National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×

References

Banzhaf, S., D. Burtraw, and K. Palmer. 2002. Efficient emission fees in the U.S. electricity sector. Discussion Paper 02-45. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Brewer, Peter G. 2003. Direct injection of carbon dioxide into the oceans. The Carbon Dioxide Dilemma: Promising Technologies and Policies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Cifuentes, L., and Lester B. Lave. 1993. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. (18):319.

Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Externalities of the Fuel Cycle: Extern Project. Working Documents 1, 2, 5, and 9, Brussels, Belguim: European Commission.

Congressional Research Service. 2005. Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920 to 2005. Order Code RL31572.

Council on Foreign Relations. 2006. National Security Consequences of United States Oil Dependence. Independent Task Force Report No. 58. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

Desvousges, W.H., F.R. Johnson, and H.S. Banzhaf. 1994. Assessing Environmental Costs for Electricity Generation. Triangle Economic Research General Working Paper No. G-9402.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004a. Estimating the DOE Office of Fossil Energy’s Program Benefits: FY2004 Final Report, Volume 1. December. Washington, D.C.: Office of Fossil Energy.

DOE. 2004b. Natural Gas Technologies Program Plan. April. Washington, D.C.: Office of Fossil Energy.

DOE. 2005a. Performance and Accountability Report.

DOE. 2005b. Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY2006 Budget Request. March. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

DOE. 2005c. FreedomCAR and Vehicles Technology Multi-year Program Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 2005d. An Economic Scoping Study for CO2Capture Using Aqueous Ammonia: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 2005e. Chemicals Industry of the Future: Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 2006a. Available at <http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/budget/07/fy07_budget_request_presentation.pdf>.

DOE. 2006b. FY2007 Congressional Budget Request: Budget Highlights. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 2006c. Available at <http://www.ne.doe.gov/admin/FY07BudgetRollout.html>. Accessed March 1, 2006.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2003. The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview. DOE/EIA-0581(2003). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA. 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA. 2005a. Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA. 2005b. Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025. Available at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo05/electricity.html>.

EIA. 2006. Annual Energy Outlook (early release). Available at <www.eia.doe.gov>.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970-1990. EPA 410-R-97-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

EPA. 1997b. Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2010. EPA-410-R-99-01. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

EPA. 2006. Acid Rain Program Web site. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/index.html>.

Fankhauser, S. 1994. “The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: An expected value approach.” Energy Journal 15(2).

Finkbeiner, A. 2006. The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite. New York: Viking.

General Accounting Office. 1997. Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators. GAO/RCED-97-91. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Government Accountability Office. 2005. Budget Glossary. GAO-05-734SP. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Greene, D.L., and S. Ahmad. 2005. Costs of U.S. Oil Dependence: 2005 Update. ORNL/TM-2005/45. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Herzog, H. 2001. What future for carbon capture and sequestration? Environmental Science and Technology 35(7):148-153.

Hill, S.T. 2002. Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2000. NSF02-327. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics.

Hines, P., J. Apt, H. Liao, and S. Talukdar. 2006. The frequency of large blackouts in the United States electrical transmission system: An empirical study. Presented at the Second Carnegie Mellon Conference in Electric Power Systems: Monitoring, Sensing, Software and Its Valuation for the Changing Electric Power Industry, January 11-12, 2006. Available at <http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~electricityconference/Old06/hines_blackout_frequencies_final.pdf>.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×

Jones, Donald W., and Paul N. Leiby. 1996. The Macroeconomic Impacts of Oil Price Shocks: A Review of Literature and Issues. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: ORNL.

Jones, Donald W., Paul N. Leiby, and Inja Paik. 2004. Oil price shocks and the macroeconomy: What has been learned since 1996? The Energy Journal 25(2):1-32.

Koomey, J. 1990. Comparative Analysis of Monetary Estimates of External Environmental Costs Associated with Combustion of Fossil Fuels. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, and Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Leiby, P.N., D.W. Jones, T.R. Curlee, and R. Lee. 1997. Oil Imports: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs. ORNL-6851. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: ORNL.

Marburger, J.H., and M.E. Daniels. 2003. Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: FY 2005 Interagency Research and Development Priorities. June 3. Available at <http://www.whitehouse. gov/omb/memoranda/m03-15.pdf>.

Matthews, H.S., and Lester B. Lave. 2000. Applications of environmental valuation for determining externality costs. Environmental Science Technology 34(8):1390-1395.

