i did include that. the equation is lowest price generation, wind with or without price ptc, then coal and nuclear and solar. so really you just have to be cheaper than coal whether you have the ptc or not. the thing about the ptc, it flows to your electricity price. natural gas subsidies do not. the price of a ptc, 2.2 cents flows into a cont,ment when your utility buys it. it does not when you give gas subsidies or subsidies to the oil and gas business. they go to the producer. they don't flow through to your electric rate. >> unfortunately we have to close. i will make one point. a confusion between growth subsidies and per kilowatt hour or industry. if i give a $10 bill to everyone in the room it would be a 10ds per person subsidies.

if i asked how many went to christians, it would be a larger than to jews. since oil and gas subsidies are huge, of course they will pull down a larger gross of money, which is pretty irrelevant when you're looking at who is getting a bigger subsidy because they are not one company, many thousands of companies. i will take the last word and adjourn us. i'm doing this mostly for television people. our speakers will probably hang out for a few more minutes. they will have to in order to get to the doors. thank you for your attendance. join me in thanking our speakers for a great panel. [ applause ] and we stand adjourned.

we'll have more on energy with the department of energy which you. we want to tell you about our prime time. starting 8:00 eastern c-span todd family brothers and sisters of first laid mary todd lincoln beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. coming up live this weekend on our companion network c-span national governor association 2012 meeting in our nation's capital.

coverage under way 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow with an opening news conference and later discussions on economies. our coverage will continue sunday on education and childhood hunger as well as homeland security and role of the national guard. live coverage of the annual governor's winter meeting this weekend on c-span. at the 1968 olympic games john carlos and tommy smith raised their fist in the black power salute. >> they said black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular by using that phrase, black power. because when they use that word or that phrase plaque power, it made many people think black power meant destruction, blowing up the statue of liberty or ground zero, destroying america. it wasn't anything about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. having america have a new paradigm in how we can truly be what each and every one did the

pledge in elementary school and junior high school about the land of the free, home of the brave. we all want to be great americans. as young athletes we found something was wrong. something was broke. we wanted to take our time to evaluate and then take our initiative to fix it. >> discover more about african-american history during black history month on book tv on c-span two and online at the c-span video library. search and share for 25 years of c-span programming at c-span.org/video library. we got started because there are a lot of conservative thinksings across issues. there had been no progressive thinking that worked on domestic policy, national security. >> neera tanden on the mission

of washington, d.c.-based think tank. >> we think there's an ideology behind particular arguments made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to, you know, to make the arguments and the factual arguments and the evidence-based arguments behind our own views. i do think sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position we reexamine those positions because, you know, we unfundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> energy secretary steven chu testified before resource committee last week on president obama's 2013 budget request. the $3.8 trillion package includes $27.2 billion for the energy department, which is just over a 3% increase from last year. secretary chu says the budget

proposal reflects the administration's priorities and commitments to clean energy technology, research and development and national security. it's about three hours. >> okay. why don't we get started. i thank people for coming. today we have a hearing to examine the president's proposed department of energy budget for fiscal year 2013. we welcome secretary chu to testify and present the administration's budget to us tod today. the priorities laid out in the president's proposed budget reflect a strong commitment to clean energy and the increased security and economic benefits that made in america energy can achieve for us through american innovation and as well as manufacturing. in an overall budget request that seeks to provide substantial government-wide

deficit reduction, i'm pleased to see that we have a proposed 3.2% increase in the department of energy budget. this is an investment in the nation's energy future that will boost our economic growth and global competitiveness and protect the environment and allow the u.s. to continue important nuclear nonproliferation work. informed by the technology owe quadrennial technology review which we had a hearing on a couple of months ago the department of energy's budget request cuts funding in mature technology areas and provides increased resources for the most promising clean energy innovations. this is an important step towards a national energy policy that invests in critical energy priorities within a framework of a sustainable fiscal policy. the department of energy's budget for the committee today supports a range of cutting-edge technologies that will enable us

to lead in the global race for clean energy. increased investment in high performance computing and basic science will increase understanding and spur new energy technology development, continued investments in rpe will support high-risk information energy projects, helping them to mature and attract nongovernmental funding. support for solar and wind and geothermal and biomass energy will develop our portfolio of available energy sources and enable a transition to cleaner technologies. and meanwhile funding for research on carbon capture and sequestration and methane gas hydrates and minimization of the impact of shale gas development will allow us to utilize fossil fuel resources in a responsible way. this budget also provides funding to address critical grid

modernization issues through a new electricity systems innovation hub and significant funding increases for advanced energy efficient manufacturing. this holds a promise of providing jobs for the future. it's important to recognize that the research and development programs that i've mentioned here cannot fully meet the challenges of bringing new energy technologies to the commercial marketplace. the capital requirements to move promising technologies from the lab bench to pilot scale and finally to commercial scale are enormous. our overseas competitors have figured this out. they are moving aggressively to gain an edge in clean energy technologies, much of our effort to support domestic players in this race has occurred through the loan guarantee program, that's a proposal that senator

domenici and i made. at its core the loan guarantee program is intended to allow the government in the case of new technology development and deployment to take on risks that the private investor cannot. mr. herb allison has just published a useful report with some recommendations for managing the program going forward. and many of us. are -- many of these are similar to approaches that senator murkowski and i have incorporated into the clean energy deployment legislation, the seta legislation that we've reported from the committee. we'll be having a hearing on this report by mr. allison when we return after this next week's recess. i will have some questions for the secretary about his, about the allison report and the state

of the loan guarantee program when we get to questions. again, thank you, mr. secretary, for coming. we look forward to your testimony. let me also just mention before calling on senator murkowski, i appreciate the technical assistance that your staff and the folks at the energy information administration and other parts of d.o.e. provide in helping us develop the proposal for a clean energy standard that i hope we can introduce as legislation in a couple of weeks. the modeling and analysis that's been done in your department has been very helpful in helping us develop that bill. let me call on senator murkowski for her opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary. thank you for being here before the committee to speak to the budget as it relates to the department of energy. i was disappointed with the administration's overall request for fiscal year 2013.

i think we all hoped and i certainly expected that the president would lead the way by presenting a good plan to reduce our debt, grow our economy. i think it was an opportunity to address the entitlement issue, reform the tax code, make swift progress in balancing the federal budget or at least moving in that right direction. but instead we have a document that i believe largely ignores the greatest threat to our economy and that's the more than $is a trillion debt that let u.s. first-ever credit downgrade last summer. last year's budget request lamented the special interest loopholes that riddle our tax code but this year proposes even more. it describes an economy built to last and yet is filled with proposals that have virtually no chance of passage. and unfortunately i look at the energy budget and i think this is clear within the energy policy as well. i can understand and certainly

support many of the proposals that are within the d.o.e. budget. i greatly appreciate the emphasis on science and research. i think that's key. more money for geothermal research i believe is a good thing and emphasis on dropped in biofuels clearly a worthy endeavor. but i have some heartburn with the decision to reduce the funding for renewable water power. this is an issue that i hope we can discuss in the questions and answers after this. r&d efforts that could help unlock massive volumes of unconventional resources are again zeroed out. i'm concerned by many of the big ticket expenses that are either directly or indirectly tied to this budget. we've got new and renewed tax credits as a extension of the 1603 program. got a billion dollar vehicle deployment program. $5 billion for advanced programs. $6 billion for home star efficiency programs. and i clearly understand why

people would want to fund all of those, and i certainly have shown my support in many of these areas. but given the state of the federal budget, where we are, i would stress that now is a time to differentiate between those things that we might want to fund and those things that we need to fund. and while d.o.e.'s discretionary budget grows by just over 3% in this request, adding all of the programs and subsidies included in the broader budget is going to nearly double our spending on energy, and that concerns me. i'm willing to support more spending in this area but only if the revenues are derived from new and not existing production. but that's another problem with the budget. it reignites a fight that the administration has waged and overwhelmingly lost, i might say, for the past three years. instead of talking steps to extract new domestic energy from

