Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected issues for Congress

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

In August 2007, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69). Modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), ARPA-E would support transformational energy technology research projects with the
goal of enhancing the nation’s economic and energy security.
Proponents of ARPA-E contend that additional science and technology would help respond to the
nation’s need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy. Opponents question whether ARPA-E is
necessary to develop new technologies, when existing energy technologies are not fully utilized
due to insufficient policies to encourage their implementation. ARPA-E proponents counter that
ARPA-E is needed to catalyze the energy marketplace by accelerating research that will bridge
the gap between basic research and industrial product development.
The Bush Administration questions whether the DARPA model can be used for the energy sector
and is concerned that it might redirect funds away from current DOE research activities,
particularly the DOE Office of Science. Instead, the President’s FY2009 budget requests funding
for six new technology transfer collaborations. ARPA-E proponents doubt that DOE can achieve
ARPA-E’s goals with its existing structure and personnel, as opposed to the ARPA-E’s innovative
R&D management design.
Congress authorized $300 million for ARPA-E in FY2008 and “such sums as are necessary” for
FY2009 and FY2010. Congress subsequently appropriated no funds for FY2008. The
Administration requested no funds for ARPA-E in FY2009. Congress is currently debating
whether to fund ARPA-E in FY2009, and if so, the amount that should be appropriated. The
House Committee on Appropriations draft FY2009 Energy and Water Development
appropriations report would provide $15 million for ARPA-E, while the Senate Committee on
Appropriations bill and report (S. 3258; S.Rept. 110-416) does not include any funding.
Several bills propose methods of funding ARPA-E directly through a revenue source other than
direct appropriations. Some experts have testified that funding ARPA-E through a mechanism that
differs from the usual single-year appropriations process would enhance its ability to conduct
risky research without being subject to the annual appropriations cycle, political and financial
pressures, and resource fluctuations that might stifle innovation. Three climate change bills (S.
2191, S. 3036, H.R. 6186) propose long-term funding for ARPA-E as part of a cap-and-trade
program. Two energy bills (H.R. 6067, H.R. 6709) propose exchanging Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR) crude and direct SPR funds from a prior sale, with some of the resulting funding
directed to fund ARPA-E. Two other energy bills (H.R. 6670, H.R. 6817) would use Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues to fund ARPA-E.

Overview of ARPA-E Design..........................................................................................................1
Manage me nt ..................................................................................................................... ......... 1
Funding and Outcome Evaluation.............................................................................................3
Legislative Origins and Policy Debates Prior to ARPA-E Authorization........................................3
Legislative Origins in the 109^th and 110^th Congress..................................................................4
Policy Debates...........................................................................................................................5
Is ARPA-E Needed?............................................................................................................7
How Much Funding Should ARPA-E Receive?.................................................................8
Will ARPA-E Work?...........................................................................................................9
Bush Administration Response to ARPA-E Authorization..............................................................9
Ongoing Congressional Debate Over ARPA-E Funding...............................................................10
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................12

n August 2007, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects ¹
Agency - Energy (ARPA-E). Modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) in the Department of Defense (DOD), ARPA-E would be a new organization within I

the Department of Energy (DOE). It would support transformational energy technology research
projects with the goal of enhancing the nation’s economic and energy security. Congress
authorized $300 million for ARPA-E in FY2008 and “such sums as are necessary” for FY2009
and FY2010. Ultimately, Congress appropriated no funds for FY2008. The Administration
requested no funds in FY2009. Congress is currently debating whether to fund ARPA-E in
FY2009.

As outlined in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69, §5012), the goal of ARPA-E would be
to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of
technologies that reduce energy imports, reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, and
improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors. In addition, ARPA-E would aim to ensure that
the United States is a technical leader in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
According to the act, ARPA-E would achieve this goal by identifying and promoting
revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences and translating scientific discoveries and cutting-
edge inventions into technological innovations. ARPA-E would focus its efforts on accelerating
transformational technological advances in areas that industry, by itself, is not likely to undertake
due to technical and financial uncertainty. As stated in §5012, the agency’s programs would
accelerate novel early-stage energy research with possible technology applications; the
development of techniques, processes, and technologies and related testing and evaluation;
research and development (R&D) of manufacturing processes for novel energy technologies; and
coordination with nongovernmental entities to demonstrate technologies and research
applications to facilitate technology transfer.
To achieve these goals, ARPA-E would make awards to academic institutions, companies,
research foundations, and trade and industry research collaborations as well as consortia of these
organizations that could additionally include federally funded research and development centers
(FFRDCs). According to the act, the criteria for selecting projects would include novelty,
scientific and technical merit, the demonstrated capability of the applicant to successfully carry
out the proposed project, future commercial applications of the project, and the feasibility of
partnering with one or more commercial entities, as well as additional criteria established by the
director of ARPA-E.
The management of ARPA-E, as described in the act, is modeled on that of DARPA (see Box 1
below). DARPA has a well-known history of catalyzing innovative technologies such as the
Saturn rocket engine used for moon flights, the pilotless Predator planes used in Iraq and

¹^A^m^e^r^ic^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t (}^P^.L^.¹¹⁰^-⁶⁹⁾^,^§5⁰¹^{2. F}^o^r^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^tion,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴³^28,^Ame^r^ic^a
^C^O^M^{PETES Ac}^t:^Pr^ogr^am^s^,^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g,^an^{d Se}^le^c^t^e^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^D^e^bor^a^h^D^.^Stine^,^aⁿ^d^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³⁴³⁹^6,^Th^e
^Ame^r^ic^{a COM}^{PETES Ac}^t^an^{d t}^h^e^FY2⁰⁰⁹^B^u^d^g^e^t^{, by}^D^e^bor^a^h^D^.^Stine^.

Afghanistan, computer-aided design, global positioning satellites, the computer mouse, and the
Internet. DARPA seeks to sponsor revolutionary, high-payoff research that “bridges the gap ²
between fundamental discoveries and their military use.” According to its director, “DARPA will
take a chance on an idea with no data. We’ll put up the money to go get the data and see if the ³
idea holds. That is the highest-risk type of research you can have.”
The act states that ARPA-E would be managed by a presidentially appointed director, who would
report to the Secretary of Energy. The director would approve all new programs, develop funding
criteria, establish technical milestones to assess program success, and terminate programs not
achieving their goals. The director would have the authority to appoint 70 to 120 scientific,
engineering, and professional personnel without regard to civil service laws and to determine
their compensation. The director would be responsible for ensuring that ARPA-E activities are
coordinated with, and do not duplicate, DOE and other federal programs and laboratory activities;
the program managers would establish R&D goals and select projects based on merit.
Both the director and the program managers would be permitted to seek advice on the overall
direction of ARPA-E and specific program tasks from a new ARPA-E advisory committee or
existing DOE federal advisory committees. Additional sources of advice provided for in the act
include the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), professional ⁴
organizations, and disciplinary societies.

