Brown Introduces Fusion Energy Authorization Bill

“If we want to pursue the potential of fusion, we need to understand that it will be largely at government expense, and it is likely to require a sustained investment for decades to come.” -- Rep. George Brown

With his introduction on June 9 of H.R. 4553, the Fusion Energy Research Authorization Act of 1994, House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) once again leads the debate over government funding for science and research, with the proposal of a new type of funding mechanism for construction of major fusion facilities.

Research on fusion as an energy source is performed within the Department of Energy. In recent years, the funding has been accompanied by congressional directive to focus the magnetic fusion program on the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), to be built at Princeton, and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a collaborative effort among the US, Russia, Japan and the European Community that is currently in the engineering design phase, with site selection yet to be worked out.

However, the U.S.'s record for maintaining the commitment to fund such large projects is questionable. “To meet the justified international concern about the ability of the United States to meet its long-term financial commitments to international scientific projects,” Brown proposes establishing “a special trust fund to pay for the United States’ contribution to the design and construction of ITER and associated facilities, as well as the Tokamak Physics Experiment.” The fund would be financed by a fee on electricity generation. Estimated to raise $300 million a year, the fee would expire when sufficient funds had been raised to pay the US share of the project.

Although “fees are not popular,” Brown says, he “included this provision to begin what is a needed public debate: how do we get out of our perpetual year-to-year financing bind and get on with the job of providing secure multi-year funding for essential facilities that serve a critical public purpose? How can we demonstrate our credibility to a skeptical world scientific community and show that the United States can be a reliable international partner in scientific cooperation? How do we finance the high-risk research needed to develop new sources of energy for the next century? A fund like the one proposed here may be a solution.”

Brown also recognizes the potential for political disputes over the siting of ITER. The bill calls for selection of the host country by the international partners “before DOE begins an expensive, politically contentious and perhaps unnecessary site competition in the United States.” He advises, “It is important for us to understand the economic and technological benefits that will accrue to the United States even if ITER is not built in this country.”

Further details of the bill are provided in FYI #85.