Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMay 11, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2011 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
May 11, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41150
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 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.
As with other funding bills, the FY2011 Energy and Water Development bill was not taken to the
floor in either the House or the Senate in the 111th Congress. Funding for its programs was
included in a series of continuing resolutions, and at the beginning of the 112th Congress was part
of a major debate over overall spending levels. Energy and Water Development programs were
included in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 11210) that became law April 15, 2011.
Besides the overall spending debate, a number of issues specific to Energy and Water
Development were important during the FY2011 budget cycle:
•
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);
•
alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste
Disposal); and
•
several new initiatives proposed for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) programs (Title III).
Funding for FY2010 Energy and Water Development programs was contained in P.L. 111-85,
which passed in October 2009. The legislation retained significance during the FY2011 budget
process because the continuing resolutions passed by the Congress retained FY2010 funding
levels except where specifying new levels for individual programs.
President Obama’s proposed FY2011 budget for Energy and Water Development programs was
released in February 2010. On July 15, 2010, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development approved a bill to fund these programs, but the full committee did not
report out the bill. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee reported out S. 3635 (S.Rept.
111-228) on July 22. The bill did not reach the floor of either the House or the Senate. On
September 30, the Congress passed H.R. 3081 (P.L. 111-242), funding government programs at
the FY2010 level through December 3. Several more continuing resolutions extended funding
through March 4, 2011. H.J.Res. 44 (P.L. 112-4) extended funding through March 18, 2011, and
reduced funding levels for a number of Energy and Water Development programs.
On February 14, 2011, H.R. 1 was introduced, continuing funding through the rest of FY2011 at
the FY2010 level, but with many specified exceptions in which funding was reduced. On
February 19 the House passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 235-189. In the Senate, S.Amdt. 149 was
offered as a substitute for H.R. 1, continuing funding through the rest of FY2011 but with fewer
funding reductions. On March 9 the Senate rejected both the House-passed version of H.R. 1 and
the S.Amdt. 149. After two more short-term extensions, H.R. 1473 was introduced April 11,
passed by the House and Senate April 14, and signed by the President April 15 (P.L. 112-10).
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Status..........................................................................................................................................1
Overview ....................................................................................................................................2
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers.................................................................................................3
Background ..........................................................................................................................3
An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects ...........................................................3
Supplemental and ARRA Appropriations.........................................................................4
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers ................................................................................5
Construction Funding......................................................................................................5
Inland Waterway Trust Fund ...........................................................................................5
Everglades ......................................................................................................................6
Savings and Slippage ......................................................................................................6
Title II: Department of the Interior ..............................................................................................7
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget in Brief .........................................7
Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation...........................................................................9
Background ....................................................................................................................9
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations.........................................................................9
California Bay-Delta ..................................................................................................... 10
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.............................................................................. 10
WaterSMART Program ................................................................................................. 11
Title III: Department of Energy ................................................................................................. 11
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy.......................................................................... 13
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) ........................................................ 13
Nuclear Energy ............................................................................................................. 19
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration............................................ 22
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................................................................................... 24
Science ......................................................................................................................... 25
ARPA-E........................................................................................................................ 27
Nuclear Waste Disposal................................................................................................. 28
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................ 29
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship ....................................................................... 30
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs.......................................................... 41
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Nuclear Energy
Research Facilities ..................................................................................................... 42
Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................. 48
Title IV: Independent Agencies.................................................................................................. 49
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies .......................................................................... 49
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................................................................... 49
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2011.................................1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2011..............................2
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary .............................................2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers ..........4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project
Completion Account ................................................................................................................7
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ............8
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy .......... 12
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs .................................................... 13
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................... 22
Table 10. Science ...................................................................................................................... 27
Table 11. Funding for Weapons Activities.................................................................................. 31
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program........................................................... 32
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ..................................................... 41
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management..................................... 44
Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies ........ 49
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 51
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Energy and Water Development funding for FY2010 was provided in H.R. 3183, which became
P.L. 111-85 when signed by President Obama on October 28, 2009. Appropriations for these
programs in P.L. 111-85 totaled $33.5 billion. In addition, some of the $44.3 billion included in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus” Act, P.L. 111-5) to fund numerous
programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy,
remained to be expended in FY2010.