²^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^D^r^{. A}ⁿ^thony^Te^the^r^{, D}ⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^{, D}^e^f^e^ns^e^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^P^r^oje^c^t^s^A^g^eⁿ^cy^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^The^F^u^t^u^r^e^{of C}^o^m^pute^r^Sc^ie^nc^e^Re^s^e^ar^c^hⁱⁿ^the^Uⁿ^ite^d^St^ate^s^,^h^eariⁿ^g,¹⁰⁹^th^Cong^.,¹^st^sess.^,
^Ma^y^{12, 20}^05,^H.Hrg^.¹^09-^{14 (W}^a^s^hing^ton^,^{DC: G}^P^O,²⁰⁰⁵⁾^a^t^h^t^t^p^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^h^ouse^.^g^o^v^/^c^o^m^m^doc^s/he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull05/
^m^a^y^12/te^the^r^.p^df^.
³^Aⁿ^thony^T^e^the^r^a^s^quote^dⁱⁿ^Ste^phe^{n B}^a^r^r^,^“^T^he^I^d^e^a^Fa^c^t^or^y^T^h^{at Spa}^w^ne^{d the}^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^T^u^rⁿ^s⁵⁰^,”^Wa^sh^ing^t^on^P^o^st^,
^A^p^rⁱ^l⁷^,²⁰⁰⁸^.
⁴^For^a^de^s^c^rⁱ^ptioⁿ^of^the^s^e^or^g^aⁿⁱ^z^a^tions^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³⁴⁴⁵^4,^Sc^ie^nc^e^an^{d Te}^c^h^nol^ogy^P^o^lic^y^m^ak^ing:^{A Pr}^im^e^r^,
^by^D^e^bor^a^h^D^.^Stiⁿ^e^.

Box 1. DARPA Management Design Keys
^{How does DARPA differ from th}^{e typical busin}^ess-as-us^{ual federal R&D management}^{model? According to DARPA}^{, it}
^{has maintained t}^{he following management p}^{rinciples over its}^50-ye^{ar history:}
^Management:^{DARPA is a smal}^{l, flexible, and flat organizati}^{on with su}^{bstantial autonomy a}^{nd fr}^ee^{dom from}
^burea^{ucratic impedime}^{nts. At DARPA, there is a complete accep}^{tance of failure if t}^he^{payoff of s}^u^{ccess was}^high
^{enough. Ma}^nageme^{nt does focus}^{on good stewardship of its tax}^pa^{yer fu}^{nds, b}^{ut imposes little else in terms}^{of rules.}
^Manageme^{nt views t}^{heir job as e}^{nabling DARPA’s program manag}^ers.
^Staff:^{Program managers}^{are sel}^{ected to be tec}^{hnically outstanding and e}^ntre^prene^{urial. The best}^{DARPA Program}
^Managers^{have always}^bee^{n free}^{wheeling zealots in purs}^{uit of thei}^{r goals. The technical staff is dra}^{wn from world-class}
^{scientists and engin}^{eers with}^rep^r^{esentation from indu}^{stry, u}^niversi^{ties, government laboratories an}^{d Federally}
^{Funded Research}^{and Developme}^{nt Cente}^{rs. Technical staff}^{are as}^{signed for 3-5}^{years a}^{nd rotated t}^o^{assure f}^resh
^{thinking and}^pers^{pectives. Nece}^ss^{ary su}^pporting^person^{nel (tech}^{nical, contracting, administrative) are “hired” on a}
^temporary^{basis to provide comp}^{lete flexibility to get into and out of an area without}^the^problems^{of sustaining t}^he
^staff.
^Projects:^{DARPA’s activ}^{ities are project-based. All efforts are ty}^p^{ically 3-5 years long with stro}^{ng f}^{ocus on end-goals.}
^{Major technological challenges may be addressed over}^muc^{h longe}^{r times, but only as}^{a series of fo}^{cused ste}^{ps. The}
^{end of each}^{project is the e}^{nd. It}^{may be t}^{hat anot}^her^{project is started in the sa}^{me tec}^{hnical area,}^perha^{ps with t}^he
^{same program}^manage^{r and, to t}^{he outside world, this may be see}^{n as a simple e}^xten^{sion. For DAR}^{PA, though, it is a}
^{conscious weighing of th}^{e cu}^rren^{t opportu}^{nity and a com}^{pletely fr}^{esh decision. The fact of p}^{rior inv}^{estment is}
^irrelevant.
^Source:^{DARPA, “DARPA Over the Years,” web}^{page at}^http://w^{ww.darpa.mil/}^{body/overtheyears.}^html.
The act authorizes an Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund in the Department of the
Treasury, with $300 million of funding authorized for FY2008 and “such sums as are necessary”
for FY2009 and FY2010. ARPA-E’s budget request and appropriations are to be separate and
distinct from the rest of DOE’s budget. After ARPA-E has operated for four years, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) is to evaluate how well ARPA-E is achieving its goals and mission.
Should funds be appropriated for ARPA-E, no more than 50% may be used for coordination with
nongovernmental entities for technology demonstration and research applications to facilitate
technology transfer. At least 2.5% must be used for technology transfer and outreach activities.
No funds may be used for construction of new buildings or facilities until August 2012.
The ARPA-E director would submit an annual report, describing projects supported in the
previous year, as part of the annual budget request to Congress. The director would also submit
strategic vision roadmaps to Congress no later than October 1, 2008, and October 1, 2011. The
roadmaps are to describe the strategic vision ARPA-E would use to determine its future
technology investments for the subsequent three fiscal years.

The DARPA model has frequently been proposed as a structure for improving the management of ^th
federal R&D. For example, an “advanced civilian technology agency” was proposed in the 100

and 101^st Congresses.⁵ In 1992, an NAS report recommended that the government consider a
civilian technology corporation or a civilian technology agency in limited areas including energy ⁶⁷
research. In 1993, the Progressive Policy Institute made a similar proposal. In 1992, presidential
candidate Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore proposed the creation of a civilian advanced research ⁸
agency to support research on renewable technologies and renewable fuels.
From 1977-2000, DOE had an Advanced Energy Projects (AEP) division to “explore the
feasibility of novel, energy-related concepts that evolve from advances in basic research,” and
“high-risk, exploratory concepts which do not readily fit into an existing DOE program area but ⁹
which could lead to applications that span scientific or technical disciplines.” In 1995, DOE
placed AEP’s activities were under a new Computational and Technology Research program. This
reorganization was formally stated in DOE’s 1997 budget request. Funding for the program was ¹⁰
reduced in FY1998 and FY1999, and the AEP program was terminated in FY2000.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) established a Homeland Security Advanced ¹¹
Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) in the Department of Homeland Security. According to
the act, HSARPA is to “(A) support basic and applied homeland security research to promote
revolutionary changes in technologies that would promote homeland security; (B) advance the
development, testing and evaluation, and deployment of critical homeland security technologies;
and (C) accelerate the prototyping and deployment of technologies that would address homeland
security vulnerabilities.”

