# Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40669 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** January 5, 2010 - **Citation:** R40669 ## Text Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations (name redacted), Coordinator Specialist in Energy Policy January 5, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R40669 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Summary The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues for FY2010 involving these programs may include: • the distribution of Corps appropriations across the agency’s authorized planning, construction, and maintenance activities (Title I); • support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) and San Joaquin River (Title II); • funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); • several new initiatives proposed for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III); and • funding decisions in DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, the “Stimulus” Act, P.L. 111-5) included funding for numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. Funding for FY2010 Energy and Water Development programs is contained in H.R. 3183, which the House passed July 17, 2009. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183 July 29. The Conference Committee issued its report (H.Rept. 111-278) September 30, and the House passed the conference bill October 1, and the Senate October 15. The President signed the bill October 28 (P.L. 111-85). Congressional Research Service Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Contents Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1 Status..........................................................................................................................................1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................1 Title I: Army Corps of Engineers.................................................................................................3 Recent Agency Appropriations ..............................................................................................3 Annual Appropriations ....................................................................................................3 Supplemental Appropriations ..........................................................................................3 An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects .................................................................4 New Starts ......................................................................................................................4 Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers ................................................................................4 Inland Waterway Trust Fund ...........................................................................................4 Everglades ......................................................................................................................5 Post-Katrina Gulf Coast Hurricane Protection .................................................................5 Title II: Department of the Interior ..............................................................................................6 Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget in Brief .........................................6 Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation...........................................................................7 Background ....................................................................................................................7 Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations.........................................................................8 CALFED and the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF)...............................8 San Joaquin River Restoration Fund................................................................................9 Water Conservation Initiative ........................................................................................ 10 Title III: Department of Energy ................................................................................................. 10 Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy.......................................................................... 13 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) ........................................................ 13 Nuclear Energy ............................................................................................................. 20 Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration............................................ 23 Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................................................................................... 25 Science and ARPA-E..................................................................................................... 26 Nuclear Waste Disposal................................................................................................. 29 Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................ 30 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship ....................................................................... 31 Nonproliferation and National Security Programs.......................................................... 39 Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Nuclear Energy Research Facilities ..................................................................................................... 41 Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................. 46 Title IV: Independent Agencies.................................................................................................. 48 Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies .......................................................................... 48 Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................................................................... 48 Tables Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2010 ................................1 Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2003 to FY2010 ............................2 Congressional Research Service Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary .............................................2 Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................................................3 Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account ................................................................................................................6 Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ...........7 Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ......... 11 Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs .................................................... 13 Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................... 24 Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities ................................................................................. 31 Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program........................................................... 32 Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ..................................................... 39 Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management..................................... 45 Table 14. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies ........ 48 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 50 Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 50 Congressional Research Service Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Most Recent Developments Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). Appropriations for these programs in P.L. 111-8 totaled $40.549 billion, including $7.5 billion for Advanced Technical Vehicles Manufacturing Loans in the Department of Energy. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus” Act, P.L. 111-5) included $44.325 billion to fund numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. President Obama’s proposed FY2010 budget for Energy and Water Development programs was released in May 2009. The House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development marked up the FY2010 bill on June 25, 2009, and the full committee voted to report the bill (H.R. 3183, H.Rept. 111-203) on July 8. The House passed the bill, including several amendments, July 17. The Senate subcommittee marked up its bill July 8, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill (S. 1436, S.Rept. 111-45) on July 9. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183, incorporating the provisions of S. 1436, with amendments, on July 29. The Conference Committee reported out H.R. 3183 on September 30 (H.Rept. 111-278) and the House passed it October 1 and the Senate October 15. It was signed by the President October 28 (P.L. 111-85). Status Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2010 Subcommittee Markup House Senate House Report 6/25/09 7/8/09 111-203 Final Approval House Passage Senate Report Senate Passage Conf. Report House Senate Public Law 7/17/09 111-45 7/29/09 111-278 10/1/09 10/15/09 10/28/09 Overview The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP) and Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for FY2002 to FY2009. Congressional Research Service 1 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2003 to FY2010 (budget authority in billions of current dollars) FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010a 26.1 26.7 30.2b 36.7c 29.4 30.9 40.5d 33.1 Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions. a. Requested budget authority. b. For FY2005 and later, total includes DOE programs formerly funded in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill and transferred to the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. c. Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers. d. Includes $7.5 billion for Vehicles Manufacturers Loans. Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles. It also lists the total of several scorekeeping adjustments. Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Title I: Corps of Engineers $5,402.4 $4,600.0 $5,125.0 $5,540.1 $5,405.0 $5,445.0 Title II: CUP & Reclamation 1,115.8 1,000.0 1,062.7 1,080.0 1,172.7 1,129.7 Title III: Department of Energy 34,239.0a 38,725.0 28,383.8 26,855.8 27,375.2 27,088.4 Title IV: Independent Agencies 302.4 — 319.3 314.8 295.1 291.8 41,059.5 44,325.0 34,890.8 33,790.7 34,248.0 -52.7 — -35.1 -35.1 -35.1 -35.1 -463.0 — -463.0 -463.0 -463.0 -463.0 — — -200.0 — — — -27.7 — -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 40,516.0 44,325.0 33,265.6 33,722.9 Title E&W Subtotal 33,954.9 Scorekeeping Adjustments Title II Central Valley Title III Uranium D&D Fund Domestic Utility Feesb Excess FERC Fees E&W Total 34,165.6 33,429.8 Sources: FY2010 budget request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111-278. Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. a. Includes $7.5 billion for Vehicles Manufacturers Loans appropriated in P.L. 110-329. b. The President’s FY2010 budget proposed to reauthorize the collection of domestic utility fees on nuclear power utilities that expired in 2007. The fees contribute to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. Tables 4 through 14 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for FY2009-FY2010. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles. Congressional Research Service 2 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers Recent Agency Appropriations Annual Appropriations In most years, the budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is below the agency’s final appropriations. The conference report would appropriate $5.445 billion, which is $0.320 billion above the Obama Administration’s budget request of $5.125 billion and $0.043 billion above the $5.402 billion appropriated for FY2009. The House bill would have appropriated $5.540 billion; the Senate bill would have appropriated $5.405 billion. Supplemental Appropriations Regular annual appropriations for the Corps’ civil works activities have been regularly augmented since Hurricane Katrina, through supplemental appropriations and through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For example, in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252), the agency received $5.761 billion in FY2009 funds for Louisiana hurricane protection. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $4.6 billion to the agency for FY2009 and FY2010. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L. 111-32, provided the Corps $0.797 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations. Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Investigations and Planning $168.1 $25.0 $100.0 $142.0 $170.0 $160.0 Construction 2,141.7 2,000.0 1,718.0 2,143.7 1,924.0 2031.0 Mississippi River & Tributaries 383.8 375.0 248.0 251.4 340.0 340.0 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 2201.9 2,075.0 2,504.0 2,511.0 2,450.0 2,400.0 Regulatory 183.0 25.0 190.0 191.8 190.0 190.0 General Expenses 179.4 184.0 160.2 186.0 185.0 FUSRAPa 140.0 100.0 134.0 134.0 140.0 134.0 0 0 41.0 0 0 0 4.5 0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5,402.4b 4,600.0 5,125.0 5,540.1 5,405.0 5,445.0 Program Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies (FC&CE) Office of the Asst. Secretary of the Army Total Title I Sources: FY2010 budget request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45; H.Rept. 111-278. Note: The table does not include the supplemental appropriations. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided the Corps $5.761 billion in FY2009 for Louisiana hurricane protection. Congressional Research Service 3 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations a. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, a program to investigate and clean up or control sites that were part of the early atomic energy and weapons program. b. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L. 111-32, provided the Corps $0.797 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations. An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects Unlike highways and municipal water infrastructure programs, federal funds for the Corps are not distributed to states or projects based on a formula or delivered via a competitive program. Generally about 85% of the appropriations for the Corps’ civil works activities is directed to specific projects. Many of these projects are identified in the budget request, and others are added during congressional deliberations of the agency’s appropriations. As a result, the agency’s funding is often part of the debate over earmarks. Generally, appropriations are not provided to studies, projects, or activities that have not been previously authorized, typically in a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Estimates of the backlog of authorized projects vary from $11 billion to more than $80 billion, depending on which projects are included (e.g., those that meet Administration budget criteria, those that have received funding in recent appropriations, those that have never received appropriations). The backlog raises policy questions, such as whether there is a disconnect between the authorization and appropriations processes, and how to prioritize among authorized activities. New Starts The Obama Administration’s request for the Corps includes new starts (i.e., activities not previously funded). For example, the request includes five new, but previously authorized, construction projects. This contrasts with the George W. Bush Administration’s policy generally opposing new starts in order to focus funds on completing ongoing activities. Congress funded new starts during the G.W. Bush years. The House bill supports the Obama Administration’s request on new starts and adds 20 new projects not requested by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committee concluded in its report (S.Rept. 111-45, p. 15) that new starts in the current budget environment would be imprudent. It is unclear how many new starts are in the H.Rept. 111-278. Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers Inland Waterway Trust Fund The Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) has a looming deficit; needed funding for eligible ongoing work has exceeded the incoming collections. Collections have been roughly $100 million per year, but the outlays more than $200 million. Current law establishes the expenses associated with construction and major rehabilitation of inland waterways as a federal responsibility (i.e., no local cost-share), with 50% of the federal monies coming from the IWTF and 50% from the federal general revenue fund. The IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax (not indexed for inflation) imposed on vessels engaged in commercial transportation on designated waterways, plus investment interest on the balance. Congressional Research Service 4 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations The Obama Administration’s budget request included a legislative proposal to authorize a lock usage fee to replace the current fuel tax, which previously had been proposed by the Bush Administration. This proposal is included in neither the House nor the Senate bill. The House identified addressing the insolvency of the IWTF as the most immediate navigation need, but did not include legislative language to address the need. The Senate Committee report discussed alternatives to the Administration’s proposal, but it did not propose legislative changes. Instead, S.Rept. 111-45 stated: “A solution to this problem must be developed with the users of the system, the Corps and the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress.” The conference report directed the Administration to report by April 2010 on the status of the fund and to identify a list of priority projects with supporting information. Like the House bill and the Senate bill, the conference bill would prohibit funds in the bill to be used for awarding any new continuing contracts that commit additional IWTF funds until the insolvency issue has been resolved. 1 Everglades The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are also funded through Department of the Interior appropriations bills. Concerns regarding the level of appropriations across the federal agencies and the State of Florida and progress in the restoration effort are discussed in CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). The FY2010 Obama Administration request for the Corps’ south Florida Everglades restoration work totals $214.5 million. The conference bill provides $180 million for Everglades restoration. The House bill would have appropriated $210.2 million for Everglades restoration; the Senate bill would have provided $163.4 million. None of the bills would appropriate funds to the Modified Water Deliveries Project, with the direction for the project to be funded through the Department of Interior. Post-Katrina Gulf Coast Hurricane Protection The Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane protection system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the New Orleans area. To date, most of the Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been funded through $15 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations, not through the annual appropriations process. In addition to the post-hurricane emergency repairs, these funds are being used for construction of levees, floodwalls, storm surge barriers, and pump improvements to reduce the hurricane flooding risk to the New Orleans area to a 100-year level of protection (i.e., protection against a storm surge of an intensity that has 1% probability of occurring in a given year) and to restore and complete hurricane protection in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of protection by 2011. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L. 111-32, provided the Corps $0.439 1 In FY2009, some inland waterway projects were paid for using IWTF funds, while others were paid for using general revenue funds until they could be brought to a logical stopping point. Future work on these projects is deferred until IWTF collections are enhanced. The use of general funds for projects that are intended to be cost shared by those benefiting from them raises fiscal equity issues among some stakeholders. In contrast, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) has a $4.7 billion growing balance, with outlays significantly below collections. Navigation stakeholders argue that this balance poses the opposite equity concern. Congressional Research Service 5 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for barrier island restoration and ecosystem restoration for the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Title II: Department of the Interior Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget in Brief The Obama Administration requested $42.0 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account, the same amount as appropriated for FY2009. The FY2010 request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,020.7 million in gross current budget authority. This amount is $55.1 million less than enacted for FY2009. The FY2010 request included an “offset” of $35.1 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund (Congress does not list this line item as an offset), yielding a “net” discretionary authority of $985.7 million. Another $117.3 million is estimated to be available for FY2010 via “permanent and other” funds, for a grand total of $1.1 billion for FY2010. The total discretionary budget request (not including the CVPRF offset) for Title II funding—Central Utah Project and Reclamation—is $1.06 billion. The Housepassed bill includes approximately $1.08 billion for Title II funding; the Senate bill would appropriate $1.17 billion. The conference report includes approximately $1.13 billion, slightly more than enacted under the regular appropriations bill for FY2009. Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. $39.4 $41.0 $37.7 $37.7 $38.8 $38.8 Mitigation and Conservation Commission Activities 1.0 8.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 DOI Oversight and Administration 1.6 — 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 DOI Fish and Wildlife Conservation Projects — 0.3 1.1a 1.1 Total, Central Utah Project 42.0 50.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 Program Central Utah Water Conservancy District Sources: FY2010 Budget Request. Department of the Interior Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2010, Central Utah Project Completion Act; H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111-278. a. Funds reported within the CUP completion account (Central Utah Water Conservancy District total) for FY2009. Congressional Research Service 6 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf $920.3 $950.0 $893.1 $910.3 $993.1 $951.2 Policy and Administration 59.4 — 61.2 51.2 61.2 61.2 CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF) 56.1 — 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED) 40.0 — 31.0 41.0 41.0 40.0 Gross Current Reclamation Authority 1,075.8 950.0 1,020.7 1,037.8 1,130.7 1,087.0 Total, Title II (CUP and Reclamation) 1,115.8 1,000.0 1,062.7 1,079.8 1,172.7 1,129.7 Program Water and Related Resources FY2010 Request Source: FY2010 Budget Request, Department of the Interior Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2010, Bureau of Reclamation; H.Rept. 111-203, House floor proceedings, and S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111278. Reclamation’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency’s traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others. The Obama Administration requested $893.1 million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2010. This amount is $27.1 million (approximately 3%) less than enacted for FY2009. The House bill includes $910.3 million for the Water and Related Resources Account—roughly $17 million more than requested; the Senate bill would appropriate $993.1 million—$100 million more than requested. The conference agreement includes $951.2 million for the account, roughly $31.0 million more than enacted in the FY2009 regular appropriations bill and approximately $58 million more than requested for FY2010. Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation Background Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the assistance of, Reclamation. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, Reclamation’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, Reclamation manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and a population of 31 million. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the secondlargest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of Reclamation facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife species and conflicts among competing water users. As with the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation budget is made up largely of individual project funding and relatively few “programs.” The House Committee on Appropriations noted that despite Reclamation’s past achievements, the agency has become a “caretaker agency” and has Congressional Research Service 7 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations not exerted leadership in the provision of water supply or maintaining the West’s existing water supply infrastructure. The House Appropriations Committee notes that the combined challenges of balancing competing needs, increasing demand for water supply, and changing hydrology will require active leadership in western water resource management. Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations The CVP in California is one of Reclamation’s largest and most complex water projects. Recently, Reclamation has had to limit water deliveries and pumping from CVP facilities due to drought and other factors, including environmental restrictions. This action has resulted in several amendments including attempts to prevent Reclamation from implementing new Biological Opinions (BiOps) on the effect of project operations on certain fish species. For example, Representative Calvert offered an amendment to prohibit Reclamation or any state agency from restricting operations of the CVP or State Water Project (SWP) due to recent BiOps on project operations. The two BiOps in question have found that continued operation of the projects under a plan developed and implemented in 2004 (Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP)) would jeopardize the existence of both Delta Smelt and salmon (and other) species in California. These species are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act. OCAP allowed increased pumping from the Delta, which some believe has further imperiled fish species listed as threatened or endangered under ESA long before the increased pumping plan went into effect. Others note that other factors such as invasive species, pollution, and non-federal withdrawals of water from the Delta have contributed to fishery declines. Critically low numbers of Delta Smelt resulted in a court-imposed limit on pumping at certain times and more recently, a new review of project operations and impacts on the economy and species. In the meantime, low water deliveries to certain water districts (e.g., those with junior water rights) are exacerbating unemployment in an area with an economy already challenged by changes in the farming industry, the downturn in housing and financial sectors, and the economy in general. The Calvert amendment was defeated by a vote of 25 to 33. Similar amendments were proposed for several other appropriations bills, in the House. And a similar amendment via a motion to recommit the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in the Senate was not successful.2 However, two other amendments related to Delta pumping restrictions passed during House consideration of the bill: one providing an additional $10 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (changed to $9 million in conference), and another including language to facilitate water transfers. The latter amendment was subsequently modified and appears as Section 211 of the conference agreement, providing for a two-year authorization of water transfers among certain CVP contractors without meeting particular conditions established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of P.L. 102-575). CALFED and the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF) The Administration requested $31.0 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2010. This request is $9.0 million less than the $40.0 million enacted for FY2009. The bulk of the requested funds is targeted at five program areas: (1) water 2 For more information on this procedure and the amendment’s potential effects, see, CRS Report R40776, Fish and Wildlife Service: Appropriations and Policy , by (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 8 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations use efficiency ($5.0 million); (2) water quality ($5.0 million); (3) water storage ($4.05 million); (4) conveyance ($4.1 million); and ecosystem restoration ($7.85 million). The remainder of the request is allocated for science, planning, and management activities. In a departure from previous years, the Administration requested no funding for the “Environmental Water Account” and instead applied $5.0 million of the FY2010 CALFED request to “water use efficiency,” $3.0 million of which is for the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. In prior years, such recycling programs and projects (Title XVI projects) have been included in the Water and Related Resources Account. Funding for three CALFED subaccounts declined substantially (storage, conveyance, and EWA), while funding for water use efficiency and ecosystem restoration increased substantially. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).) The conference agreement provides $40 million for CALFED, which is $9 million more than requested, but $1 million less than recommended in the House and Senate bills. The conference agreement provides $35.4 million for the CVPRF; the same amount as requested for FY2010. The conference agreement also includes a provision (Section 210) extending the CALFED authorization from 2010 to 2014. Requested funding for both the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF) and CALFED are lower than for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee notes that the lower amount for the CVPRF is done to meet a statutory requirement to limit the three-year rolling average to no more than $50 million and does not represent an intent to reduce funding in future years. Both funds serve areas in California experiencing water supply reductions due to drought, as well as pumping restrictions due to stress on state- and federally listed fish species. San Joaquin River Restoration Fund Reclamation proposed an allocation of $15.9 million for the newly authorized San Joaquin River Restoration Fund for FY2010. The Fund was authorized by the enactment of Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Fund is to be used to implement fisheries restoration and water management provisions of a stipulated settlement agreement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit and is to be funded through the combination of a reallocation of approximately $7.5 million annually in Central Valley Project Restoration Fund receipts from the Friant Division water users and accelerated payment of Friant water users’ capital repayment obligations, as well as other federal and non-federal sources. Reclamation notes that “significant actions planned for initiation in FY2010 include releasing interim flows from Friant Dam and completion of a permit application for the reintroduction of spring-run Chinook salmon into the San Joaquin River for consideration by the National Marine Fisheries Service.” Construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s and subsequent diversion of San Joaquin River water to off-stream agricultural uses blocked salmon migration and dewatered stretches of the San Joaquin, resulting in elimination of springrun Chinook into the upper reaches of the river. One goal of the settlement is to bring back the salmon run; another is to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division longterm contractors. (For more information on the settlement agreement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report R40125, Title X of H.R. 146: San Joaquin River Restoration, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).) The Senate bill would appropriate $7.0 million in CVP funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration, to be used in conjunction with and in advance of funds available from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. The conference agreement includes $5.0 million for this purpose. Congressional Research Service 9 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Water Conservation Initiative Reclamation proposed funding for a new program for FY2010—a Water Conservation Initiative (WCI). The proposal is similar to components of a program funded in FY2009—the Water for America Initiative. P.L. 111-8 provided $15.1 million for the Reclamation portion of the Water for America Initiative line item for FY2009 (the USGS was also to receive funding under the initiative); an additional $20.1 million was included for Endangered Species Recovery Implementation. The FY2010 request does not mention the Water for America Initiative. Instead, it includes a request of $46 million for the WCI, which includes $37 million for two components of last year’s Water for America initiative (challenge grants and basin studies), and $9 million to fund portions of seven Title XVI projects (not included as part of the Water for America Initiative last year). The Water for America Initiative subsumed two previously existing Reclamation programs: Water 2025 (challenge grants) and the Water Conservation Field Services program. The House Committee on Appropriations report did not discuss the WCI; however, the report notes that $100,000 will be provided for each Title XVI project pending the announcement of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) funding and accurate projections of project needs. Reclamation has announced $134.3 million in ARRA funding for 27 projects— 26 of which are in California. The Senate Committee on Appropriations encourages Reclamation to work with a lab at Utah State University to expand water quality monitoring among other things, as does the conference agreement. Title III: Department of Energy The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE’s programs since FY2005. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs, and the bill now includes programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and energy statistics, which formerly had been included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The FY2009 appropriations acts funded DOE programs at $34.2 billion. This sum included $7.5 billion for Advanced Technical Vehicles Manufacturing Loans, appropriated in the Continuing Resolution, P.L. 110-329. In addition, the ARRA (P.L. 111-5) appropriated $38.7 billion for selected DOE programs: primarily Conservation and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery, Fossil Energy R&D, Science, and Environmental Clean-up. Congressional Research Service 10 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ($ millions) Program FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY 2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Energy Supply and Conservation Energy Efficiency and Renewables $2,178.5 $16,800.0 $2,318.6 $2,310.0 $2,234.0 $2,242.5 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 137.0 4,500.0 208.0 193.0 179.5 172.0 Nuclear Energy 792.0 — 776.6 812.0 761.2 786.6 Total, Energy Supply and Conservation 3,107.5 21,300.0 3,287.9 3,270.0 3,174.7 3,201.1 Fossil Energy R&D 876.3 3,400.0 617.6 617.6 699.2 672.4 — — — — — — Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves 19.1 — 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 Strategic Petroleum Reserve 205.0 — 228.6 228.6 259.1 243.8 Northeast Home Heating Oil Rsrv. 9.8 — 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Energy Information Administration 110.6 133.1 121.9 110.6 110.6 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup 261.8 483.0 237.5 237.5 259.9 244.7 Uranium D&D Fund 535.5 390.0 559.4 559.4 588.3 573.9 High Energy Physics 795.7 232.4 819.0 819.0 813.0 810.5 Nuclear Physics 512.1 154.8 552.0 536.5 540.0 535.0 Basic Energy Sciences 1,572.0 555.4 1685.5 1,675.0 1,653.5 1,636.5 Bio. and Env. R&D 601.5 165.7 604.2 597.2 604.2 604.2 Fusion 402.6 91.0 421.0 441.0 416.0 426.0 Advanced Scientific Computing 368.8 157.1 409.0 409.0 399.0 394.0 Cong. Directed Proj. 93.7 — — 37.7 41.2 76.9 Other 441.3 231.2 451.0 428.2 432.0 420.7 Adjustments (15.0) 12.4 — — — — Total, Science 4,772.6 1,600.0 4,941.7 4,943.6 4,898.8 4,903.7 Clean Coal Technology — Science Congressional Research Service 11 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Program FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY 2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. ARPA-E — 400.0 10.0 — — — Nuclear Waste Disposal 145.5 — 98.4 98.4 98.4 98.4 Departmental Admin. (net) 155.3 — 182.3 124.9 173.9 168.9 Office of Inspector General 51.9 15.0 51.4 52.0 51.9 51.9 Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan 7,510.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 — 5,990.0 1,500.0a — — — Sec. 1705 Temp. Loan Guarantee National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons 6,380.0 — 6,384.4 6,320.0 6,468.3 6,384.4 Nuclear Nonproliferation 1,482.4 — 2,121.7 1,471.1 2,136.7 2,136.7 Naval Reactors 828.1 — 1,003.1 1,003.1 973.1 945.1 Office of Administrator 439.2 — 420.8 420.8 420.8 420.8 Total, NNSA 9,129.6 — 9,930.0 9,215.1 9,998.9 9,887.0 Defense Environmental Cleanup 5,657.3 5,127.0 5,495.8 5,381.8 5,763.9 5,642.3 Other Defense Activities 1,314.1 — 852.5 1,518.0 854.5 847.5 Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 143.0 98.4 98.4 98.4 98.4 Total, Defense Activities 16,243.9 16,391.7 16,213.3 16,715.6 16,475.2 — 5,127.0 Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) Southeastern 7.4 — 7.6 7.6 8.6 7.6 Southwestern 28.4 — 44.9 44.9 44.9 44.9 Western 218.3 10.0 256.7 256.7 256.7 256.7 Falcon & Amistad O&M 3.0 — 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Colo. River Basin (23.0) — (23.0) (23.0) (23.0) (23.0) Total, PMAs 234.1 10.0 289.9 289.0 289.0 311.9 FERC (revenues) 273.4 (273.4) — 298.0 (298.0) 298.0 (298.0) 298.0 (298.0) 34,239.0 38,725.0 28,406.8 27,398.2 27,111.4 Total, Title III 26,876.8 Sources: FY2010 budget request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111-278. Congressional Research Service 12 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations a. The Administration, in its 2010 budget request, proposed changes in procedures for operating this loan program which the Congress concluded would cost an additional $1.5 billion. The proposed changes were not agreed to by the Congress. Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the following pages, the most important programs are described and major issues are identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) In President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, he stressed that energy policy—in particular energy efficiency and renewable energy policy—would be a major focus of his Administration, which would be reflected in the FY2010 budget request. In the address, he stated that humankind’s “survival depends on finding new sources of energy” and that one of the major functions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) was designed to boost jobs for renewable energy industries such as wind and solar energy. DOE’s FY2010 request seeks $2.3186 billion for the EERE programs. Compared with the FY2009 appropriation, the FY2010 request would increase EERE funding by $390.1 million, or 20.2%. In addition to the regular FY2009 appropriation, however, the ARRA appropriated $17.05 billion (including $250 million provided for the Weatherization Program in P.L. 110-329) for EERE programs, and an additional $4.5 billion for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Table 8 gives the programmatic breakdown of the regular appropriations and the ARRA supplement for EERE and EDER. Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies $169.0 $43.4 $68.2 $68.2 $190.0 174.0 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems 217.0 786.5a 235.0 235.0 235.0 220.0 Solar Energy 175.0 — 320.0 258.7 255.0 225.0 —Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 30.0 — 78.4 — 30.0 — Wind Energy 55.0 118.0 75.0 70.0 85.0 80.0 Geothermal Technology 44.0 400.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 44.0 Water Power (Hydro/Ocean) 40.0 — 30.0 40.0 60.0 50.0 Subtotal, Renew. and Hydrogen 700.0 1,347.9 778.2 721.9 875.0 793.0 Vehicle Technologies 273.2 — 333.3 378.3 323.3 311.4 Building Technologies 140.0 — 237.7 210.5 202.7 200.0 Industrial Technologies 90.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.0 Federal Energy Management 22.0 — 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.0 RE-ENERGYSE (Education) — — 115.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Program Congressional Research Service 13 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Subtotal, Efficiency R&D 525.2 50.0 818.3 728.6 658.3 639.4 Facilities and Infrastructure 76.0 100.7a 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 Program Management 145.8 50.0 358.1 289.0 224.6 185.0 1,447.0 1,548.6 2,017.6 1,802.4 1,820.9 1,680.4 16.0 — 6.0 10.0 15.0 10.0b Appliance Rebates — 300.0 — — — — Adv. Battery Manufacturing — 2,000.0 — — — — Transportation Electrification — 400.0 — — — — Alternative Fueled Vehicles — 300.0 — — — — Subtotal, Demon. and Deployment 16.0 3,000.0 6.