efits without DOE support. The process ensured consistency through the use of common scenarios and assumptions by each panel and the guidance on process and methodology provided by the parent committee, which also provided oversight.


The current NRC study continues the work of the first prospective benefits study, which evaluated the stream of benefits resulting from applied energy programs. It has the objective of testing, refining, and extending the proposed methodology. To conduct this study, the NRC formed the Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Programs (Phase Two) (see biographies of committee members in Appendix B). The task assigned to the committee for Phase Two was as follows:

The work of the Phase 2 committee will be supported by several panels that will be separately appointed by the NRC to apply the methodology developed in Phase 1 and evaluate the prospective benefits of individual EE and FE programs/ projects. Since a methodology will have been developed in Phase 1, it is expected that a greater number of panels can be formed in Phase 2 and more time and resources can be devoted to evaluating prospective benefits. It is proposed that approximately 6 panels will be appointed by the NRC.

(The complete statement of task for Phase Two can be found in Appendix C.) Funds were appropriated in FY04 for Phase Two20 and FY05 for Phase Three.21

To obtain feedback from stakeholders on its proposed methodology and its then-pending selection of DOE programs for further case study, the committee held a workshop on July 14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. Topics of discussion included the methodology developed in Phase One, the suggested revisions thereto, and the choice of case studies. Soon after the workshop, the committee selected six programs for case study and informed DOE of its choices. The programs selected comprised three in EE, including the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP)–Chemicals, the Distributed En-ergy Resources (DER) program, and the Light-Duty Vehicles Hybrid Technologies program, and three in FE, including the IGCC program, the Carbon Sequestration program, and the Natural Gas Exploration and Production program.

The NRC formed six panels of experts to conduct the case studies. Each panel held two meetings between September and December 2005. The panels carried out their evaluations following the methodology of Phase One with some modifications suggested by the Phase Two committee. The panels wrote short reports summarizing their findings and calculations and submitted them to the committee.

In a letter report issued December 14, 2005 (see Appendix D), the committee discussed the principal comments made during the workshop, the case studies it intended to perform in Phase Two, and the changes to the process and methodology that had occurred since Phase One. The committee maintained its dialogue with stakeholders throughout the study, including interfacing with the DOE R&D Council structure (see above) and ensuring frequent briefings by DOE to the committee and panels.

In addition, the committee refined its calculation of environmental and security benefits and added enhancements to the methodology based on its experience with the six panels. Activities undertaken by the committee during Phase Two are listed in Appendix E.

The balance of the current report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 presents the results of the six case studies. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology—the analytical framework for calculating quantitative program outcome indicators—in particular the way the framework has changed since the completion of the Phase One report (NRC, 2005a). Chapter 4 discusses the expert panel process—the sequence of tasks and events needed to apply the methodology to a specific program—and the changes to the process that have occurred since the Phase One study. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations of the study. Appendix F contains material from Chapter 3 of the committee’s Phase One report to provide guidance to the panels on the methodology. Appendix G describes the kinds of information that DOE should provide and suggests forms it can fill out to submit that information. Appendixes H to M are the reports prepared by the six panels.


House Report 108-330, p. 83 and p. 163.


House Report 108-792, p. 1032, and House Report 108-542, p. 125.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement