g^O HISTORY OF Till COMMITTEE ON SCIFNCF. AND TECHNOLOGY 



coal or MHD from being developed, even though they were environ- 

 mentally more attractive than current coal-burning methods. 

 Flowers posed this conclusion: 



The greatest challenge we have or one of them in our time right now is to 

 balance the legitimate concerns of a Jean environment against the critical need for 

 energy in this country and in the world. I |ust hope that somehow, somewhere in this 

 maze that the energ) side of the equation is getting a fair shake. 



In April 1978, the Flowers subcommittee followed with two days 

 of additional hearings on the effect of the clean air standards on new 

 energy technologies and resources. The first day's hearing featured 

 power company executives and engineers in a panel discussion, with 

 the second day being devoted to EPA, DOE and Interior Department 

 officials. It disturbed Flowers to hear the Interior Department witness 

 say they could live with the EPA clean air standards, and he stated: 



I don't want to appear argumentative, hut the environmental impact of your 

 statement on me is that the Department of the Interior does not perceive an energy 

 crisis. I am concerned that two out of three statements this morning do not really 

 address the energy crisis which is the paramount problem in this Nation today, which 

 affects our economy and our quality of lite. * * * Do you people in Interior concern 

 yourselves with the overall energy problems as a Nation? Are you thinking about the 

 national parks and maybe a few oil leases on the Outer Continental Shelf? 



MHD 



Both the Hechler and Flowers subcommittees in the 94th and 95th 

 Congresses voted vastly increased funding for magnetohydrodynamics 

 (MHD). Subcommittee members believed that the program showed a 

 great deal of promise for enabling the generation of electricity from 

 coal in an environmentally sound and efficient fashion. The Hechler 

 subcommittee had probed the expenditures on MHD carefully to insure 

 that the construction funds and R. & D. were fully justified rather than 

 being hurriedly allocated in response to heavy political pressure from 

 Montana legislators. When ERDA reprogramed $20 million of funds 

 into MHD in 1976, the subcommittee met to assess the relative benefits 

 of the higher expenditures for MHD as against the near-term funding 

 of improved coal combustion, out of which the funds were being 

 transferred. 



In opening three days of oversight hearings on the MHD program 

 in May 1978, Flowers declared: 



The program has jumped from $7-5 million in 1974 to a projected $70 million in 

 1978. Program goals have accelerated, increasing the emphasis on systems develop- 

 ment for rapid commercial application. Early milestones, though, have slipped. The 

 work at several locations is not organized as a program, and specific project assign- 

 ments and costs have escalated. The program has been the source of congressional 

 enthusiasm with large benefits only to specific regions and specific contractors. That 



