Undersecretary for Energy, Science, and Environment
U. S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Garman:
The National Research Council (NRC) has established the Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs, Phase Two, and the committee has begun work. The committee’s purpose is to continue to develop methodology for estimating the economic, environmental, and energy security benefits associated with DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs and to apply its proposed methodology to several DOE programs. The committee’s statement of task is provided in Attachment A and its members are listed in Attachment B.
To obtain feedback 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., attended by stakeholders. In this letter,1 the committee discusses the principal comments made during the workshop, the case studies it intends to perform in phase two, and the changes to the process and methodology that have occurred since phase one.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: William Agnew, NAE, General Motors (retired); David Bodde, Clemson University; Charles Lave, University of California, Irvine; John J. Wise, NAE, Mobil Research and Development Corporation (retired); and James Wolf, independent consultant.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Ahearne, NAE, Sigma Xi. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making sure that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES • NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING • INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE • NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL