heller        done within other parts of the Department of Energy and elsewhere in the
    Dale Jorgenson
                           government. Technology moves quickly and statutes are rigid; your legislation
                           fosters technological development by not naming technologies.
       Ray Kopp

     Linda Liebes          We have spent some time looking at other advanced research institutions, and
       Frank Loy
                           would urge your committee to do the same. Experience has shown that the
                           establishment of an ARPA within an existing institution, such as a federal
  Warwick McKibbin
                           department, is by no means an assured pathway to success in generating
 Richard Morgenstern       breakthrough ideas. But we do know that in the case of DARPA, it has brought
  Friedemann Mueller
                           forth remarkable technologies benefiting both the military and the general public.
    Martha Phillips

  John Edward Porter

 Thomas C. Schelling
It is paramount that the Congress understand the difference between the DARPA
model and the other ARPAs and factor that into the legislation.

We would like to offer the following specific comments on the current draft of
HR 364.

   1) The bill sets a basic goal for the results of ARPA-E's research in terms of a
      10-year time frame. We believe ARPA-E should be oriented towards a
      considerably longer time frame appropriate to the development of the next
      generation of energy technologies. Ten years is an appropriate horizon for
      more conventional research and development, but not for the development
      of transformational technologies or the promotion of long-term research.

   2) While the goal of reducing our nation's reliance on foreign energy sources
      by 20% in the next 10 years is both desirable and admirable, a central
      objective must be the development of low and no greenhouse gas emitting
      transformational energy sources and technologies. If we develop those
      technologies, it is a given that this nation will have reduced its dependence
      on foreign energy sources by 20%, perhaps not in the next ten years. We
      would urge that you make the development or low and no-emitting
      greenhouse gas emitting energy sources the goal, or in the alternative,
      designate it as an additional goal to the 20% reduction in the dependence
      on foreign energy sources. Technology is the long-term solution to climate
      change and ARPA-E, if successful, will provide both new domestic energy
      sources and low and no-greenhouse gas emitting technologies.

   3) The bill includes a recoupment provision that allows the Department of
   Energy to recoup funds it invested in a firm to develop a technology any time
   within twenty years after that investment if the firm profited from the
   investment. This provision would be appropriate for a more near-term
   research, development, and commercialization strategy, but is not as
   appropriate for a transformational research effort such as contemplated for
   ARPA-E. At its core, ARPA-E is about the way research is done. It must be
   nimble and flexible, neither incremental nor stove piped, quickly moving
   beyond technologies that don't work. In our view, your bill shouldn't result in
   entrepreneurs doing business plans, but rather in putting entrepreneurs in
   garages and laboratories tinkering with breakthrough technology concepts.

   4) Without recommending where in the federal government ARPA-E should
   be located, we suggest that your committee consider whether it ought to be an
   independent agency, such as the National Science Foundation, of whether it
   should be in the Department of Energy. There is a concern that were the
   ARPA-E in the Department of Energy, it would be culturally absorbed by
   DOE and would struggle for resources within DOE. Moreover, any ARPA,
   whether DARPA or ARPA-E, can only be successful if supported by the




                                                                                 2
   Secretary of the department within which it is housed, which is not the case
   today. That said, DARPA is housed in DOD and has been successful.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide your committee these comments and
look forward to working with you to enact this vital legislation.


Sincerely,



Rafe Pomerance
President




cc: Ralph Hall, Ranking minority member




                                                                                  3