Against this historical backdrop, in October 2005, a committee of the NAS recommended the ¹²
establishment of ARPA-E in its report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. In November 2005, ^th
during the 109 Congress, the House Minority Leader released an innovation agenda that ¹³
proposed to create a new DARPA-like initiative within DOE. In 2007, this same concept was

⁵^P^r^o^pos^a^l^s^d^u^rⁱ^ng^t^h^e¹⁰¹^st^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^nd^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on, inc}^l^u^d^e^d^S.¹⁹^78,^H^.^R^.³⁸³³^{, H}^.^R^.⁴⁷¹⁵^{, a}^nd^S.²⁷^{65. T}^h^e^s^e^a^r^e
^dis^c^us^s^e^{d in}^U^.^S.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^T^e^c^hnolog^y^A^s^s^e^s^s^m^e^nt,^M^a^kⁱ^{ng T}^hⁱ^ngs^Be^tte^r^:^C^o^m^p^e^tin^{g i}ⁿ^M^anuf^ac^turⁱ^ng^,
^O^T^A^-^I^T^E-^{443 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n, D}^C^:^G^P^O⁾^{, Fe}^br^ua^r^y¹⁹⁹^0.
⁶^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^of^Sc^ie^nc^es^{, N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^o^f^Engⁱ^ne^e^rⁱⁿ^g^,^a^{nd I}ⁿ^s^t^itute^of^Me^dicⁱ^ne^,^T^h^{e Go}^vern^m^en^t^R^o^l^e
^{in Civ}^ili^an^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gy^{: Bu}^ildiⁿ^g^{a Ne}^{w Alli}^anc^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^{n, D}^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁹²⁾^.
⁷^W^{ill Ma}^rsha^{ll a}ⁿ^{d Ma}^rtiⁿ^Sc^hra^m^,^M^andate^for^C^h^a^nge⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: B}^e^r^k^e^l^ey^B^ook^s^,¹⁹⁹³⁾^.
⁸^{Bill Cli}ⁿ^to^{n a}ⁿ^{d A}^l^G^o^re^,^Putti^ng^Pe^ople^Fⁱ^r^s^t^:^H^o^w^W^e^C^a^{n All}^C^han^ge^Am^e^r^ic^a⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: R}^a^nd^om^H^ous^e^,
¹⁹⁹²⁾^.
⁹^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Ene^r^gy^{, “A}^dva^nc^e^d^Ene^r^g^y^P^r^oje^c^t^s^:^FY¹⁹^{95 R}^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^Sum^m^a^r^ies^,^”^D^O^E^/ER^-⁰⁶⁶^0T^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r
¹⁹⁹^{5 a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.s^c^.^doe^.g^ov^/be^s^/a^rc^hiv^e^s/^sum^m^a^rⁱ^e^s/^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d_Ene^rgy^_^P^r^oje^c^t^s_S^u^m^m^a^r^y^_^Book^_FY19^95.^pdf^.
^Sa^ra^{h A}^d^e^e^,^“^P^ow^e^r^U^p^,”^IEEE^S^p^e^c^t^rum^,^Se^pte^m^be^{r 2007 a}^t^htt^p^:/^/s^pe^c^t^rum^.ⁱ^eee.^o^r^g/^se^p07/⁵⁴⁸⁴^.
¹⁰^A^history^of^{this org}^aⁿⁱ^z^a^{tion is a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.s^c^.^doe^.g^ov^/be^s^/^B^ES_hist^ory^.^htm^l^.
¹¹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^H^S^A^R^PA^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴³^56,^The^D^H^S^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^ate^o^f^Sc^ie^nc^e^an^d^Te^c^hnol^ogy^:
^{Key Issu}^{es fo}^{r Co}^ng^ress^{, by}^D^a^{na A}^.^She^a^a^{nd D}^a^nie^l^Mor^g^aⁿ^.
¹²^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e^(W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: Na}^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^P^r^e^{ss, 20}⁰⁷^{), p.}¹^54.^T^h^{is re}^port^w^a^{s initia}^lly^re^le^a^s^e^d^{in pre}^-
^pub^lic^a^tio^{n f}^o^rm^{in Oc}^tobe^{r 2}⁰⁰⁵^.
¹³^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^C^ong^r^e^s^s^w^o^m^a^{n N}^a^ncy^P^e^losⁱ^,^“^P^e^l^os^i:^Uⁿ^v^e^ils^I^nnov^a^tio^{n A}^g^e^nda^,^P^a^r^t^of^Visⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^a
^Str^ong^e^r^A^m^e^r^ic^a^,^”^pr^e^s^s^r^e^lea^s^e^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^15,²⁰⁰⁵^{, a}^t^http:^//w^w^w^.hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^pe^losⁱ^/^p^r^e^s^s^/^r^e^le^a^s^e^s^/N^ov^05/
ⁱⁿⁿ^o^v^a^tion.^htm^l^.

part of an updated “Innovation Agenda” proposed by the Speaker of the House at the beginning of ^th¹⁴
the 110 Congress.
In the January 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush announced the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), the Administration’s response to the concerns about U.S.
competitiveness that were similar to those expressed in the America COMPETES Act. Instead of
endorsing the ARPA-E concept, however, the Administration proposed an Advanced Energy
Initiative (AEI). The Administration has continued its support for the ACI and the AEI into the ^th¹⁵

110 Congress.

Although some analysts questioned whether ARPA-E was the best policy option to respond to the ¹⁶
nation’s energy challenges, the proposal recommended in the NAS report became the basis for ^th^th
congressional hearings and debates in the 109 and 110 Congresses and eventually served as the
outline for ARPA-E as authorized in the America COMPETES Act. (See Box 2 below)
Box 2. ARPA-E Management Design Keys
^{How does ARPA-E differ from th}^{e typical busin}^ess-as-us^{ual federal R&D management}^{model? In con}^gressional
^{testimony, members}^{of the com}^{mittee that wrote t}^{he National A}^{cademies report re}^commended^{ARPA-E should have}
^{four objectives that}^{would distinguish it from c}^urre^{nt DO}^{E activities:}
^{1. Bring a fres}^hne^{ss, exciteme}^{nt, and sense of}^{mission to energy}^re^{search t}^{hat will attract many}^{of our b}^{est and}
^{brightest minds—t}^{hose of ex}^peri^{enced scientists a}^{nd enginee}^{rs, an}^{d, especially, those of students an}^{d young}
^researc^{hers, including those i}ⁿ^th^{e entre}^pre^{neurial world.}
^{2. Focus on creative, out-of-the-b}^{ox, potentially transformational research t}^{hat indu}^{stry ca}^{nnot or}^{will not support.}
^{3. Utilize an ARPA-}^{like organizat}ⁱ^{on that is flat, nimble, and spa}^rse,^{yet capa}^{ble of setting goals and}^{making decisions}
^{that will all}^{ow it to sustain for long pe}^{riods of time those projects}^{whose promise is real, and to p}^h^{ase out progra}^ms
^{that do not prove to}^{be p}^{roductive or as p}^{romising as anticipated.}
^{4. Create a new}^{tool to bridge the troubling gap}^{s betwee}ⁿ^{basic e}^{nergy r}^esearc^{h, development, an}^{d industrial}
^{innovation. It can ser}^{ve as a mod}^{el for how to improve science}^an^{d technology transf}^{er in othe}^{r ar}^{eas that are}
^{essential to our fut}^ure^prospe^rity^.
^Source:^{Testimony of Dr. Charl}^{es M. Vest, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Ene}^{rgy and}^N^{atural Resources,}^th^nd
^{Protecting America’s Com}^{petitive Edge—Energy}^{, hearings, 109}^Congr^{ess, 2}^{sess., Februar}^{y 1}^{4, 20}^06,^{S.Hrg. 109-3}⁵⁸
^{(Washington: GPO, 20}^{06), available at http://e}^{nergy.senate.gov/}^pu^blic/
^{index.cfm?FuseAction=Hea}^{rings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1}⁵²^6&^{Witness_ID=43}^{20. Testimony of}^{Dr. Steven Chu, in}
^{U.S. C}^{ongress, House Committe}^{e on Science,}^{Should Congress Establish “ARPA-E”, The Advanced Research Projects Agency}
^{- Energy?}^{, hearings, 10}⁹^th^Cong^res^{s, 2}^nd^{sess., March}^{9, 2}⁰⁰^{6, H.Hrg}^{. 109-3}^{9 (Washingto}^{n: GPO, 20}⁰^6).
In the 109^th Congress, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House ¹⁷
Committee on Science held hearings on ARPA-E. The chairman of the House Committee on

¹⁴^U^.^{S. C}^ong^re^s^s^,^Spe^a^k^e^r^N^a^nc^y^Pe^losⁱ^,^T^h^e^Iⁿ^nov^at^io^{n A}^g^eⁿ^d^a^:¹¹⁰^th^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^at^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^s^p^eak^er.^g^o^v^/
^is^s^u^e^s^?ⁱ^d=⁰⁰¹^{6, A}^p^r^il²⁷^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
¹⁵^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^.W^{. Bus}^h^),^Ame^r^ic^{an Compe}^tⁱ^tiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Initi}^ativ^e^,^D^o^m^e^s^tic^P^o^lic^y^Counc^il/O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^P^o^lic^y^,^Fe^brua^ry²⁰⁰^{6, a}^t^http^://w^w^w^.os^t^p.g^o^v^/^pdf^/a^cⁱ^book^le^t.^pdf^;^Adv^anc^e^d^Eⁿ^e^r^gy^Inⁱ^tiativ^e^{, Na}^tio^na^l
^Ec^onom^ic^C^o^uⁿ^c^{il, Fe}^br^ua^r^y²⁰⁰^{6 a}^t^h^ttp:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^sta^t^e^o^f^t^he^unioⁿ^/²⁰⁰^6/^eⁿ^e^r^gy^/^e^ne^r^g^y^_book^le^t.pdf^{; a}ⁿ^d
^“^A^dva^nc^e^d^Ene^r^gy^Initia^tiv^e²⁰⁰⁸^”^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ostp.g^o^v^/^pdf^/fy⁰^8_a^eⁱ^_^one^_^p^a^g^e^r^.pdf^a^{nd “}^E^ne^rg^y^Se^c^u^rity^f^o^{r the}^st
²¹^Ce^nt^ury^”^a^t^http://w^w^w^.^w^hitehous^e^.^g^o^v^/^inf^o^c^u^s^/^eⁿ^e^r^gy^/.
¹⁶^S^{ee f}^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^e,^Da^vi^d^G^o^l^d^st^oⁿ^,^“Mⁱ^ssp^en^t^Eⁿ^ergy^,^”^Na^tu^re^,⁴^47:1³⁰^,^M^a^y¹⁰^,²⁰⁰⁷^{at h}^t^tp^:/^/www.ⁿ^a^tu^re.^c^o^m^/
^na^tur^e^/^j^our^na^l/^v⁴⁴⁷^/ⁿ⁷¹^41/^pdf^/44⁷¹³^0a^.p^df^.
¹⁷^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on E}ⁿ^e^r^g^y^a^{nd Na}^tura^{l Re}^sourc^e^s^{, “}^P^A^C^{E Ene}^r^g^y^Ac^t,”^he^a^r^ing^,¹⁰⁹^th^Co^ng^.,²^nd
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

Science stated that he was an “open-minded skeptic” regarding ARPA-E, and pointed out that the
recommendation for its establishment was based on four assumptions that he considered
questionable:
• The problem with the energy market is that the supply of new technologies is
insufficient;
• The supply of new technologies is constrained because of a lack of fundamental
research;
• A sensible way to promote more fundamental research is to apply the DARPA
model to a civilian energy sector; and
• Implementing the DARPA model is the best way to improve energy research, ¹⁸
given tight federal budgets.
In the 110^th Congress, the House Committee on Science and Technology held a similar hearing. In
his opening statement, the committee chairman stated that, among several policy goals and
objectives, DARPA has succeeded largely because it continued to foster a culture of innovation.
The key for ARPA-E success, he said, is that it be a similarly nimble organization with minimal
administrative layers and the ability to quickly start and stop research programs. According to the
chair, “Investment in ARPA-E must be seen as the first step in boosting energy research and
development to a level that addresses the scale of our challenge, and the true cost of doing ¹⁹
transformational research.”
The Administration formally opposed the authorization of ARPA-E during the 110^th Congress:
^T^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^su^pport^s^t^h^{e con}^cept^u^al^g^o^al^o^f^A^R^PA^{-E “}^t^{o o}^v^erco^m^e^t^h^e^l^ong-^t^e^r^m
^an^d^hⁱ^g^h^-^r^is^k^techⁿ^o^lo^gⁱ^ca^{l b}^a^r^r^ier^sⁱⁿ^th^{e d}^e^v^e^lo^p^m^eⁿ^{t o}^f^en^er^g^y^tec^hⁿ^o^lo^gⁱ^{es.” Ho}^w^e^v^e^r^,
^t^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^con^tⁱⁿ^u^e^s^t^o^s^t^ron^g^l^y^obj^ect^t^o^t^hⁱ^s^provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^du^{e t}^o^s^e^ri^ou^s^dou^bt^s^abou^t
^th^{e ap}^p^licab^ilit^y^o^f^th^{e n}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^{l d}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^m^o^d^e^{l to}^th^{e en}^er^g^y^secto^r^an^d^b^ecau^{se a n}^e^w
^bu^reau^crac^y^at^th^e^DOE^w^o^u^l^{d drain}^res^o^u^r^ces^f^r^o^m^priority^basⁱ^{c res}^earc^h^eff^o^rts^.^T^h^e
^A^d^miⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n b}^e^lⁱ^e^ve^s^t^h^a^t^t^h^e^go^a^l^o^f^d^e^ve^l^o^pⁱ^ng^no^ve^l^a^d^va^nc^e^d^eⁿ^e^r^g^y^t^e^c^h^no^l^o^gi^e^s
^s^h^o^u^l^d^b^e^a^d^d^r^e^s^s^e^d^b^y^gⁱ^vⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e^S^e^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^o^f^Eⁿ^e^r^g^y^t^h^e^f^l^e^xⁱ^b^ilit^y^to^e^m^p^o^w^e^r^an^d^r^e^w^a^r^d²⁰
^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^e^x^istⁱⁿ^g^DOE^o^f^fⁱ^{ces to}^f^uⁿ^d^uⁿⁱ^q^u^{e, cr}^o^sscu^ttin^g^,^aⁿ^d^hⁱ^g^h^-^rⁱ^s^k^r^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^.
The following sections discuss several key questions debated during the House Science and
Technology and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearings held regarding