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Weatherization Grants 200.0 5,250.0c 220.0 220.0 200.0 210.0 State Energy Grants 50.0 3,100.0 75.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 Efficiency Block Grants — 3,200.0 — — — — Non-specific EERE RDD&D — 951.4 — — — — Cong.-Directed Assistance 228.8 — — 157.6 148.1 292.1 Prior Year Balances -13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,928.5 17,050.0 2,318.6 2,265.0 2,233.0 2,242.5 137.0 4,500.0 208.0 193.0 179.6 172.0 Program R&D Subtotal Renewables Deployment Total Appropriation Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) Sources: FY2010 budget request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111-278. a. Facilities and Infrastructure includes $13.5 million for the Integrated Biorefinery Research Facility, for a total of $800.0 million in Biomass-related Recovery Act funding. b. This amount is for Tribal Energy Activities. There is also a $10.0 million amount for International Renewable Energy in the funding for Program Support, under Program Management. c. Includes $250 million supplementary appropriation in the FY2009 Continuing Resolution legislation, P.L. 110-329. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) The ARRA emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. The law provides $16.8 billion for several program accounts under EERE, which must be obligated during FY2009 and FY2010. In particular, it provides $2.5 billion for the R&D programs, including $800 million for the Biomass Program, $400 million for the Geothermal Program, $118 million for Wind Energy, $50 million for Industrial Technologies, $43.4 million for Fuel Cell Technologies (formerly Hydrogen Technologies), $87.2 million for Facilities and Infrastructure, and $50 million for Program Direction. Further, the law provides $11.3 billion for grant programs, including $5.0 billion for the Weatherization Grants Program, $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program, and $3.2 billion for Congressional Research Service 14 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program—a new program authorized by Title V of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Additionally, the law provides about $3.65 billion in transportation related grants, including $2.0 billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing, $400 million for Transportation Electrification, $300 million for Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Also, the law provides $4.5 billion to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for grid modernization and related technologies, especially transmission development to support renewable energy. That amount includes funds for the smart grid and grid modernization provisions in the EISA (Title 13). Regular FY2009 and FY2010 Appropriations Compared The $390.1 million difference between the regular FY2009 appropriation and the FY2010 request results from several proposed increases and decreases for EERE programs. The request proposes one major increase, $115 million, that would create a new science and engineering education program entitled Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge (RE-ENERGYSE). Other major proposed program funding increases would go to Solar Technologies ($145 million), Building Technologies ($97.7 million), Vehicle Technologies ($60.1 million), and State Energy grants ($25.0 million). Other proposed major cuts would include Congressionally-Directed Activities (-$228.8 million) and Fuel Cells (-$100.7 million). Smaller proposed program cuts would include Facilities (-$13.0 million), Water Technologies (-$10.0 million), and Renewable Deployment (-$10.0 million). The House bill includes $2.250 billion for EERE, which is $321.5 million more than the FY2009 appropriation and $68.6 million less than the FY2010 request. Compared with the request, the House bill would provide major increases for Congressionally Directed Activities ($157.6 million) and for Vehicle Technologies ($40.0 million). The bill decreases RE-ENERGYSE by 107.5 million, Program Management by $69.1 million, Solar Technologies by $61.3 million, and Building Technologies by $27.2 million. In floor action, the House approved a $15.0 million increase over the reported bill, including $10.0 million more for the Water Power Technologies program and $5.0 million more for the Vehicle Technologies program, targeted for natural gas vehicles. The Senate bill would appropriate $2.233 billion for EERE, $304.5 million more than the FY2009 appropriation and $17.0 million less than the House bill. Compared with the House bill, the Senate bill would provide a major increase for Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies ($121.8 million) and significant increases for Water Power Technologies ($30.0 million) and Wind Technologies ($15.0 million). The Senate bill would zero out the DOE-proposed RE-ENERGYSE program. Compared to the House bill, the Senate would decrease Program Management by $64.4.5 million, Vehicle Technologies by $50.0 million, state energy grants by $25.0 million, and weatherization grants by $20.0 million. In floor action, the Senate approved an amendment to the reported bill that would designate $15.0 million of the funding for Industrial Programs for technical assistance grants. Congressional Research Service 15 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Solar Energy Program Increase The request would nearly triple spending for the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program and proposed three new solar subprogram focus areas: Systems Integration, Market Transformation, and the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. Two new subprogram activities would garner most (about $39 million) of the $54.1 million increase proposed for CSP funding. About $17 million would be provided for a high-temperature baseload power activity, which aims to develop CSP systems capable of operating competitively in the baseload power market by 2020. Meeting this goal would require CSP systems that operate at higher temperatures, which elevates system efficiency and enables cost reductions for thermal storage. About $22 million would be provided for a “Pilot Solar Zone.” Under this activity, a land parcel would be developed in a way that facilitates the construction of utility-scale solar projects. The activity calls for DOE cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and solar developers to devise a model for addressing infrastructure (roads, water, transmission linkages) and conducting environmental studies. The Systems Integration subprogram would receive a boost of $17.5 million to cover three main activities. System Modeling and Analysis assesses potential annual energy production based on pilot (model) projects, for example, photovoltaic system operations in a region with cloudy weather. Grid Integration activities focus on enabling high-penetration solar integration into enduse locations and the power grid, with an emphasis on life-cycle costs for inverters, storage, and other equipment. Grid access for CSP will be a key focus too. Resource and Safety activities aim to improve solar resource mapping and help industry select sites. Market Transformation, a completely new subprogram, would aim to help reduce solar power costs and promote commercial use of solar technologies by identifying and breaking down market barriers and promoting deployment through stakeholder outreach. Some targeted areas of market barriers include interconnection standards, net metering, utility policies, solar access laws, policymaker understanding of solar technologies, and international safety issues. The subprogram would also aim to promote large-scale solar deployment. The Solar America Cities activity would assist 25 U.S. cities that have committed to using solar power by addressing implementation issues such as financing, permitting, city planning, stakeholder engagement, and grid integration. Also, the Solar America Showcases activity would provide technical assistance (not hardware purchases) to large-scale, high-visibility installations, such as new building communities, big box retailer installations, and utility-scale solar. The Solar Policy and Analysis Network (SPAN) is a new market transformation activity proposed for launch in FY2010. SPAN would help fulfill the need for analysis on local, state, regional, national, and international policies that promote solar market transformation by tapping into the expertise of the Nation’s universities. In addition, SPAN aims to further solar professional development by attracting and educating a new generation of university students who can join the solar industry in various capacities. Energy Innovation Hubs would address the basic science, technology, economics, and policy issues hindering the ability to become energy secure and economically strong while being good stewards of the planet by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The main focus of the Hub is to push the current state-of-the-art energy science and technology toward fundamental limits and support high-risk, high-reward research projects that produce revolutionary changes in how the United States produces and uses energy. The objective is to focus a high-quality team of researchers on a specific question and to encourage risk taking that can produce real breakthroughs. The Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub would be devoted to the discovery and design of wholly new concepts and materials needed by solar to electricity conversion. Congressional Research Service 16 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations The House bill would provide $258.7 million for Solar programs, about $61.3 million less than the request. No funding would be provided for the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. More generally, the Appropriations Committee’s report expressed concern with DOE’s proposal to establish eight Energy Innovation Hubs. The Committee found that the proposed new group of centers would have goals that overlap with other existing centers, which could lead to “confusion and redundancy.” Further, the Committee found that there has been insufficient development of plans and implementation details for the proposed Hubs. However, the Committee said that it otherwise “believes that the Hubs are a promising concept,” and it recommended $35 million to establish one Hub under the Office of Science. The Senate bill would appropriate $255.0 million for Solar Technologies. From the amount provided, the report directed DOE to provide $30.0 million for Concentrating Solar. Also, the Committee “encourages” DOE to support R&D on “innovative textiles,” such as solar cell roofing shingles. The Committee directed DOE to develop the PV Manufacturing Initiative consistent with the findings of workshops being conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. It also encouraged DOE to use an existing facility for the Initiative. In floor action, the Senate adopted the Committee’s funding recommendations. The conference report would appropriate $225.0 for the Solar Technologies Program. Funding would be provided for Concentrating Solar. No funding would be provided for the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. Building Technologies Program Increase Of the $97.7 million increase proposed for the Building Technologies program, the Emerging Technologies subprogram would get nearly half ($48.9 million). Within that subprogram, the proposed creation of an Energy Innovation Hub would get $35.0 million. The main focus of the Hub would be on energy efficient building systems design. This Hub would work on integrating smart materials, designs, and systems to tune building usage to better conserve energy, as well as maximizing the functioning of lighting, heating, air conditioning, and electricity to reduce energy demand. Other areas of interest include improved exterior shell materials, membranes of energy efficient windows, insulation, improved approaches to building design, systems control, and energy distribution networks. The Residential Buildings Integration subprogram would get an increase of $18.1 million. The main goal is to develop cost effective, production-ready systems in five major climate zones that result in houses that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis. The Zero Energy Home (ZEH) initiative in residential sector research would bring a new concept to homebuilders. A ZEH combines state-of-the-art, energy efficient construction and appliances with commercially available renewable energy systems such as solar water heating and solar electricity. The ZEH also has a cost component goal of net zero financial cost to the home owner. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for the proposed Equipment Standards and Analysis Hub. In floor action, the Senate approved the Committee’s recommendation. The conference report recommends $200.0 million and noted that $27.0 million should be provided for solid state R&D from within available funds. No funding would be provided for the Energy Efficient Building Systems Design Innovation Hub. Congressional Research Service 17 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Vehicle Technologies Program Increase Of the $60.1 million requested increase, the largest share (a net increase of nearly $39.0 million) would go to Hybrid Electric Systems. This subprogram includes all of the Vehicle Program efforts directly related to the planning and modeling, development, and evaluation of advanced hybrid (HEV), electric, and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) drive systems. The Hybrid Electric Systems subprogram funds R&D on advanced (passenger and commercial) vehicle technologies that could achieve significant improvements in fuel economy without sacrificing safety, the environment, performance, or affordability. Primary emphasis is given to the technologies that support development of advanced HEVs and PHEVs. Within that subprogram, the Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing (VSST) activity would grow by about $32.2 million. This activity integrates the modeling, systems analysis, and testing efforts that support the Vehicle Program. The FY2010 increase would support expanded heavy vehicle systems modeling and development of technologies to reduce commercial vehicles’ “parasitic” energy losses due to aerodynamic drag, friction and wear, under-hood thermal conditions, and accessory loads. It will also support increased testing of both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles. A portion of the increase will also be used to expand the laboratory and field evaluation of advanced prototype and pre-production electric drive vehicles with dual energy storage systems and other advanced energy storage devices, electric motor and power electronics. VSST will also expand the evaluation of advanced HEVs and PHEVs in medium and heavy duty uses such as school buses, urban delivery vehicles, and transit buses. Also within the Hybrid Electric Systems subprogram, the Advanced Power Electronics and Electric Motor R&D activity would get an increase of about $12.7 million. In FY2010, a new solicitation would be issued to fund industry R&D efforts to develop power electronics and electric motors associated with increased vehicle electrification. DOE states that electrification of light-duty vehicles has great potential to reduce dependence on oil imports, and advanced power electronics and electric motors are critical components for the successful deployment of advanced vehicles. The awards would enable substantial reductions in cost, weight, and volume, while ensuring a domestic supply chain. Emphasis would be placed on R&D for advanced packaging, enhanced reliability, and improved manufacturability. Awards would also accelerate the technology transfer from research organizations to domestic manufacturers and suppliers. The activity also supports R&D on inverters and motors (permanent magnet (PM) and non-PM), DCto-DC converters, low-cost magnet materials, high temperature capacitors, advanced thermal systems, and motor control systems. Work would be expanded to address the more stringent performance requirements for PHEVs, including using the power electronics to provide plug-in capability by integrating the battery charging function into the traction drive, thereby reducing electric propulsion system cost. Activities focusing on advanced materials will be enhanced to enable the production of prototype devices to accelerate the process of transferring research results to device manufacturers. The House bill would appropriate $40 million above the request. This increase would support technologies for hydrogen transportation, in order to continue activities that the request would eliminate from the former Hydrogen Technologies Program which DOE identified as the Fuel Cell Technologies Program. In floor action, the House approved the Committee’s recommendation. However, a floor amendment added $5.0 million targeted for the development of natural gas vehicles. The Senate bill would zero out the Fuel Cells account, but would provide $190.0 million for the Hydrogen Technologies account and directed that DOE fund Fuel Cell work from that account. Congressional Research Service 18 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations The conference report would provide $7.5 million for coordination with the Biomass Program to support testing of intermediate fuel blends of ethanol and gasoline; $5.0 million for natural gas vehicle R&D, and $2.2 million (within available funds) for an analysis of light-duty vehicle transportation. The report does not include $40.0 million for hydrogen (as proposed by the House) and it does not include a study of recharging options (as proposed by the Senate). Other EERE Directives The House Appropriations Committee report calls on DOE to continue the effort to study the “green job economy,” including the employment and macroeconomic effects of funding for DOE’s clean energy programs. Also, it directs DOE to “continue implementing an aggressive program” to recruit staff from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions. The Senate Appropriations Committee report includes numerous directives for EERE. There appear to be four key directives. First, the Committee directs that at least $35 million be provided for an RD&D strategy focused on algae biofuels. In particular, the Committee finds that algae could support large-scale biofuels production on non-arable land, using non-potable water, and potentially provide for the re-use of industrial carbon dioxide. Second, the Committee directs that the Wind Energy Program work with the Office of Electricity (OE) to increase deployment nationwide. Third, if DOE is able to fund certain facilities projects with money from ARRA, then the Committee said it would support DOE in using $44 million to fund its proposed Fuels from Sunlight and Energy Efficient Building Systems hubs at $22 million each. Fourth, from available funds under the Weatherization Program, the Committee directs DOE to use $35 million for a pilot project to improve home insulation and sealing in homes built before 1980 and $35 million for a pilot project that aims to use public private partnerships to increase the leverage of federal funds from less than even to $3 private for each $1 federal. Several other program directives would “carve out” funds for specific projects or studies, including ethanol use, water power technologies, geothermal technologies, and renewable energy demonstrations in Hawaii and on tropical biomass farms. The conference report would direct that at least $35.0 million be made available, from within available funds, to prepare a comprehensive strategy for R&D and deployment algae biofuels. It would require DOE to prepare a five-year R&D plan for water power technologies. Also, the report would provide $292.1 million for congressionally directed activities. The report does not include a House-proposed reporting requirement to track the progress and impact of EERE investments. Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program The FY2010 request would provide $208.0 million to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), which would be a $71.0 million (51.8%) increase above the FY2009 appropriation (excluding the ARRA funding). The increase is designed to coordinate with a major restructuring of the accounts to include four new major programs: Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, Smart Grid R&D, Energy Storage, and Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems. The House bill provision is identical to the request. In floor action, the House reduced the OE recommendation to $193.0 million. The Senate bill would appropriate $179.6 million. The Committee recommended no funding for the Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems Hub and would provide $6.5 million for congressionally directed activities. The conference report would Congressional Research Service 19 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations provide $172.0 million for OE. No funds would be provided for the Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems Hub. Nuclear Energy The Obama Administration’s FY2010 funding request for nuclear energy research and development totals $761.3 million—including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, infrastructure support, and security. The House provided $812.0 million, $50.4 million above the request and $20.0 million above the FY2009 level. The total FY2010 funding level approved by the Senate is the same as the Administration request. According to DOE’s FY2010 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program includes “generation, safety, waste storage and management, and security technologies, to help meet energy and climate goals.” However, opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and economically uncompetitive. Although total funding in the FY2010 nuclear energy request is similar to levels in previous years, the Obama Administration is calling for significant priority changes. Funding for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which assists the near-term design and licensing of new nuclear power plants, would be largely eliminated. Research on producing hydrogen with nuclear reactors would stop entirely. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), which had been the primary research component of the Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), would be renamed Fuel Cycle Research and Development and shifted away from the design and construction of nuclear fuel recycling facilities toward an emphasis on longer-term research. The House Appropriations Committee report called for DOE to submit a strategic plan on balancing long-term nuclear R&D with near-term deployment of new reactors. Funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, which is to help dispose of surplus weapons plutonium, would be shifted from DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. Nuclear Power 2010 Under President Bush, DOE’s initial efforts to encourage near-term construction of new commercial reactors—for which there have been no new U.S. orders since 1978—focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. The program provided up to half the costs of licensing lead plant sites and reactors and preparing detailed reactor designs. Nuclear Power 2010 also includes the Standby Support Program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) to pay for regulatory delays that might be experienced by new reactors. The Obama Administration proposed to cut the Nuclear Power 2010 Program’s funding from $177.5 million in FY2009 to $20 million in FY2010 and then terminate the program. Administration of the Standby Support Program was to continue under the Office of Nuclear Energy program direction account. The House approved a funding level of $71.0 million for the program, to “complete the Department’s commitment to this effort.” The Senate voted to provide $120 million for the program, with no mention of program termination. The conference agreement provides $105.0 million “as the final installment” for the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Congressional Research Service 20 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations DOE’s budget justification contended that industry interest in new nuclear power plants has now been demonstrated to the extent that federal funding is no longer needed. The $20 million requested for FY2010 was to provide the final assistance to an industry consortium called NuStart for licensing a new reactor at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. No further funding was to be provided for a second industry consortium led by Dominion Resources, or for the design of General Electric-Hitachi’s ESBWR reactor or the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor. “By FY 2010 sufficient momentum will have been created by the cost-shared programs that the vendors (GEH and Westinghouse) and other partners will have adequate incentive to complete any additional work through private funding,” according to the DOE justification. Generation IV Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment are the focus of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, for which $191.0 million was requested for FY2010, $11 million above the FY2009 appropriation. The budget request would have cut $24 million from activities previously conducted by the program, a reduction that “reflects the emphasis shifting from near-term R&D activities to those R&D activities aimed at long-term technology advances,” according to the DOE justification. The request included $35 million to establish the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, which would focus on computer assistance for the development, implementation, and management of nuclear power and radioactive waste. The House provided no funding for the Modeling and Simulation Hub, while boosting total Generation IV funding to $272.4 million. The Senate approved a funding level of $143 million, including the Modeling and Simulation Hub. The conference agreement provides $220.1 million, including $22.0 million for the Modeling and Simulation Hub. The focus in the budget request on “long-term technology advances” differed sharply from the program’s previous emphasis on developing the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Most of the FY2009 appropriation—$169.0 million—was for NGNP research and development. NGNP is currently planned to use Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology, which features helium as a coolant and coated-particle fuel that can withstand temperatures up to 1,600 degrees Celsius. Phase I research on the NGNP was to continue until 2011, when a decision was to be made on moving to the Phase II design and construction stage, according to the FY2009 DOE budget justification. In its recommendation on the FY2009 budget, the House Appropriations Committee had provided additional funding “to accelerate work” on NGNP. DOE’s proposed FY2010 nuclear research program did not mention NGNP, although it included several research activities related to the development of VHTR technology, including fuel testing, graphite experiments, and development of VHTR simulation software. Fundamental research on other advanced reactor concepts, such as sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt reactors, were also to continue. For FY2010, the House Appropriations Committee report noted that NGNP had been one of its priorities and specified that at least $245.0 million of the Generation IV funding be devoted to the project. The Senate Appropriations Committee FY2010 report did not specifically mention NGNP, but it called for DOE to select two advanced