Maurstad, O., H. Herzog, O. Bolland, and J. Ber. 2006. Impact of coal quality and gasifier technology on IGCC performance. Presented at the 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Trondheim, Norway. June.

National Coal Council. 2004. Opportunities to Expedite the Construction of New Coal-Based Power Plants. Available at <http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/ExpediteNov30rpg.pdf>.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), Department of Transportation. 2006. Corporate Average Fuel Economy and CAFE Reform for MY 2008-2010 Light Trucks. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.

NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2002a. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2002b. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2004. Decreasing Energy Intensity in Manufacturing: Assessing the Strategies and Future Directions of the Industrial Technologies Program. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2005a. Prospective Evaluation of Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2005b. Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2001. The President’s Management Agenda. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf>.

OMB. 2003. Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2004. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

OMB. 2005. Guidance for Completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/fy2005/2005_guidance.pdf>.

Orr, Franklin M., Jr. 2003. Sequestration via direct injection of carbon dioxide deep into the earth. The Carbon Dioxide Dilemma: Promising Technologies and Policies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1994. Studies of the Environmental Costs of Electricity. OTA ETI-134. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ottinger, R.L. 1992. Social costs of energy. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Racine, Wisc., September 8-11. O. Hohmeyer and R.L. Ottinger, eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Palmgren, C.R., M.G. Morgan, W.B. de Bruin, and D.W. Keith. 2004. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science and Technology 38(24):6441-6450.

Parry, I.W.H., and J. Darmstadter. 2003. The costs of U.S. oil dependency. Discussion Paper 03-59. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Rao, B., S. Rubin, D. Keith, and G. Morgan. 2005. Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based CO2 capture systems. Energy Policy 34(18):3765-3772.

Rose, A., G. Oladosu, and S. Liao. 2005. Regional economic impacts of terrorist attacks on the electric power system of Los Angeles: A computable general disequilibrium analysis. Paper presented at the Second Annual Symposium of the DHS Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of Southern California.

Sharpe, P., and T. Keelin. 1998. How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Publishing. March-April.

Shogren, J.F., and S. Smulders. 1996. Resource and Energy Economics 18(4):333-509.

U.S.-Canada Power Systems Outage Task Force. 2004. Final Report on the August 14, 2003, Blackout in the United States and Canada. Available at <https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf>.

White House. 2002. “Fact sheet: President Bush announces Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives.” Office of the Press Secretary, February 14.

Zerriffi, H., H. Dowlatabadi, and N.D. Strachan. 2002. Electricity and conflict: The robustness of distributed generation. Electricity Journal 15(1).

Zuckerman, B., and F. Ackerman. 1995. The 1994 Update of the Tellus Institute Packaging Study Impact Assessment Method. SETAC Impact Assessment Working Group Conference, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2007. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11806.
×
Page 66
Next: Appendix A PART Assessment Questions »
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two) Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $69.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since its inception in 1977 from an amalgam of federal authorities, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has administered numerous programs aimed at developing applied energy technologies. In recent years, federal oversight of public expenditures has emphasized the integration of performance and budgeting. Notably, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed in 1993 in response to questions about the value and effectiveness of federal programs. GPRA and other mandates have led agencies to develop indicators of program performance and program outcomes. The development of indicators has been watched with keen interest by Congress, which has requested of the National Research Council (NRC) a series of reports using quantitative indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of applied energy research and development (R&D).

The first such report took a retrospective view of the first 3 years of DOE R&D programs on fossil energy and energy efficiency. The report found that DOE-sponsored research had netted large commercial successes, such as advanced refrigerator compressors, electronic lighting ballasts, and emission control technology for flue gas desulfurization. However, some programs were judged to be costly failures in which large R&D expenditures did not result in a commercial energy technology. A follow-up NRC committee was assigned the task of adapting the methodology to the assessment of the future payoff of continuing programs.

Evaluating the outcome of R&D expenditures requires an analysis of program costs and benefits. Doing so is not a trivial matter. First, the analysis of costs and benefits must reflect the full range of public benefits that are envisioned, accounting for environmental and energy security impacts as well as economic effects. Second, the analysis must consider how likely the research is to succeed and how valuable the research will be if successful. Finally, the analysis must consider what might happen if the government did not support the project: Would some non-DOE entity undertake it or an equivalent activity that would produce some or all of the benefits of government involvement?

This second report continues to investigate the development and use of R&D outcome indicators and applies the benefits evaluation methodology to six DOE R&D activities. It provides further definition for the development of indicators for environmental and security benefits and refines the evaluation process based on its experience with the six DOE R&D case studies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!