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^sessi^oⁿ^,^F^e^b^r^u^a^ry¹⁵^,²⁰⁰⁶^(W^ashⁱⁿ^g^t^o^n,^DC:^G^P^O,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^at^ht^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^g^p^o^access.^go^v/^ch^eariⁿ^gs/ⁱ^nd^ex.^h^t^m^l^;^U.^S^.
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^,^“^S^hou^{ld C}^ong^r^e^s^s^Es^ta^bli^s^{h ‘}^A^R^P^A^-^E,’^T^h^e^A^dva^nc^e^d^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^P^r^oje^c^t^s^th^nd
^Agen^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^{” h}^eariⁿ^g,¹⁰⁹^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^s^e^ss^{ion, Ma}^r^c^h^9,²⁰⁰^{6 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t
^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^g^p^o^acces^s.^go^v/^ch^eariⁿ^gs/ⁱⁿ^d^e^x.^h^t^m^l^.
¹⁸^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, House}^Com^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^,^“^S^ho^ul^d^Co^ng^re^{ss Esta}^{blish ‘A}^RP^A^-^{E,’ T}^h^e^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^Re^se^a^r^c^h
^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^{” h}^earⁱⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^nd^s^e^s^sⁱ^on,^Ma^r^c^{h 9,}²⁰⁰⁶⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^,^D^C^:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t
^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^g^p^o^acces^s.^go^v/^ch^eariⁿ^gs/ⁱⁿ^d^e^x.^h^t^m^l^.
¹⁹^U^.^{S. C}^ong^re^s^s^,^H^ous^e^Com^m^ittee^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^Com^m^itte^e^,^“^E^s^t^a^b^lis^hing^the^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^Re^s^e^a^r^c^h
^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^-Eⁿ^e^rg^y⁽^A^RP^A^-^E⁾^,^”^h^eariⁿ^g,¹¹⁰^th^Co^ng^.,¹^st^se^ss^ion,^A^p^{ril 2}⁶^,²⁰^07,^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.g^poa^c^c^e^ss.g^o^v^/
^ch^eariⁿ^gs/ⁱⁿ^d^e^x.^h^t^m^l^.
²⁰^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cre^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^eⁱⁿ
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polic^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.

ARPA-E in the 109^th and 110^th Congress.²¹ This analysis incorporates issues discussed in hearing
charters, Members’ statements and questions, and the statements and responses of those providing
expert testimony.
Is ARPA-E needed when the federal government and industry already invest a great deal in ²²
energy R&D? A related question is whether In-Q-Tel, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
venture capital firm that provides funding to identify, develop, and deliver technologies of interest
to the intelligence community, is a better model for the energy marketplace than DARPA. (See
Box 3 below.)
Proponents state that ARPA-E will address organizational problems at DOE by being small and
flexible, unlike existing DOE organizations, which they believe are risk-averse and do not
sufficiently interact with each other to reach the nation’s energy goals. In addition, proponents
argue that ARPA-E should focus on breakthrough research, using emerging basic research in
areas such as nanotechnology to develop totally new technologies, as opposed to existing
programs that have already identified paths forward and tend to focus on incremental advances.
Further, unlike current programs, ARPA-E is designed to bridge the gap between basic research
and industrial development—not to get products to the marketplace, but to transform the
marketplace by accelerating research.
In response to the claim that ARPA-E will be more flexible and less risk-adverse, critics point out
that the new organization will still be within DOE, so there is no guarantee that DOE
management will let it take more risks than existing programs. In response to the claims that
ARPA-E would bridge the gap between basic research and industrial development and that
existing applied programs tend to focus on incremental advances, some critics argue that
reforming DOE’s existing programs would be better than creating a new organization.
Advocates for ARPA-E indicated that candidate energy technologies are not yet at a stage where
venture capital investment, such as occurs with In-Q-Tel, would provide the best return. At some
point, however, ARPA-E research may lead to technologies appropriate for venture capital. At
that stage, it might be appropriate to incorporate a venture capital component into ARPA-E’s
design. Just as DARPA has evolved over 50 years, ARPA-E may need to evolve as well, some
witnesses said.

²¹^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on E}ⁿ^e^r^g^y^a^{nd Na}^tura^{l Re}^sourc^e^s^{, “}^P^A^C^{E Ene}^r^g^y^Ac^t,”^he^a^r^ing^,¹⁰⁹^th^Co^ng^.,²^nd
^sessi^oⁿ^,^F^e^b^r^u^a^ry¹⁵^,²⁰⁰⁶^(W^ashⁱⁿ^g^t^o^n,^DC:^G^P^O,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^at^ht^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^g^p^o^access.^go^v/^ch^eariⁿ^gs/ⁱ^nd^ex.^h^t^m^l^;^U.^S^.
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^,^“^S^hou^{ld C}^ong^r^e^s^s^Es^ta^bli^s^{h ‘}^A^R^P^A^-^E,’^T^h^e^A^dva^nc^e^d^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^P^r^oje^c^t^s^th^nd
^Agen^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^{” h}^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^s^e^s^sⁱ^on,^Ma^r^c^{h 9,}²⁰⁰⁶⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t
^h^ttp^:^//www^.g^p^o^acces^s.g^o^v^/^ch^earin^g^s^/in^d^e^x^.^h^t^m^{l; U.S.}^C^oⁿ^g^{ress, Ho}^u^s^{e Co}^m^m^itte^{e o}ⁿ^Scien^{ce an}^d^T^ec^hnolog^y^th^st
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee,^“E^st^ab^lⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e A}^d^van^ced^Research^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^-Eⁿ^e^rg^y^(A^RP^A^-^E⁾^,^”^h^eariⁿ^g,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹
^se^{ssion, A}^p^{ril 2}⁶^,²⁰^{07 (W}^a^s^hing^ton,^{DC: G}^P^O,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^a^t^ht^tp://w^ww^.g^poa^c^c^e^ss.g^o^v^/^c^h^e^a^r^ing^s^/inde^x^.^htm^l^.
²²^Fo^{r m}^o^{re in}^f^o^rm^atioⁿ^oⁿ^In^-Q-T^{el, see h}^ttp^:/^/www^.in^q^t^el.o^rg^/.

Box 3. In-Q-Tel Management Design Keys
^{In 2}⁰⁰^{1, a pa}^{nel of the B}^usiness^E^xecutives^{for National Security (}^{BENS) conducted an}^{analysis of t}^{he In-Q-Tel model.}
^{It found t}^{hat I}^{n-Q-Tel has the}^foll^{owing characteristics t}^{hat differe}^{ntiate it from the ty}^{pical bu}^siness^{-as-usual federal}
^{R&D model}^{. In-Q-Tel}
^•^{Can make e}^{quity invest}^ments;
^•^{Has fewer}^b^ureau^{cratic constrain}^ts;
^•^{Is not re}^{quired to comply with t}^h^e^{Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) requirements;}
^•^{Can obligate funds in}^{multi-year increme}^{nts, i.e., “no year” money;}
^•^{Is not rest}^{ricted by civil service p}^{ersonnel policies;}
^•^{Engages only in}^u^{nclassified projects;}
^•^{Has the}^{cachet of}^{being associate}^{d with the CIA; a}^nd
^•^{Has a flexible deal stru}^ctur^{e modeled after commercial contract}^ua^{l/investment ve}^hicles.
^{The BENS pa}^{nel also described t}^{he differen}^ces^{between t}^{he I}^n-Q-^{Tel model and a private ventu}^re^{capital firm. In-Q-}
^{Tel, BENS states, is better descri}^{bed as a “tec}^{hnology accelerator” than a}^vent^{ure ca}^{pital firm, as I}^n-Q-Tel
^•^{Places its value proposition on obtaining IT [information tec}^{hnology] solutions, not foremost on re}^{turn o}ⁿ^eq^uity
^{or asset;}
^•^{Deals always result in a p}^roduct^{or service (e.g. feasibility assessment, test p}^{roduct or p}^rototype);
^•^Investme^{nts ar}^{e more likely to pr}^{ovide value to the portfolio com}^{panies be}^{yond cash: I}^nvestm^{ent is}^“smart
^{money” in its portfolio companies; that is, In-Q-Tel provides portf}^oli^{o companies with intellectual capital,}
^{technology-related experien}^{ce an}^{d the Agenc}^{y as a}^{potential test-b}^{ed; and}
^•^{Due diligence process is more st}^{rict: In-depth inv}^{estigation into the company’s st}^ruct^{ure a}^{nd fina}^{ncial status as}
^{well as the ability of the p}^{roposed technology to meet the Age}^ncy^{problem domain is completely e}^valuated
^{before forming}^{a contract.}
^{The BENS pa}^{nel fou}^{nd that “I}^n-Q^{-Tel’s potential advantage to the CIA outweighs the}^{risk. In-Q-Tel should continue}
^{as the CIA’s e}^ntrep^rene^{urial and}^{innovative vent}^{ure facilitating the}^{delivery of new tech}^{nology to the CIA.”}
^Source:^Busines^{s E}^xecutives^for^{National Security,}^{Accelerating the}^{Acquisition and Implementation of}^New^Technologies
^{for Intelligence: The Report of the Independent Panel on the Central Inte}^{lligence Agency In-Q-Tel Venture}^{, June 2}⁰⁰¹^at
^{http://www.bens.org/}^mis_suppor^{t/nqtel-panel-r}^pt.pdf.
The NAS report proposed that funding for ARPA-E start at $300 million the first year and
increase gradually over five or six years to $1 billion per year. At that point, the program’s
effectiveness would be evaluated and appropriate actions taken, according to the report.
One issue discussed in hearings was whether the level of authorized funding for ARPA-E is
sufficient to support the research necessary for ARPA-E to reach its goals. Some noted with
concern that the proposed $300 million in FY2008 was less than 0.02% of the transportation and
energy industries’ annual revenues, a level they believed was insufficient relative to the potential
return. Some suggested that if it is to be successful, ARPA-E needs to be funded at a level ²³
comparable to DARPA—about $3 billion per year.

²³^D^A^RP^A^’^s^FY²⁰⁰⁸^bu^dg^e^t^is^$³^.⁰^bi^llio^{n. I}^t^s^FY²⁰⁰⁹^re^q^u^e^s^{t is}^$³^.3^bill^io^{n. F}^o^{r m}^o^re^inf^o^rm^a^{tion, s}^e^e
^http:^//w^w^w^.da^r^pa^.m^il/^bo^dy^/budg^.^h^tm^l.

Some of those testifying did not believe ARPA-E should be funded due to budget constraints.
ARPA-E, they argued, would be funded by shifting resources from DOE’s Office of Science.
Increasing funding for the DOE Office of Science is also a goal of the America COMPETES Act.
Some hearing witnesses expressed concern that dilution of DOE Office of Science resources
might influence DOE’s acceptance of ARPA-E, and hinder its success. Supporters of ARPA-E
agreed that funding for the DOE Office of Science is the highest priority and testified that funding
for ARPA-E should not be redirected from that office.
Some witnesses expressed concerns that a risk-tolerant agency like ARPA-E could not survive if
it was subject to the annual appropriations cycle, political and financial pressures, and resource
fluctuations that might stifle innovation. To overcome this potential challenge, some testifying
proposed dedicated funding (see below).
Some critics believe that what is preventing the United States from reaching its energy goals is
not federal funding for innovative, high-risk research, but rather a lack of private-sector
investment in basic research, failure to effectively transfer new energy technologies to the
marketplace, or some combination of these. They point out the lack of a captive customer: energy
has a broad and diverse public and private market, while DARPA has DOD as its single primary
customer, guaranteeing a solid base of demand. ARPA-E proponents indicated that ARPA-E is
needed for “translational research.” This type of research identifies the most pressing market
needs, selects and funds the most promising scientific approaches to enable breakthrough
products, and brings the best candidates of those products to the brink of production.

Although President Bush signed the America COMPETES Act into law because it shares the
goals of the ACI, he did not support ARPA-E. A White House fact sheet stated that “The bill
creates over 30 new programs that are mostly duplicative or counterproductive—including a new
Department of Energy agency to fund late-stage technology development more appropriately left ²⁴
to the private sector.” After final passage of the act, Raymond Orbach, DOE Under Secretary for
Science, stated that although the goal of the newly authorized agency is “laudable,” its structure ²⁵
needs to be developed. Dr. John H. Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, testified that the FY2009 budget does not request funding for ARPA-E
because “the Administration believes very strongly that the basic research programs at the DOE
Office of Science are a higher leverage investment and in greater need of funding than new DOE ²⁶
programs .”

²⁴^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (}^G^.W^{. B}^u^s^h⁾^,^“^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t of}²⁰⁰⁷^,^”^Fa^c^t^She^e^t^{, A}^u^g^u^s^t^9,²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/r^e^l^e^a^s^e^s^/²⁰⁰^7/^08/²⁰⁰⁷⁰⁸^09-^6.^ht^m^l^.
²⁵^Am^e^r^ic^aⁿ^Institute^of^Phy^s^ic^{s, “}^R^a^y^Orba^c^h^{on FY}²⁰⁰⁸^Fu^ndi^ng^{Bill: ‘T}^he^Cloc^k^{is T}ⁱ^c^k^ing^,^’”^ne^w^s^le^tte^{r, FYI}
^Num^b^e^r^{97, Se}^p^t^e^m^be^{r 21, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^a^ip.org^/fyⁱ^/²⁰^07/⁰⁹^7.htm^l^.
²⁶^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^D^r^{. J}^ohn^Ma^rburg^e^{r, III, D}ⁱ^re^c^t^or,^W^h^ite^H^o^us^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^{, H}^ous^e
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^d^T^ech^no^l^o^gy^,^Fundi^ng^for^the^Am^e^r^ic^{a C}^O^M^{PETES Ac}^{t i}ⁿ^t^h^e^FY²⁰⁰⁹^Ad^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^ti^on^th^nd
^Bud^g^e^t^Re^q^u^e^s^t^,^h^eariⁿ^g,¹¹⁰^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on, Fe}^br^ua^r^y^14,²⁰^{08 a}^t^htt^p^://^de^m^o^c^r^a^t^s^.^s^c^ie^nc^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^Me^dia^/
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