reactor technologies as the focus of future research and potential deployment. The conference agreement provides $169.0 million for NGNP and directs DOE within 90 days to prepare a detailed plan for moving forward with the NGNP project. The conference agreement also provides $17.8 million for other Generation IV reactor concepts and $10.0 million for research on extending the lives of existing light water reactors. No funding is provided for gas centrifuge enrichment technology. Congressional Research Service 21 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized $1.25 billion through FY2015 for NGNP development and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization requires that NGNP be based on research conducted by the Generation IV program and be capable of producing electricity, hydrogen, or both. The act’s target date for operation of the demonstration reactor is September 30, 2021. The FY2010 budget request anticipated that Generation IV reactors “could be available in the 2030 timeframe.” Fuel Cycle Research and Development Formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, DOE’s Fuel Cycle Research and Development program is to be redirected from the development of engineering-scale and prototype reprocessing facilities toward smaller-scale “long-term, science-based research.” The FY2010 budget request for the program was $192.0 million, nearly $50 million above the FY2009 level, although $35 million of that amount was to go toward establishing an Energy Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials. The House provided no funding for the Extreme Materials Hub and an overall reduction in the request to $129.2 million, citing “the lack of specificity in terms of the direction of the research in this area.” The Senate provided $145.0 million, the same as FY2009, and no funding for the Extreme Materials Hub. The conference agreement provides $136.0 million, with nothing for the Extreme Materials Hub. According to the DOE budget justification, Fuel Cycle R&D will continue previous research on technology that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for reuse in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. DOE plans to broaden the program to include waste storage technologies, security systems, and alternative disposal options such as salt formations and deep boreholes. R&D will also focus on needs identified by a planned DOE nuclear waste strategy panel, according to the justification. In previous years, AFCI had been the primary technology component of the Bush Administration’s GNEP program, including R&D on reprocessing technology and fast reactors that could use reprocessed plutonium. Funding for GNEP was eliminated by Congress in FY2009 and GNEP was not mentioned in the FY2010 budget request, although, as noted above, much of the related R&D work is to continue at a smaller scale. The Energy Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials was intended to support fundamental research on advanced materials for use in high-radiation and high-temperature environments. Such materials could improve the performance of nuclear waste packages, allow advances in nuclear reactor designs, and improve the safety and operation of existing commercial reactors, according to the budget justification. (For more information about nuclear reprocessing, see CRS Report RL34579, Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options, by (name redacted).) Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative The Obama Administration proposed to complete work being conducted under the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative in FY2009 and provide no further funding in FY2010. The program, which received $7.5 million in FY2009, had been developing processes for producing hydrogen in nuclear reactors for use in transportation fuel cells and other applications. According to the DOE Congressional Research Service 22 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations budget justification, funding for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative will be shifted to “higher priority activities that are more directly related to the [Nuclear Energy Office] mission, such as waste management and storage, materials, and simulation.” Both the House and the Senate agreed to zero out the program, as does the conference agreement. Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $617.6 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development; which represents a 29.5% decrease ($258.8 million) from the FY2009 appropriation (Table 9). The FY2010 request, however, is supplemented by $3.4 billion appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA—P.L. 111-5), which is to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. No new funding has been requested for the Clean Coal Technology program, under the justification that all project funding commitments have been fulfilled and only project closeout activities remain. No funding has been requested for the Clean Coal Power Initiative in FY2010 because of appropriations provided under ARRA. No funding has been requested for the FutureGen project pending a program review. The project was originally intended to demonstrate clean coal-based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation with capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions. However, in early 2008, after cost estimates for the project escalated to $1.8 billion, the Bush Administration restructured the program to focus exclusively on commercial application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies for IGCC or other advanced clean coal-based power generation technology. Under a “Restructured FutureGen” program, DOE proposed a cost-shared collaboration with industry and anticipated making a number of awards ranging from $100 million to $600 million (DOE share). For FY2009, the House Appropriations Committee directed DOE to merge FutureGen and the Clean Coal Power Initiative into a single solicitation for a Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative, and that account was funded in ARRA at $1.52 billion. The FY2010 request has no funding for the Carbon Capture Initiative. The President’s request for Fuels and Power has been reduced $288.5 million (42%) from the prior year appropriation. No funding has been requested for Oil Technology under the justification that it is the Obama administration’s policy not to fund government R&D for petroleum. The $29.9 million increase in the request for Carbon Sequestration supports an Energy Innovation Hub. The $25 million requested for Natural Gas represents a 25% increase over the prior year appropriation (the Bush administration had requested no funding). The $158 million requested for Program Direction represents a 4% increase of the prior year appropriation, not counting the additional $10 million appropriated under ARRA. The House bill would appropriate $617.6 million for the Fossil Energy R&D program, the same as the President’s budget request. However, the bill would reduce the carbon sequestration research by $35 million below the request, and would not fund the proposed Energy Innovation Hub. The bill also adds $25.45 million above the request for the Fuels program to fund research into the production of high purity hydrogen from coal. The Senate bill would appropriate $699.2 million for Fossil Energy R&D, a 13.2% increase over the President’s budget request. The bill provided no funds for the Clean Coal Power Initiative and Congressional Research Service 23 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations FutureGen because of substantial increases in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill’s $428.2 million for fuels and power systems is $24.3 million above the request, but Carbon Sequestration has been reduced $19.7 million below the request. The bill includes $5 million for Cooperative Research and Development. In the Conference Report that accompanies H.R. 3183, conferees agree to provide $672.4 million for Fossil Energy R&D, out of which $36.9 million applies to Congressionally Directed Fossil Energy Projects. This represents a 23% ($204 million) reduction compared to FY2009’s appropriation. Fuels and Power Systems, in particular, would receive $288.4 million less. Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development ($ millions) FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Deferred Unobligated Balance 149.0 — — — — — Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D -149.0 — — — — — Subtotal 0.0 — 0.0 — — — 1,000.0 — — — — 288.2 800.0 — — — — 0.0 — 0.0 — — — Innovations for Existing Plants 50.0 — 41.0 41.0 58.0 52.0 Advanced IGCC 85.3 — 55.0 55.0 65.0 63.0 Advanced Turbines 28.0 — 31.0 31.0 32.0 32.0 Carbon Sequestration 150.0 — 179.9 144.9 160.2 154.0 Fuels 25.0 — 15.0 40.5 25.0 25.0 Fuel Cell 58.0 — 54.0 54.0 58.0 50.0 Advanced Research 28.0 — 28.0 28.0 30.0 28.0 Subtotal 692.4 — 403.9 394.4 428.2 404.0 Site Characterization 50.0 — — — — Training and Grants 20.0 — — — — Clean Coal Technology Fossil Energy R&D Program Clean Coal Power Initiative FutureGen Fuels And Power Systems Carbon Sequestration (new) Carbon Capture Demo. Int. (new) 1,520.0 — Natural Gas Technologies 20.0 — 25.0 25.0 25.0 17.3 Petroleum-Oil Technologies — — — — — — 25.0 20.0 158.0 158.0 Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies (new) Program Direction 152.0 10.0 158.0 158.0 Other Congressional Research Service 24 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations FY2009 Approp. FY2009 Stimulus FY2010 Request House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conf. Plant and Capital Equipment 18.0 — 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Fossil Energy Environ. Restoration 9.7 — 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Special Recruitment Program 0.7 — 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Cooperative R&D 5.0 — 0.0 — 5.0 5.0 Subtotal 33.4 — 30.7 30.7 35.7 35.7 Cong. Directed Projects 43.9 — 0.0 9.6 27.3 36.9 Prior Year balance 70.3 3,400.0 617.6 617.6 699.2 672.4 Total 876.3 Source: FY2009 Appropriations (P.L. 111-8); ARRA (P.L. 111-5); H.Rept. 111-203;S.Rept. 111-45. Note: Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies is new as proposed by the Senate report to replace the Oil Technologies Program. In the FY2009 Appropriations (P.L. 111-8), $876.3 million was appropriated for fossil energy research and development, of which $149.0 million is to be derived by transfer from Clean Coal Technology. Of that total, $288.2 million is available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III solicitation. Furthermore, $43.9 million of the appropriated amount is to be used for projects specified as Congressionally Directed Fossil Energy Projects. Under ARRA, $3.4 billion was appropriated for DOE fossil energy programs in FY2009. Funds under this heading include $1.0 billion for fossil energy research and development programs; $800.0 million for additional amounts for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement; $1.52 billion for a competitive solicitation for a range of industrial carbon capture and energy efficiency improvement projects, including a small allocation for innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 reuse; $50.0 million for a competitive solicitation for site characterization activities in geologic formations; $20.0 million for geologic sequestration training and research grants; and $10.0 million for program direction. Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas. Its current capacity is very nearly filled at 727 million barrels, and it is authorized at 1 billion barrels. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration. The NHOR houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Appropriations for the purchase of oil for the SPR ceased in the mid-1990s. Beginning in FY1999, fill of the SPR has been principally accomplished with deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil to the SPR, in lieu of cash royalties on offshore production paid to the federal government. Loans of crude oil from the SPR to keep refineries supplied after recent hurricanes were returned with a greater volume of oil returned than was borrowed. On May 13, 2008, the Congressional Research Service 25 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations House and Senate passed H.R. 6022 (P.L. 110-232), suspending RIK fill unless the price of crude oil fell below a specified threshold. Fill was resumed with RIK oil during FY2009 after the precipitous drop in the price of oil. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) required expansion of the SPR to its authorized maximum of one billion barrels. Congress approved $205 million for the SPR program for FY2009, including $31.5 million to continue expansion activities at a site acquired during FY2008 in Richton, MS, that would eventually provide an additional 160 million barrels of capacity. The FY2010 budget request, at $229 million dollars, included $43.5 million for purchase of a cavern at Bayou Choctaw to replace a cavern posing environmental risks. The additional expense was to be offset by no new spending in FY2010 on expansion. The House approved the Administration request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations added $30 million to provide for engineering activities at the site chosen for expansion of the SPR in Richton, MS. The Committee expressed its position that it did not support any other activities at this time for expansion of the SPR. In conference, a Senate proposal was retained that would forbid the expenditure of funds appropriated for the SPR program to firms providing $1 million or more in refined products to Iran, or services, such as transportation, underwriting, and financing that facilitated exports of product to Iran, or expansion of Iranian refining capacity. The conference bill also includes $25 million to continue work at the site in Richton. The conference bill provides a total of $243.8 million. Congress approved $9.8 million in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 111-8, for the NHOR in FY2009, a reduction of $2.5 million from the FY2008 enactment, principally due to a reduction in the need for funds for repurchasing heating oil that was sold during FY2007 to finance new storage contracts. The FY2010 request for the NHOR is $11.3 million, an increase of $1.5 million to finance the purchase of nearly 16,000 barrels of heating oil sold during FY2007. The House approved the Administration request for the NHOR, as did the Senate and the conferees. Science and ARPA-E The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences, high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs, DOE is the thirdlargest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences.3 The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), a new organization separate from the Office of Science, was authorized by the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 11069) to support transformational energy technology research projects.4 For FY2010, DOE has requested $4.942 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of 4% from the regular FY2009 appropriation of $4.758 billion, and $10 million for ARPA-E, a reduction of 33% from the regular FY2009 appropriation of $15 million. Both offices also received substantial FY2009 funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5): an additional $1.6 billion for the Office of Science and an additional $400 million for ARPA-E.5 The House 3 Based on preliminary FY2007 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2005-07, NSF 09-300 (November 2008). 4 For more information, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 26 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations provided $4.944 billion for the Office of Science in FY2010. The Senate provided $4.899 billion. The conference report provided $4.904 billion. The House and Senate bills and the conference report all provided no new funds for ARPA-E. The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation would double the combined R&D funding of the Office of Science and two other agencies over the decade from FY2006 to FY2016.6 This continues a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January 2006 as part of its American Competitiveness Initiative. The 4% increase requested for FY2010 is less than the annual rate required to achieve the doubling goal, but because some ARRA funds will be spent during FY2010, actual expenditures during FY2010 are likely to be greater than the amount appropriated. The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, is $1.686 billion, up 7% from $1.572 billion in FY2009 (not including $555 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $34 million each for two innovation hubs,7 one focused on materials for energy storage and the other on direct production of fuels from solar energy. For the first time, funding for the development and operation of scientific user facilities is identified as a separate subprogram; a proposed increase of $20 million for this subprogram would support full use of the facilities. The House report accepted the proposal to establish scientific user facilities as a separate subprogram. The Senate rejected it. The conference report was silent. The House provided a total of $1.675 billion for basic energy sciences, including one hub (to be selected at the Secretary’s discretion) and $23 million more than the request for scientific user facilities. The Senate provided $1.654 billion, including both the requested hubs. The conference report provided $1.636 billion, including neither hub. For high-energy physics, the request is $819 million, up 3% from $796 million in FY2009 (not including $232 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $31 million for construction of the NOνA detector at Fermilab and $12 million for U.S. activities in support of upgrades at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The House provided the requested amount. The Senate provided $813 million and questioned increased support for the LHC in light of the program’s current technical difficulties.8 The conference report provided $810 million. The request for biological and environmental research is $604 million, up less than 1% from $602 million in FY2009 (not including $166 million in the ARRA). This program’s two subprograms have been slightly renamed, and $100 million has been moved between them, but the changes are (...continued) 5 In the regular FY2009 appropriation, funding for ARPA-E was provided in the Science account, which otherwise funds only the Office of Science. Subsequent ARPA-E funding appears in FY2010 budget documents in a separate account called either Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy or Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund. 6 See Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies, May 7, 2009, online at http://www.ostp.gov/ galleries/budget/doubling.pdf. 7 DOE is proposing to initiate a total of eight innovation hubs in FY2010, funded in various accounts. The aim of the hubs is to assemble multidisciplinary teams to address interdependent challenges in basic science, technology, economics, and policy. The House funded only one of the eight. The Senate funded five. The conference report funded three. 8 See, for example, “CERN: LHC Restart Delayed for Months,” Science Insider, July 21, 2009. Online at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/07/cern-restart-de.html. Congressional Research Service 27 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations organizational, with little impact on program content. The House provided $597 million. The Senate bill and the conference report both provided the requested amount. For nuclear physics, the request is $552 million, up 8% from $512 million in FY2009 (not including $155 million in the ARRA). All four research subprograms would receive increases. Isotope development and production (transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy in FY2009) would receive a reduction of $6 million. The conference report provided expressed concern about the state of U.S. isotope production but provided “not less than” the requested amount for the isotope development and production subprogram. The Senate report proposed funding nuclear medicine applications research in the nuclear physics program, but the conference report funded that activity in the biological and environmental research program as in previous years. The House provided a total of $536 million for nuclear physics. The Senate provided $540 million. The conference report provided $535 million. The request for fusion energy sciences is $421 million, up 5% from $403 million in FY2009 (not including $91 million in the ARRA). The request includes an $11 million increase for the U.S. share of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility now under construction in France. The ITER partners are China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Under an agreement signed in 2006, the U.S. share of ITER’s construction cost is 9.1%. According to estimates released in December 2007, that amount will be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion, with a completion date between FY2014 and FY2017. Press reports refer to “ballooning costs and growing delays” and the likelihood that “only a skeletal version” of ITER will be built, at least initially.9 A revised official estimate of ITER’s cost and schedule is expected in late FY2010 or FY2011. The House provided $20 million more than the request, to be spent on laser fusion research at the Naval Research Laboratory. The Senate provided $416 million. The conference report provided $426 million, including “no explicit funding” for the Naval Research Laboratory. The request for the smallest Office of Science research program, advanced scientific computing research, is $409 million, up 11% from $369 million in FY2009 (not including $157 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $13 million for design of computer architectures for science and $12 million for the Leadership Computing Facility at Argonne National Laboratory. The House provided the requested amount. The Senate provided $399 million. The conference report provided $394 million. The request for Office of Science laboratory infrastructure is $134 million, down 8% from $145 million in FY2009 (not including $198 million in the ARRA). No new funds are requested for excess facilities disposition, which DOE expects to be fully funded under the ARRA. The House and Senate bills provided the requested amount. The conference report provided $128 million. The request for ARPA-E is $10 million, down 33% from $15 million in FY2009 (not including $400 million in the ARRA). This is a new program. DOE budget documents describe its mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies. The House provided no new funds for ARPA-E because of the ARRA funds that remain available. The House committee report stated that “the decision not to provide any 9 Geoff Brumfiel, “Fusion Dreams Delayed,” Nature, May 28, 2009, p. 488. Online at http://www.nature.com/news/ 2009/090527/pdf/459488a.pdf. Congressional Research Service 28 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations additional funding ... does not in any way suggest a lack of commitment to this program by the Committee.” The Senate and the conference report also provided no new funds for ARPA-E. Nuclear Waste Disposal DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for management and disposal of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense facilities. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), the only candidate site for permanent disposal of such waste is Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008. The Obama Administration has decided to “terminate the Yucca Mountain program while developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives,” according to the DOE FY2010 budget justification. Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are to be evaluated by a “blue ribbon” panel of experts convened by the Administration. At the same time, according to the justification, the NRC licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository is to continue, “consistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.” The FY2010 OCRWM budget request of $198.6 million sought only enough funding to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process and to evaluate alternative policies, according to DOE. The request was about $90 million below the FY2009 funding level, which was nearly $100 million below the FY2008 level. More than 2,000 waste program contract employees were to be terminated during FY2009, according to the budget justification. Most of the program’s remaining work is to be taken over by federal staff. All work related solely to preparing for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain repository is being halted, according to the DOE budget justification. Such activities include development of repository infrastructure, waste transportation preparations, and system engineering and analysis. The House agreed with the Administration’s plans to provide funding solely for Yucca Mountain licensing activities and for a blue-ribbon panel to review waste management options. The House approved the Administration budget request, including $5 million for the blue-ribbon review. However, the House-passed bill specified that the review must include Yucca Mountain as one of the alternatives, despite the Administration’s contention that the site should no longer be considered. According to the House Appropriations Committee report, “It might well be the case that an alternative to Yucca Mountain better meets the requirements of the future strategy, but the review does not have scientific integrity without considering Yucca Mountain.” The House panel also recommended that at least $70 million of the program’s funding be devoted to maintaining expertise by the Yucca Mountain Project management contractor to support the licensing effort, rather than relying entirely on federal staff. The Senate also recommended approval of the Administration request, but without any restrictions on the blue-ribbon panel. Funding for the nuclear waste program is provided under two appropriations accounts. The Administration’s FY2010 request is divided evenly between an appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds fees paid by nuclear utilities, and the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, which pays for disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons program. The Senate Appropriations Committee report called for the Secretary of Energy to suspend fee Congressional Research Service 29 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations collections, “given the Administration’s decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program while developing disposal alternatives.” The conference agreement provides the reduced funding requested by the Administration and includes bill language that states, “$5,000,000 shall be provided to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to consider all alternatives for nuclear waste disposal.” That is the same language that appeared in the House-passed bill, along with House Appropriations Committee instructions that the Blue Ribbon panel include Yucca Mountain as a disposal option. However, the Conference Committee Joint Explanatory Statement states that “all guidance provided by the House and Senate reports is superseded by the conference agreement.” Additional funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Yucca Mountain licensing process was included in the NRC budget request. The House provided the full $56 million requested, while the Senate voted to cut the request to $29 million. The conference agreement includes the Senate reduction. NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January 31, 1998. Nuclear utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that deadline, have won two federal court decisions upholding the department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to compensate utilities for any resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. DOE estimates that liability payments would eventually total $11 billion if DOE were to begin removing waste from reactor sites by 2020, the previous target for opening Yucca Mountain. 