the administration has decided again to try to extract $40 billion from the consumers of oil and gas and coal regardless of the consequences that they could have for our energy supply, our economy and our security. the president in his state of the union called for an all of the above approach to energy policy. i think that certainly is something that i have embraced and i think most of our colleagues here. but i'm just not seeing that play out within the budget. it causes me to wonder whether the budget planners were working together with the president and -- when he enunciated those words in his speech. i would like to see us get to that point. again, i appreciate you secretary chu. i think you do try to make a very concerted effort in a difficult area during difficult times. thank you for being here. look forward to your responses to some of these very critical issues. thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary chu, why don't you take as much time as you would

like to describe the budget and any other points you want to make. >> thank you, chairman bingham and thank you ranking member murkowski and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fy-'13, president's fy-'13 budget request for the department of energy. i want to begin by thanking senator bingaman for his years of leadership. it's a privilege to work you and i look forward to continue to work with you this year. to promote economic growth and strengthen national security president obama has called for an all of the above strategy that develops every source of american energy. the president wants to fuel our economy with domestic resources, while increasing our ability to compete in the clean energy race. although the united states has reclaimed the title of world leader in clean energy investments, we're at risk of falling behind between unless we support our domestic clean energy economy.

onour country faces a stark choice. we can create jobs making and exporting the energy technologies of tomorrow or we concede leadership to other countries that are investing in these industries. as president obama said, passing a clean energy standard is a vital step that congress can take to broaden our clean energy market. making the most of the america's energy resources is a pillar of the president's economic blueprint to build an economy that lasts. the department fy-'13 budget requests $27.2 billion is guided by the president's vision, our 2011 strategic plan and our quadrennial technology view. it supports leadership in clean energy technologies, science and innovation and nuclear security and environmental cleanup. trillions of dollars will be invested in clean energy in the coming decades. to seize this opportunity, the budget request invests in the

research, development, manufacturing and deployment of energy technologies. decades ago the energy department support helped develop the technologies that allowed us to tap into america's abundant shale gas resources. today our investment can unlock technologies that promise of renewable energy and energy efficiency. the budget requests invests approximately $4 billion in our energy programs. it advances progress in areas from solar to offshore wind to carbon capture utilization. in storage, to smart grid technologies. it helps reduce our dependence on imported oil by next generation biofuels and fuel-efficient vehicle technologies. the budget request invests $770 million in nuclear energy program to help develop the next generation of nuclear power technologies including small modular reactors. includes funding for the continued nuclear waste r&d

which aligns with the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. as we move to a sustainable energy future, america's fossil fuel energy resources will continue to play an important role in our energy mix. . the budget requests include $12 million grant -- as $12 million as part of a $45 million initiative by the departments of energy, interior and epa. to understand and minimize potential impacts of natural gas development through hydraulic fracture. the budget also promotes energy efficiency to help americans save money by saving energy. and it sponsors on industrial materials and processes to help american manufacturers cut costs and compete. to maximize our energy technology efforts, the department is coordinating research and development across our basic and applied research program in areas including battery, biofuels and electric

grid technologies. to encourage manufacturing and deployment of clean energy technology, the president has called for extending proven tests incentives, including the production tax credit, the program and the advance energy manufacturing tax credit. as industry, congress, and the american people make critical energy decisions. it's important we fund the energy information administration. competing in the energy economy will require our country, all our resources, including american ingenuity. to help the united states at the forefront of science and technology, the budget includes $5 billion to the office of science to support basic research that could lead to new discoveries and help solve energy challenges. advanced computing and more. the budget requests continues to support energy frontier research

centers which aim to solve specific scientific problems to unlock new, clean energy development. so far, these research centers have published more than 1,000 peer review papers and filed more than 90 patent applications or patent invention disclosures. it also supports the five existing energy innovation hubs and proposes a new hub and electricity system. through the hub, we're bringing together our nation's top scientists and engineers. includes $350 million for rbe that could fundamentally transform the way we use and produce energy. invests in high risk, high reward research project that are successful could create the foundation for entirely new industries. in addition to strengthening our economy, the budget strengthens

our security by providing $11.5 billion of the national nuclear security administration. as the united states begins the nuclear arms reduction required by the new start treaty, the science, technology, and engineering capabilities within the nuclear securities enterprise will become even more important in to sustaining the u.s. nuclear deterrent. that's why the budget requests includes $7.6 billion for weapons activities, also includes $1.1 billion for naval nuclear program. additionally it supports nsa's worth to prevent nuclear terrorism, one of president obama's top priorities. includes $2.5 billion to implement key nuclear security nonproliferation and arms control activity. finally, the budget request includes $5.7 billion to continue progress, cleanups in nations cold war nuclear site. the budget request makes strategic investments to promote prosperity and security.

entertainment at the same time, we recognize the fiscal challenges and cutting back where we can. efficientlily and effectively. in countries in europe, asia, and throughout the western hemisphere recognize the energy opportunity and are moving aggressively to lead. this is a race we can win, but we must act with fierce urgency. so thank you and i'll be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. let me start with five minutes of questions, i'm sure everyone will have questions. i gather from the news that you yesterday were visiting the two new nuclear power plants that have been licensed in georgia. my understanding is that the loan guarantee program was to some extent involved in the

development and -- of those two plants. i guess i would be interested in getting your perspective. i know we've had lots of hearings in congress on solyndra and the lost taxpayer dollars there. looking at the loan guarantee program overall, is it important for the country to maintain a loan guarantee program to assist with development and deployment of new technologies in the energy area? and if so, how do you propose in this budget -- how does the administration propose we move forward in that? >> first, senator, let me say that if you look at the loan guarantee program, the 1703, the 1705, atvm parts of the loan program overall it helped unleash about $40 billion of

investment in these industries in projects like the two new nuclear reactors being built in vogtle. it helped ford do a major retooling to build cars that, despite at the detroit auto show several months ago, really revolutionary, wonderful cars that could be sold worldwide. there are many, many aspects of this loan program which have really helped bring back a lot of what we were famous for for a century. it helped stimulate the deployment of many renewable energies. the list goes on. now, that loan program, the 1703 loan program is continuing. the atvm program is continuing. we still think those are worry

projects. going forward, we do see a need as part of an overall plan to finance projects. projects, for example, where you have a solid technology like on who wind technology is very solid, a known technology, a way of financing it so we can deploy these with power purchase agreements low risk. there are other -- so that's one part. there are other parts i think that really could help drive it forward. bloomberg new energy finance just completed a study about a month ago summarizing what happened in 2011 and projections for 2012. they said, if -- and they looked at all forms of energy, new, gas turbines, coal, wind, solar all the way down the line. they said if you have 10% finance, borrowing charges for all these forms of energy, wind today -- and this is wind on a site that's a four site, not a

six site. it's a moderate site, within 10% or 15% of the cost of the loss form of energy today which is new gas, and we expect that to improve still further. we also expect solar to be coming down. so this is all good news, but you need a financing mechanism. even at 6%, 8%, 10%, that would really tip the balance. >> do you know -- let me ask on a somewhat different issue. we had a very good hearing where the quadrennial technology review was presented to us, and this was the first of these quadrennial technology reviews. to what extent were the conclusions in that quadrennial technology review used to influence what you've presented to us in this budget? does this budget reflect the

same priorities that the quadrennial technology review identified? >> to a large extent, yes. i think the quadrennial te in the history of the department of energy, we wanted to step back and say a slightly different question than what are the things we should be funding, but what are the things we should be finding where the taxpayer dollars will do the most good? if we find there are certain areas that the private sector is well invested in, we have to say we really shouldn't funding that. they're taking the ball and running with it. this is good. we did this with research in shale gas, 1978, '92, the industry didn't want to touch it. horizontal drilling or fracking the rock. industry picked it up. that's the attitude we in doing