Rather than create ARPA-E, the Secretary of Energy has issued a new policy on technology ²⁷
transfer that espouses goals similar to that of ARPA-E. As a result of this policy, DOE will now
pool funds from the Office of Science and other programs to fund six new collaborations that
integrate basic and applied research. According to DOE, funding for these collaborations will be
based on congressional language that requires DOE to set aside 0.9% of its applied energy ²⁸
research and development budget for technology transfer. For FY2009, DOE has also proposed
$100 million for a new Office of Science program, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs)
“to accelerate the rate of scientific breakthroughs needed to create advanced energy technologies ^st
for the 21 century...[and to] pursue the fundamental understanding necessary to meet the global ²⁹
need for abundant, clean, and economical energy.”

An issue for Congress is whether to fund ARPA-E in FY2009, and if so, how much and how long.
The America COMPETES Act authorized $300 million for FY2008, and “such sums as
necessary” for FY2009 and FY2010. Some have proposed providing an advance appropriation
supporting ARPA-E for several years, rather than the usual one-year appropriation. Another
option is to identify a dedicated revenue source for ARPA-E. Some of the funding sources that
have been proposed are
• repeal of oil industry tax and other incentives;³⁰
• gasoline tax;³¹
• oil company profit tax;³²
• federal oil and gas royalties;³³

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^File^/C^om^m^doc^s^/^he^a^r^ing^s^/200^8/^Full/^14f^e^b^/Ma^r^bur^g^e^r^_^T^e^s^tim^on^y^.^pdf^.
²⁷^Se^e^the^pre^{ss re}^le^a^s^e^a^t^http^://w^ww^.doe^.g^ov^/print/⁵⁹^77.^htm^a^{nd t}^h^e^pol^ic^y^sta^t^e^m^eⁿ^{t a}^t^http:^//www^.doe^.g^ov^/m^e^d^ia^/
^Polic^y^_^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^t_on^_T^e^c^hnol^og^y^_^T^r^aⁿ^sf^e^r^.pdf^{. T}^h^e^te^c^hnolog^y^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^polic^y^s^t^a^t^e^s^“T^his^Polic^y^Sta^t^e^m^eⁿ^{t bui}^lds
^upo^{n t}^h^e^s^tim^ulus^pr^ov^ide^d^by^the^te^c^hnol^og^y^tr^aⁿ^sf^e^r^pr^ov^is^ions^c^o^ntaⁱ^ne^dⁱⁿ^the^Eⁿ^e^r^gy^P^o^lic^y^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰^{5 a}ⁿ^{d o}^t^he^r
^recen^t^l^e^gi^sl^atⁱ^v^{e a}^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^su^{ch as t}^h^{e ‘Am}^e^ri^c^a^COM^P^E^T^E^S^A^c^t^’^t^h^at^{seek t}^oⁱ^m^p^r^o^v^{e t}^h^{e t}^r^an^sf^{er o}^f^en^erg^y
^te^c^hnol^og^ie^s^f^r^o^m^the^D^e^pa^rtm^eⁿ^t^’s^Fa^c^ilitie^s^to^pro^duc^ts^a^{nd a}^ppli^c^a^tions^tha^t^a^ddre^s^s^p^u^b^lic^aⁿ^d^pri^v^a^t^e^ne^e^d^s^.^”
²⁸^T^h^{is m}^a^{y b}^e^{a re}^f^e^ren^{ce to}^S^ectioⁿ¹⁰⁰¹^o^f^th^e^En^ergy^P^o^licy^A^c^{t (P}^.^L^.¹⁰⁹^-⁵⁸^{): “T}^ECHNOL^O^GY
^COMMERCIA^L^IZ^AT^IO^{N FUND.—T}^he^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^sha^{ll e}^s^ta^{blish a}ⁿ^Ene^r^g^y^Te^c^hnolog^y^Co^m^m^e^r^cⁱ^a^liz^a^{tion F}^uⁿ^d^,
^us^ing^0.⁹^pe^r^c^eⁿ^{t of}^the^a^m^ount^m^a^de^a^v^a^ila^ble^{to the}^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt f}^o^r^a^pplie^d^eⁿ^e^r^gy^r^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^{, de}^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^t,
^d^e^m^oⁿ^s^t^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^aⁿ^d^c^o^mm^er^ci^al^a^p^p^lⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r each}^fⁱ^scal^y^ear,^t^o^b^e^u^s^ed^t^o^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^{e m}^a^t^c^hⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^d^{s w}ⁱ^t^h^p^rⁱ^v^at^e
^pa^r^t^ne^r^s^to^pr^om^ote^pr^om^is^ing^eⁿ^e^r^gy^te^c^hnolog^ie^s^f^o^r^c^o^m^m^e^r^c^ia^l^pur^pos^e^s^.”
²⁹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Ene^r^gy^{, Ene}^r^gy^Fr^ontie^r^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^C^e^nte^r^s^,^w^e^bpa^g^e^a^t
^http:^//www^.sc^.^doe^.g^ov^/be^s^/EFRC^.^htm^l^.
³⁰^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^,^“^C^ha^ir^m^a^{n G}^o^r^d^oⁿ^P^r^e^s^s^e^s^Es^ta^blis^hm^eⁿ^{t of}^A^R^P^A^-^E^a^s^a^K^e^y^to
^Cle^aⁿ^Ene^r^g^y^Inde^pe^nde^nc^e^,^”^pre^s^s^re^le^a^s^e^,^May^{9, 200}^{8, a}^t^htt^p^://s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^pre^s^s^/
^P^R^A^r^tic^le^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼^2189.
³¹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l e}^x^cⁱ^s^e^tax^{on g}^a^s^o^line^,^s^e^e^C^R^{S R}^e^por^t^R^L³⁰³⁰⁴^,^T^h^{e F}^e^d^e^ra^l^E^xci^{se T}^a^{x o}ⁿ
^G^a^s^o^line^an^{d t}^h^e^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^Tr^us^t^Fun^d^:^A^Sh^or^{t H}ⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, by}^P^a^m^e^l^a^J^.^J^a^c^k^s^on.
³²^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^us^e^of^{oil c}^o^m^p^aⁿ^y^pr^of^its^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁰^44,^T^h^{e Use of}^P^r^o^fⁱ^t^b^y^t^h^{e F}ⁱ^{ve Ma}^j^o^r
^{Oil Comp}^anie^s^{, by}^R^obe^r^t^Pⁱ^r^o^g^.

• climate change cap-and-trade program;³⁴ and
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve funds.³⁵
An analogous situation might be research supported through the Ultra-Deepwater and ³⁶
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Program, authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), which receives funding of $50 million per year derived ³⁷
from royalties, rents, and bonuses from federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases. Based
on past experience, however, all of these proposals would face challenges in Congress.
Several bills propose methods of funding ARPA-E directly through a revenue source other than
direct appropriations. Three climate change bills (S. 2191, S. 3036, H.R. 6186) would provide ³⁸
long-term funding for ARPA-E as part of a cap-and-trade program. Two energy bills (H.R. 6067,
H.R. 6709) propose exchanging Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude and direct SPR funds from a
prior sale, with some of the resulting funding ($100 million) directed to fund ARPA-E until those ³⁹
funds are expended. Both bills would designate $50 million of those funds for university-based
research projects, and $10 million for program direction expenses. Two other energy bills would
use Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues. One (H.R. 6670) would use 25% of these
revenues to fund ARPA-E and a number of other activities without further appropriation or fiscal
year limitation. Another (H.R. 6817) would use 50% of these revenues for the first 10 years or a
maximum of $40 billion (whichever comes first) to fund ARPA-E and other energy R&D within

18 months of enactment.

Appropriations for ARPA-E would be in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
Due to budget constraints, Congress may need to decide whether funding for existing DOE
energy R&D activities, the proposed technology transfer collaborations and Energy Research
Frontier Centers, or ARPA-E is more important. An alternative is to reform existing DOE
programs by incorporating some ARPA-E or In-Q-Tel type aspects.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
³³^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Me^la^nie^K^e^nde^rdin^e^,^Vⁱ^c^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t, G}^a^s^T^e^c^hnol^og^y^Ins^titute^{in U}^.^S^.^Co^ng^re^s^s^,^H^o^u^s^e^Com^m^ittee^on
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^“S^h^o^u^l^{d Con}^g^{ress E}^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^A^R^P^A^-E^,^T^h^{e A}^d^van^c^ed^Rese^arch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^”^h^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^th^nd
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^se^{ssion, Ma}^rc^h^9,²⁰⁰⁶^{, H.Hrg}^.¹^09-³⁹^(W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^{O, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{) a}^t^http^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^ho^u^s^e^.^g^o^v^/^c^o^m^m^doc^s/
^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull06/^Ma^rc^h%^209/^K^eⁿ^d^e^r^dine^.^pdf^{. F}^o^{r a}ⁿ^e^x^a^m^ple^of^{oil a}^{nd g}^a^s^roy^a^ltie^s^,^s^e^e^{CRS Re}^{port RS2}²⁵^67,
^Roy^a^lty^Re^lie^f^{for U.}^{S. De}^e^p^w^a^te^{r Oil an}^{d G}^a^{s Le}^ase^s^{, by}^Ma^r^c^H^u^m^phr^ie^s^.
³⁴^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Me^la^nie^K^e^nde^rdin^e^,^Vⁱ^c^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t, G}^a^s^T^e^c^hnol^og^y^Ins^titute^{in U}^.^S^.^Co^ng^re^s^s^,^H^o^u^s^e^Com^m^ittee^on
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^“S^h^o^u^l^{d Con}^g^{ress E}^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^A^R^P^A^-E^,^T^h^{e A}^d^van^c^ed^Rese^arch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^”^h^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^th^nd
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^se^{ssion, Ma}^rc^h^9,²⁰⁰⁶^{, H.Hrg}^.¹^09-³⁹^(W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^{O, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{) a}^t^http^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^ho^u^s^e^.^g^o^v^/^c^o^m^m^doc^s/
^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull06/^Ma^r^c^h%^209/^K^eⁿ^d^e^r^dine^.^pdf^{. F}^o^r^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^tio^{n o}ⁿ^c^a^p^-^aⁿ^d^-^t^r^a^de^p^r^og^r^a^m^s^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^th
^R^L³³⁸⁴^6,^G^r^e^eⁿ^h^ous^e^G^a^s^Re^du^c^tion:^C^ap-^an^d-^Tr^a^d^e^Bil^l^sⁱⁿ^the¹¹⁰^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^{, by}^L^a^rr^y^P^a^rk^e^r^{, Bre}ⁿ^{t D}^.
^Yaco^b^u^cci^,^and^Jon^a^t^h^an^L^.^Ramseu^r.
³⁵^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^s^t^r^a^t^e^gⁱ^c^pe^tr^ole^u^m^r^e^s^e^r^v^e^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³³⁴^1,^T^h^{e St}^ra^t^e^gⁱ^c^P^e^t^r^o^l^eu^m
^Re^s^e^r^v^e^:^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^Pe^r^s^p^e^c^tiv^es^{, and I}^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^R^obe^r^t^B^a^m^b^e^r^g^e^r^.
³⁶^{For m}^o^re^inf^o^rm^a^{tion, se}^e^htt^p^://^www^.^f^ossil.eⁿ^e^r^gy^.^g^ov^/^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^/^oilg^a^s^/ultr^a^_^aⁿ^d_^unc^oⁿ^v^e^ntio^na^l/^inde^x^.^htm^l^.
³⁷^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁴⁹^3,^O^u^te^{r Con}^tineⁿ^tal^She^{lf: De}^b^a^te^Ov^e^r^{Oil a}^{nd G}^a^{s Le}^asi^ng^an^d
^Re^v^e^nue^Sh^arⁱⁿ^g^,^by^Ma^r^c^H^u^m^phr^ie^s^.
³⁸^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^s^e^bⁱ^lls^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³³⁸⁴⁶^,^G^r^e^e^nhous^e^G^a^s^Re^duc^ti^on:^Ca^p-aⁿ^d^-Tr^a^de^Billsⁱⁿ
^the¹¹⁰^th^C^o^ng^ress^,^b^y^L^a^rr^{y P}^a^rker,^Bren^t^D.^Yaco^bu^cci^,^and^Jon^a^t^h^an^L^.^Ram^s^eu^r.
³⁹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^th^is^bi^ll^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³³³^41,^T^h^{e S}^t^ra^t^e^gⁱ^{c P}^e^t^r^o^l^eu^m^R^e^serve:^Hi^st^o^r^y,
^Pe^r^s^p^e^c^tiv^e^s^{, and I}^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^R^obe^r^t^B^a^m^b^e^r^g^e^r^.

The House Committee on Appropriations draft FY2009 Energy and Water Development ⁴⁰
appropriations report would provide $15 million for ARPA-E, while the Senate Committee on
Appropriations bill and report (S. 3258; S.Rept. 110-416) does not include any funding. CRS
Report RL34417, Energy and Water Development: FY2009 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl
E. Behrens, provides updates on the status of FY2009 appropriations discussions in this area.
^Deb^o^r^ah^{D. Stin}^e
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^Scieⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^logy^P^o^lic^y
^ds^tⁱⁿ^e^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,⁷^-⁸⁴³¹

⁴⁰^House^Com^m^itte^e^{on A}^ppropria^tⁱ^{ons i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^a^{tion is ba}^se^d^{on t}^h^e^d^r^a^f^{t bill a}^{nd re}^port^a^s^prov^ide^d^oⁿ^the
^C^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l Q}^u^a^r^te^r^l^y^w^e^bs^ite^a^s^of^A^u^g^u^s^t^1,²⁰^08.