10 (For more information, see CRS Report R40202, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted).) Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans Congress established the DOE Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program with Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The act authorized loan guarantees for energy projects using “new or significantly improved technologies” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The FY2009 omnibus funding measure (P.L. 111-8) provided DOE with loan guarantee authority of $47 billion, to remain available indefinitely, in addition to previously approved authority of $4 billion. Of the $47 billion, $18.5 billion was for nuclear power, $18.5 was for energy efficiency and renewables, $6 billion was for coal, $2 billion was for carbon capture and sequestration, and $2 billion was for uranium enrichment. The FY2010 budget request proposed no changes in DOE’s loan guarantee authority, but it requested an increase in administrative funding from $19.9 million in FY2009 to $43.0 million in FY2010, to be entirely offset by fees. The House and Senate approved the Administration request, as did the conference agreement. Additional loan guarantees of up to $60 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission projects were provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). Unlike the loan guarantee authority provided by the appropriations measures, project sponsors under P.L. 10 Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Before the House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007. Congressional Research Service 30 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations 111-5 will not have to pay up-front fees to cover potential loan defaults; instead, $6 billion was appropriated to cover such potential costs. However, $2 billion of that funding has since been transferred to the “cash for clunkers” automobile trade-in program by P.L. 111-47. A related DOE program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, was established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140). The FY2009 Continuing Resolution appropriated $7.5 billion to allow DOE to issue up to $25 billion in direct loans. No additional appropriations for loans were sought for FY2010, but DOE requested $20 million in new funding for administrative expenses, which is included in the conference agreement. The program is to provide loans to eligible automobile manufacturers and parts suppliers for making investments in their plant capacity to produce vehicles with improved fuel economy. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). It seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account: three main programs—Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities—and several smaller ones. All are described below. Table 10 presents their funding. NNSA manages two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors. Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites. Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities ($ millions) House H.R. 3183 Senate H.R. 3183 Conference 1,514.7 1,472.5 1,527.7 1,505.9 1,620.4 1,559.7 1,593.6 1,589.2 1,571.2 0 1,674.4 1,736.3 1,779.3 1,848.9 1,842.9 Othera 0 1,495.1 1,573.7 1,474.6 1,502.5 1,464.5 Total 0 6,380.0 6,384.4 6,320.0 6,468.3 6,384.4 Program P.L. 111-5 P.L. 111-8 DSW 0 1,590.2 Campaigns 0 RTBF FY2010 Request Sources: FY2010 budget request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45, H.Rept. 111-278. Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Congressional Research Service 31 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Transformation Disposition, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, Congressionally Directed Projects, and several adjustments. For FY2010, “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, congressionally directed projects, and use of prior year balances. The FY2010 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2014 (see Table 11). Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program ($ millions) FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 DSW 1522.2 1485.8 1531.4 1553.5 Campaigns 1497.4 1491.6 1474.2 1487.2 RTBF 1736.8 1770.9 1736.5 1694.2 Othera 1600.2 1602.1 1597.8 1600.2 Total 6356.6 6350.5 6339.9 6335.1 Source: DOE, FY2010 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 54. Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding. a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, and Cyber Security. Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Although the nuclear weapons complex (the “Complex”) currently consists of eight sites, it was much larger during the Cold War in terms of number of sites, budgets, and personnel. Despite the post-Cold War reduction, many in Congress have for years wanted the Complex to change further, in various ways: fewer personnel, lower cost, greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and the like. (For congressional action on FY2005-FY2008 appropriations, see CRS Report RL34009, Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted).) In response, in January 2007 NNSA submitted a report to Congress on its plan for transforming the Complex, “Complex 2030.” The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2008 report, expressed displeasure with this plan and demanded “a comprehensive nuclear defense and nonproliferation strategy,” a detailed description translating that strategy into a “specific nuclear stockpile,” and “a comprehensive, long-term expenditure plan, from FY2008 through FY2030” before considering further funding for Complex 2030 and a nuclear weapon program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW, discussed below). It stated that “NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding and modernizing the entire complex in situ without any thought given to a sensible strategy for longterm efficiency and consolidation.” The Senate Appropriations Committee saw an inadequate linkage between warheads, the Complex, and strategy, and “rejects the Department’s premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation effort.” The joint explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations bill said, “The Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House and Senate reports requiring the Administration ... to develop and submit to the Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21st century.” Congressional Research Service 32 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations On December 18, 2007, NNSA announced its plan, Complex Transformation, a name change from Complex 2030. It would retain existing sites, reduce the weapons program footprint by as much as one-third, close or transfer from weapons activities about 600 structures, reduce the number of weapons workers by 20%-30%, dismantle weapons more rapidly, and build several major new facilities, such as a Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 Plant, a Weapons Surveillance Facility at Pantex Plant, and a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.11 This plan is more fully described in the Final Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2008, along with two Records of Decision of December 2008.12 The House Appropriations Committee reiterated its FY2008 views in its FY2009 report: Before the Committee will consider funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for the RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead], the Committee insists that the following sequence be completed: (1) replacement of Cold War strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats, and capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without need for nuclear testing; (2) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; (3) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile.13 In keeping with this approach, the committee recommended eliminating funds for RRW and for several programs described below. In its FY2009 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended eliminating funds for RRW and made various changes to individual programs. It did not provide general comments on Complex transformation. P.L. 111-8 provided no funds for RRW. Similarly, the FY2010 budget requests no funds for RRW. Another FY2010 budget document states, “The Administration proposes to cancel development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)—a new design warhead intended to replace the current inventory of nuclear weapons—because it is not consistent with Presidential commitments to move towards a nuclear-free world.”14 11 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA Releases Draft Plan to Transform Nuclear Weapons Complex.” Press release, December 18, 2007, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2007/ PR_2007-12-18_NA-07-64.htm; National Nuclear Security Administration, “Nuclear Weapons Complex Transformation,” with links to plans for each site, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/complextransformation.htm; and Walter Pincus, “Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program,” Washington Post, December 19, 2007, p. 1. 12 For the full text of the supplemental programmatic environmental impact statement (SPEIS) and supporting documents, see U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “Complex Transformation SPEIS,” at http://www.complextransformationspeis.com/project.html. 13 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2009, unnumbered committee print, June 2008, pp. 123-124. 14 U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget, Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010, 2009, p. 55, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/ trs.pdf. Congressional Research Service 33 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) This program involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. Specific items under DSW include the following: • Life Extension Programs (LEPs). These programs aim to extend the life of existing warheads by 20 to 30 years through design, certification, manufacture, and replacement of components. An LEP for the B61 mods 7 and 11 bombs was completed in FY2009; no funds are requested for it for FY2010. An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile is ongoing. P.L. 111-8 provided $202.9 million for that purpose; the FY2010 request is $209.2 million. Life-extended W76 warheads are designated W76-1; the first such warhead entered the stockpile in February 2009.15 The House bill would increase the request for the W76-1 to $233.2 million. It expressed its concern that NNSA’s request for the W76-1 “does not reflect the needs of military clients” and “directs NNSA to explicitly highlight in its future budget requests any instance in which its budget request will not support the military requirements of its Air Force and Navy clients.” The Senate bill would appropriate the amount requested. The conference bill includes $223.2 million. • Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of limited-life components, ongoing assessment, and the like for all weapon types in the stockpile. P.L. 111-8 provided $328.5 million; the FY2010 request is $390.3 million. Of the eight warhead types listed, the largest program under stockpile systems is for the B61 bomb, $59.5 million for B61 sustainment and $65.0 million to complete a B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A refurbishment study. The House bill would appropriate the sustainment funds as requested and no funds for the latter study. It “will not support a major warhead redesign in the absence of clearly defined nuclear weapons strategy, stockpile, and complex plans.” The Senate bill also includes the amount requested. The conference bill includes $357.8 million, of which $92.0 million is included for B61 stockpile systems activities. The bill provides that “upon completion of the Nuclear Posture Review and confirmation of the requirement for the B61-12, the NNSA is authorized to reallocate an additional $15,000,000 within the Stockpile Systems activities to support the continuation of the B61-12 non-nuclear upgrade study … [and that] no funds may be obligated or expended for B61-12 nuclear components without prior approval by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate.” The conference agreement calls for two reports on the B61-12. • Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD). The President and Congress have agreed on the desirability of reducing the stockpile to the lowest level consistent with national security, and numbers of warheads have fallen sharply since the end of the Cold War. According to NNSA, “Reducing the total number of U.S. nuclear weapons sends a clear message to the world that critical modernization programs do not signal a return to the arms race of the Cold War.” 15 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration, “Refurbished W76 Warhead Enters U.S. Nuclear Weapon Stockpile,” press release, February 23, 2009, http://nnsa.energy.gov/2286.htm. Congressional Research Service 34 Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be dismantled; dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components and materials). P.L. 111-8 appropriated $190.2 million. The FY2010 request is $84.1 million; the House bill would appropriate $108.9 million and the Senate bill the amount requested. The conference bill includes $96.1 million. Within WDD, the maj [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40669. Public record. Not legal advice.