President Obama’s proposed FY2011 budget for Energy and Water Development programs,
released in February 2010, totaled $35.3 billion. On July 15, 2010, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development approved a bill to fund these programs at $34.7
billion, but the full committee did not report out the bill. In the Senate, the Energy and Water
Development subcommittee approved a bill on July 20, and the full Appropriations Committee
reported out S. 3635 (S.Rept. 111-228) on July 22, with a total of $35.0 billion. The bill did not
come to the floor of either the House or the Senate.
On September 30, the Senate and the House passed a continuing resolution (H.R. 3081, P.L. 111242), funding government programs at the FY2010 level, until December 3. Later, P.L. 111-322
extended funding through March 4, 2011. H.J.Res. 44 (P.L. 112-4), signed by the President on
March 2, amended P.L. 111-242, extending funding through March 18, 2011, and reducing
funding levels for a number of Energy and Water Development programs.
On February 14, 2011, H.R. 1 was introduced, continuing funding through the rest of FY2011 at
the FY2010 level, but with many specified exceptions in which funding was reduced. The House
Appropriations Committee announced that the Energy and Water Development funding level in
H.R. 1 was $29.9 billion. On February 19 the House passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 235-189. In the
Senate, S.Amdt. 149 was offered as a substitute for H.R. 1, continuing funding through the rest of
FY2011 but with fewer funding reductions, totaling approximately $32.4 billion in Energy and
Water Development funding. On March 9 the Senate rejected both the House-passed version of
H.R. 1 and the S.Amdt. 149. After two more short-term extensions, H.R. 1473 was introduced
April 11, passed by the House and Senate April 14, and signed by the President April 15 (P.L.
112-10). The bill funds Energy and Water Development programs at approximately $32.2 billion.
Status
Table 1 indicates the current status of the FY2011 funding legislation.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2011
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
7/15/10
7/20/10
House
Report
a.
H.R. 1 (112th Congress).
b.
H.R. 1473 (112th Congress)
Congressional Research Service
House
Passage
2/19/11a
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Final Approval
House
Senate
Public Law
4/14/11b
4/14/11b
P.L. 112-10
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
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
FY2004 to FY2011.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2011
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011a
26.7
30.2b
36.7c
29.4
30.9
40.5d
33.4
35.3
Source: Compiled by CRS.
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)
Title
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)
S.Amdt.
149 (112th)
P.L. 11210a
Title I: Corps of Engineers
$5,445.0
$4,881.0
$4,904.6
$5,226.1
$5,054.8
Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1,129.7
1,107.7
1,093.1
1,067.4
1,062.5
Title III: Department of Energy
27,111.4
29,613.2
24,595.8
26,329.1
26,293.3
Title IV: Independent Agencies
291.8
276.4
281.1
263.4
261.0
33,978.0
35,878.3 30,874.5
32,928.0
32,671.6
-513.0
N.A.b
N.A. b
N.A. b
35,344.3 29,900.0c
N.A. b
N.A. b
E&W Subtotal
Scorekeeping Adjustments
E&W Total
33,465.0
-534.0
Sources: FY2011 budget request, text of H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, and P.L. 112-10.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
a.
Includes 0.2% overall reduction of all accounts.
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
b.
Scorekeeping adjustments were not available for these three bills.
c.
Figure quoted from House Appropriations Committee Press Release, dated February 11, 2011.
Tables 4 through 15 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
FY2010-FY2011. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the
major programs in the four titles. Funding in H.R. 1, for S.Amdt. 149, and for P.L. 112-10, was
derived from the bill texts, and is included in the overall title tables. These bills did not specify
funding levels below the major program level.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
Background
In most years, the budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is below the agency’s final
appropriations. The FY2011 President’s request was $4.88 billion, or $564 million below the
appropriated level for FY2010. In reporting out the FY2011 spending bill, the Senate
Appropriations Committee provided the Corps with $5.32 billion, an increase of $381 million
over the Administration’s request but slightly below the appropriation for FY2010. The House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, in marking up its version of
the bill, provided $5.28 billion.
Proposed funding for the Corps under the House-passed Continuing Resolution, H.R. 1, would
have reduce overall funding for the Corps to approximately $4.8 billion, or approximately $641
million below the FY2010 enacted level. The Continuing Resolution as passed, P.L. 112-10,
provided $5.05 billion for the Corps, or an increase of $152 million over the President’s requested
level but $411 million below the FY2010 enacted level.
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 are 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Supplemental and ARRA Appropriations
Annual appropriations for the Corps’ Civil Works program have been regularly augmented since
Hurricane Katrina through supplemental appropriations and through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Since 2005, the Corps has received approximately $18.7 billion in
supplemental appropriations, including approximately $15 billion for post-hurricane emergency
repairs in Louisiana and other areas of the Gulf Coast region. For example, in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252), the agency received $5.76 billion in FY2009 funds
for Louisiana hurricane protection. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-32)
provided the Corps $797 million in supplemental appropriations for flood control and coastal
emergencies, including $439 million for barrier island restoration and ecosystem restoration for
the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Separately, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
provided the Corps with an additional $4.6 billion for FY2009 and FY2010. 1
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)a
S.Amdt.
149
(112th)a
P.L. 11210a b
Investigations and Planning
$160.0
$104.0
$104.0
150.0
126.7
Construction
2031.0
1,690.0
1,690.0
1,896.8
1,789.8
Mississippi River & Tributaries
340.0
240.0
239.6
289.3
263.9
Operation and Maintenance
(O&M)
2,400.0
2,361.0
2,361.0
2,380.0
2,365.8
Regulatory
190.0
193.0
190.0
190.0
189.6
General Expenses
185.0
185.0
185.0
185.0
184.6
FUSRAPc
134.0
130.0
130.0
130.0
129.7
–
30.0
–
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.990
5,445.0
4,881.0
4,804.6
5,226.1
5,054.8d
Program
Flood Control & Coastal
Emergencies (FC&CE)
Office of the Asst. Secretary of
the Army
Total Title I
–
0.000
Sources: FY2011 budget request,, text of H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, and P.L. 112-10.
a.
Figures in boldface (except for the Total, Title I figure) are levels specified in H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, or P.L.
111-10. Figures not in boldface indicate areas in which funding is continued at the level appropriated in P.L.
111-85, the FY2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
b.
Includes 0.2% overall reduction of all accounts.
c.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
d.
Does not reflect rescissions totaling $198 million from prior year appropriations mandated by P.L. 112-10.
1
For more information, see CRS Report R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers
Construction Funding
Construction funding for the Corps receives attention by Congress because of the large number of
authorized construction projects that have not received appropriations to date.2 The FY2011
Obama Administration request included $1.69 billion for construction, a reduction of $341
million below the FY2010 enacted level. The Obama Administration’s FY2011 request maintains
the previous practice of limiting the number of new construction starts, or “new starts” (i.e.,
projects that have not previously been funded). The FY2011 request included two new starts. This
is similar to the previous administration’s policy of generally opposing new starts in order to
focus funds on completing ongoing activities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s markup of the President’s request provided $1.9 billion
for the Construction account. The committee proposed using $120 million in unobligated
balances from prior year appropriations for construction for the Continuing Authorities Program
in order to fund FY2011 construction activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee also
included one of the two new construction starts proposed by the Administration, but included no
other new starts.3 The House subcommittee bill would have funded Construction at $1.851
billion.
P.L. 112-10 provided $1.78 billion for construction, slightly more than the amount requested by
the Administration. The enacted bill also included a provision barring the Corps from using
appropriations for new starts.
Inland Waterway Trust Fund4
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 $85 million
per year, but outlays from the trust fund have exceeded these collections. 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.
FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations included additional federal funding to temporarily ensure
solvency of the IWTF.5 Additionally, previous Administrations (including the FY2010 Obama
2
Estimates vary for the overall number of authorized but unfunded Corps projects, or the “backlog,” but it has been
estimated that after enactment of WRDA 2007, the authorized funding backlog exceeds $80 billion. For more
information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and
Appropriations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
3
The Senate Appropriations Committee included the $19 million Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Restoration project.
4
For more information, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues For Congress, by
(name redacted).
5
Pursuant to language in FY2009 and FY2010 enacted appropriations, some inland waterway projects have been paid
for using IWTF funds, while others were paid for using general revenue funds until they could be brought to a logical
stopping point. Also pursuant to appropriations language, future work on these projects and the initiation of new
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Request) have included proposals to increase revenues into the IWTF by replacing the current
fuel tax with a lock user fee. In the past Congress has criticized this proposal and has requested
that the Administration propose an alternative in committee report language.
In contrast to prior budgets, the Administration’s FY2011 Budget did not assume additional
revenue based on a lock user fee proposal. Instead, the FY2011 Budget proposed that IWTF
spending be limited to current fuel tax revenues. The Senate Appropriations Committee again
rejected the user fee approach in its FY2011 committee report, but also agreed with the
Administration’s temporary solution of budgeting only current year fuel tax revenues. The
committee noted that if a solution is not agreed upon soon, it may be forced to act on this issue.
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 RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding,
coordinated by (name redacted).
The FY2011 Obama Administration request for the Corps’ component of south Florida
Everglades restoration work totals $180 million. This is the same overall funding level as the
FY2010 appropriation for Everglades restoration. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill
would have reduced this amount to $155 million. It noted that a reduction of $25 million is
needed for the Central and Southern Florida restoration element as a result of the inability of the
Corps to utilize the original amount requested for FY2011.
Savings and Slippage
Since FY2006, the Administration in its budget estimates has not proposed, and Congress has not
enacted, an across-the-board reduction for savings and slippage (S&S) within individual accounts
(these reductions would be divided up evenly among applicable projects). The savings account
for the anticipated slip of spending on projects due to delays caused by weather, non-federal
sponsor financing, or a decision not to proceed—or to account for savings from a project costing
less than estimated. Before FY2006, the Administration would propose an S&S rate for various
Corps accounts, and Congress would maintain or modify these rates during the appropriations
process. In FY2006, Congress stopped applying an S&S rate in part to decrease the need for
reprogramming allocations among projects.
The FY2011 budget request continued the practice of not including reductions to individual
accounts for S&S, but the FY2011 Senate Appropriations Committee markup for the Corps
included these reductions, including reductions for Investigations (-$16 million), Construction ((...continued)
contracts has been deferred until IWTF collections are enhanced. The effect of these provisions and the additional
federal funding has been to generally slow down the drop in IWTF balances. However, 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
$88 million), Operations and Maintenance (-$57 million), and Mississippi Rivers & Tributaries ($11 million).
Title II: Department of the Interior
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget in Brief
The Obama Administration requested $43.0 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP)
Completion Account in FY2011, $1 million more than the amount appropriated for FY2010. The
FY2011 request for the Bureau of Reclamation totaled $1.064 billion in gross current budget
authority. This amount is $22 million less than enacted for FY2010. The FY2011 request for the
Bureau of Reclamation includes an “offset” of $49.9 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 $1.015 billion. Another $167 million is estimated to be available for FY2011 via
“permanent and other” funds, for a grand total of $1.182 billion for FY2011. The total
discretionary budget request (not including the CVPRF offset) for Title II funding—Central Utah
Project and Reclamation—was approximately $1.107 billion. The 2010 enacted bill included
$1.129 billion. The Senate bill, S. 3635, would have appropriated $1.133 billion for Title II
programs; the House subcommittee’s bill would have appropriated $1.108 billion. P.L. 112-10
appropriated $1.094 billion for these programs.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)
S.Amdt.
149 (112th)
$38.8
$38.8
$38.8
$38.8
Mitigation and Conservation
Commission Activities
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
DOI Oversight and
Administration
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
42.0
43.0
42.0
42.0
Program
Central Utah Water
Conservancy District
P.L. 11210b
DOI Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Projects
Total, Central Utah Project
31.9a
Sources: FY2011 budget bequest, text of H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, and P.L. 112-10.
a.
P.L. 112-10 only specifies the account-level total for the Central Utah Project.
b.
Includes 0.2% overall reduction of all accounts.
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)a
S.Amdt.
149a (112th)
P.L. 112-10b
$951.2
$913.6
$911. 6
$916.3
$911.6
Policy and Administration
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.1
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)
35.4
49.9
35.4
49.9
49.8
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
Gross Current Reclamation
Authority
1,087.0
1,064.7
1,048.2
1,067.4
1,062.5
Total, Title II (CUP and
Reclamation)
1,129.7
1,107.7
1,090.1
1,109.4
1,094.4
Program
Water and Related Resources
Source: FY2011 budget request, text of H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149 and P.L. 112-10.
a.
Water and Related Resources level was specified in H.R. 1, and in S.Amdt. 149. CVP Restoration Fund level
was specified in S.Amdt. 149. Other levels are those specified in P.L. 111-85, the FY2010 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act. H.R. 1 also specified a rescission of $115 million from the Water and
Related Resources account from unobligated balances of funds.
b.
Includes 0.2% overall reduction of all accounts.
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 $913.6
million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2011, a reduction from FY2010 of
$37.6 million, approximately 4%.
H.R. 1, the House-passed Continuing Resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year, proposed
funding the Water and Related Resources Account at $911.6 million, or approximately $39
million below the FY2010 enacted level. The House-passed version of H.R. 1 also included
several amendments with potentially significant policy impacts. Section 4028 of the bill would
have eliminated funding for a dam removal study in the Klamath basin that is tied to larger
restoration efforts in the region. 6 Section 4075 of H.R. 1 would have barred funding for two other
items. It prohibited federal funding appropriated under the bill for the implementation of
biological opinions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
that relate to the operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Project. It also
bars funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act in P.L. 111-11.7 (See below for
more information on these issues.) These provisions were not included in the final enacted
version of P.L. 112-10.
6
The Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study is expected to inform a decision by the Secretary of the Interior
on the advisability of the removal of four non-federal dams on the Klamath River. Dam removal is a pre-condition of
multiple agreements related to the restoration of the Klamath River which were signed by non-federal parties in early
2010. Therefore, delay or elimination of the dam removal study could impact other restoration activities in the region.
7
See P.L. 111-11, Title X, Subtitle A.
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
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, the Bureau 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
second-largest 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.” In FY2010, the House Committee on Appropriations
noted that despite Reclamation’s past achievements, the agency has become a “caretaker agency”
and has not exerted leadership in the provision of water supply or maintaining the West’s existing
water supply infrastructure. The committee noted 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. In previous appropriations bills,
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, in FY2010 appropriations, an amendment was offered 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
The proposed FY2010 amendments preventing implementation of BiOps in the CVP were not
enacted.8 However, the FY2010 enacted bill included an amendment 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).
California Bay-Delta
The Administration requested $40.0 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account
(Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2011. The request was equal to the enacted level for FY2010.
The bulk of the requested funds are targeted at five program areas: (1) water use efficiency ($7.5
million); (2) water quality ($5.0 million); (3) water storage ($5 million); (4) conveyance ($3.5
million); and (5) ecosystem restoration ($8.5 million). Funding for one CALFED subaccount
(conveyance) declined substantially, while funding for water use efficiency and science increased
substantially. The enacted Continuing Resolution (P.L. 112-10) provided the same amount as the
President’s FY2011 budget request (less the 0.2% across-the-board rescission imposed on all
programs). (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 red
acted).)
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
Reclamation proposed an allocation of $72.1 million for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
for FY2011, an increase of $56.2 million over 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 $5.6 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.
Additional authorization would be required for any allocation of receipts to the fund exceeding
the $88 million authorized in P.L. 111-11. Significant actions planned for FY2011 include
releasing interim flows from Friant Dam and completion of planning, environmental compliance,
and design for initial channel and structural improvements. 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
spring-run 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
long-term contractors.9
8
For more information on the potential effects of these amendments, see CRS Report R41155, Fish and Wildlife
Service: Appropriations and Policy , by (name redacted).
9
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).
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee markup included an additional $8 million for San Joaquin
River restoration. This funding would be in addition to the aforementioned allocation of $72
million in receipts.
The House-passed CR (H.R. 1) includes a requirement that no funding be made available for
implementation of the settlement agreement in the remainder of FY2011. To date, Reclamation
has not commented on the potential impact of this provision. P.L. 112-10 did not specify funding
levels for the settlement.
WaterSMART Program
Reclamation proposed funding for a new program for FY2011—the WaterSMART (Sustain and
Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) Program. The program is part of an effort by the
Department of the Interior to focus on water conservation, re-use, and planning, and will be
conducted in conjunction with work by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Reclamation portion of
the WaterSMART proposal includes the three individual components of the FY2010 Water
Conservation Initiative: WaterSMART Grants (formerly known as Challenge Grants), Basin
Studies, and Title XVI Projects. For FY2011, Reclamation proposed an increase of $27.4 million
over the combined FY2010 enacted level for these three programs. Overall, $62 million was
proposed for the Reclamation portion of WaterSMART, including $27 million for
WaterSMART/Challenge Grants, $6 million for Basin Studies, and $29 million for Title XVI
Projects. The Senate Appropriations Committee markup decreased the funding level for each of
these programs, providing $20 million for WaterSMART/Challenge Grants, $4 million for Basin
Studies, and $7.7 million for Title XVI projects. P.L. 112-10 did not specify programmatic
funding levels for the WaterSMART program, which is carried out within the larger Water and
Related Resources account.
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 FY2010 appropriations acts funded DOE programs at $27.1 billion. In addition, some of the
$38.7 billion appropriated in the ARRA (P.L. 111-5) for selected DOE programs—primarily
Conservation and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery, Fossil Energy R&D, Science, and
Environmental Clean-Up—remained unexpended in FY2010. For FY2011, the Obama
Administration requested $29.6 billion for DOE programs. The House-passed H.R. 1 Continuing
Resolution would have funded DOE programs at $24.6 billion. The final legislation, P.L. 112-10,
appropriated $26.3 billion.
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)a
S.Amdt. 149
(112th)a
$2,242.5
$2,355.5
$1,467.4
$1,912.0
$1,825.6
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability
172.0
185.9
139.0
156.0
144.7
Nuclear Energy
786.6
824.1
661.1
661.0
732.1
Fossil Energy R&D
672.4
586.6
586.6
586.0
584.5
Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.0
23.0
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
243.8
138.9
138.9
138.9
209.4
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.0
11.0
Energy Information Administration
110.6
128.8
95.6
108.5
95.4
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
244.7
225.2
225.2
225.2
224.3
Uranium D&D Fund
573.9
530.5
513.9
514.0
507.0
4,903.7
5,121.4
4,017.7
4,733.0
4,857.7
—
300.0
50.0
200.0
179.6
Nuclear Waste Disposal
98.4
—
98.4
0.0
0.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
168.9
169.1
148.9
165.0
130.6
Office of Inspector General
51.9
42.9
51.9
42.9
42.8
Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan
20.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Innovative Tech. Loan Guarantee
—
1,160.0
––c
100.0c
0.0
10,324.4
11,813.7
8,239.5
9,586.4
9,577.8
Weapons Activities
6,384.4
7,008.8
6,696.4
6,823.8
6,946.4
Nuclear Nonproliferation
2,136.7
2,687.2
2,085.2
2,326.7
2,318.7
Naval Reactors
945.1
1,070.5
967.1
945.1
960.2
Office of Administrator
420.8
448.3
407.8
399.8
399.0
Total, NNSA
9,887.0
11,214.8
10,156.5
10,495.5
10,624.2
Defense Environmental Cleanup
5,642.3
5,588.0
5,016.0
5,107.4
4,991.6
Other Defense Activities
847.5
878.2
773.4
828.0
788.4
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
98.4
—
98.4
0.0
0.0
16,475.2
17,681.0
16,044.3
16,430.9
16,404.3
Program
P.L. 11210a,b
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Science
Energy Transformation Acceleration
Fund (ARPA-E)
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
TOTAL, DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
H.R. 1
(112th)a
S.Amdt. 149
(112th)a
Southeastern
7.6
—
7.6
7.6
7.6
Southwestern
44.9
12.7
44.9
44.9
44.9
Western
256.7
105.6
256.7
256.7
256.1
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
311.9
118.5
311.9
311.9
311.2
27,111.4
29,613.2
24,595.7
26,329.1
26,293.3
Program
Falcon & Amistad O&M
TOTAL, PMAs
Total, Title III
P.L. 11210a,b
Sources: FY2011 budget request, text of H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, and P.L. 112-10.
a.
Figures in boldface (except for the Total, Title III figure) are levels specified in H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149, or P.L.
112-10. Figures not in boldface are levels appropriated in P.L. 111-85, the FY2010 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act.
b.
Includes 0.2% overall reduction of all accounts.
c.
For a discussion of H.R. 1 provisions regarding the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program, see
text below, on p. 30.
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)
DOE’s FY2011 request sought $2,355.5 million for the EERE programs. Compared with the
FY2010 appropriation, the FY2011 request would have increased EERE funding by $85.6
million, or 3.8%. P.L. 112-10 provided $1,825.6 million for EERE in FY2011, a reduction of
$416.9 million, or 18.6 %. Also, DOE requested an additional $189.5 million for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER) programs. Relative to the FY2010 appropriation, that
would have been an increase of $13.9 million, or 8.1%. P.L. 112-10 provided $144.7 million for
EDER, a cut of $27.3 million, or 15.9%. Table 8 gives the programmatic breakdown of the
regular appropriations for EERE and EDER.
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
P.L. 112-10
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies
$174.0
$137.0
—
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
220.0
220.0
—
Solar Energy
247.0
302.4
—
—Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
49.7
98.2
—
—Photovoltaic (PV) Power
128.5
152.0
—
Wind Energy
80.0
122.5
—
Program
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
P.L. 112-10
Geothermal Technology
44.0
55.0
—
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
50.0
40.5
—
Subtotal, Renew. and Hydrogen
815.0
877.4
—
Vehicle Technologies
311.4
325.3
—
Building Technologies
222.0
230.7
—
Industrial Technologies
96.0
100.0
—
Federal Energy Management
32.0
42.3
—
RE-ENERGYSE (Education)
0.0
50.0
—
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
661.4
748.3
—
Facilities and Infrastructure
19.0
57.5
—
Program Management
185.0
287.3
—
1,680.4
1,970.5
—
Renewables Deployment
10.0
10.0
—
Appliance Rebates
0.0
0.0
—
Adv. Battery Manufacturing
0.0
0.0
—
Transportation Electrification
0.0
0.0
—
Alternative Fueled Vehicles
0.0
0.0
—
Subtotal, Demon. and
Deployment
10.0
10.0
—
Weatherization Grants
210.0
300.0
—
State Energy Grants
50.0
75.0
—
Efficiency Block Grants
0.0
0.0
—
Non-specific EERE RDD&D
0.0
0.0
—
Cong.-Directed Assistance
292.1
0.0
—
0.0
0.0
—
2,242.5
2,355.5
1,825.6
172.0
185.9
144.7
Program
R&D Subtotal
Prior Year Balances
Total Appropriation
Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE)
Sources: FY2011 budget request and P.L. 112-10 (H.R. 1473).
New Program Proposed: RE-ENERGYSE
The DOE request sought $50 million to create a new science and engineering education program,
RE-ENERGYSE. The mission of the program is “to provide the education and training necessary
to build a highly skilled U.S. clean energy workforce dedicated to solving the world’s greatest
energy challenges.” DOE finds that the United States ranks behind other major nations in making
the transition required to educate students for emerging energy trades, research efforts, and other
professions to support the future energy technology mix. The program aims to educate and train
Americans to adapt green technology to their existing industry/trade, to enter thousands of green
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
jobs, and increase U.S. competitiveness. It also seeks to develop leading edge undergraduate and
graduate programs at universities and community colleges.
The $50 million request included $35 million for a higher education subprogram that would be
dedicated to the development of scientists, engineers, and other professionals with the skills
needed to enter the clean energy field. It would support fellowships, internships, post-doctoral
opportunities, and the development of interdisciplinary masters programs in the area of clean
energy.
Also, the $50 million request included $15 million for a technical training, education, and
outreach subprogram that would support the development of training programs at community
colleges and other training centers. The funding would also support a K-12 education activity,
designed to assist K-12 students and educators who are eager to contribute their ideas to the
solution of long-term environment and energy challenges, but often lack adequate knowledge
about the issues or potential career opportunities. The K-12 activity would seek to reach students
and educators through campaigns, curricula, competitions, and other efforts aimed at educating,
engaging, and inspiring students to pursue clean energy careers and adopt sustainable energy
practices that aim to mitigate climate change.
In its FY2010 request, DOE first proposed the creation of a RE-ENERGYSE program, with
funding of $115 million. Congress did not fund the program. The report of the House Committee
on Appropriations found that the FY2010 proposal embraced an “important set of goals,” but it
expressed concern that the program breadth would be “more consistent with” activities of the
Department of Education, Department of Labor, and the National Science Foundation. Further,
the report stated that
While the Committee supports the desired end-results of the proposed program, the request
lacks sufficient details and background research to assure the Committee that the program
will be effective and not duplicative if fully funded in fiscal year 2010.10
Instead, the committee recommended $7.5 million for DOE to conduct a study that further
defined the education and workforce needs and assessed how such a program could complement
related activities at other federal agencies. The committee said it looked forward to the study and
to “further dialogue with the Department to better define the intentions of the proposal and
understand what role the Department of Energy should play in a broadly mandated educational
initiative.”
The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends zero funding for the FY2010
RE-ENERGYSE proposal. The conference report provided no funding for the program in
FY2010.
For FY2011, the Senate Committee on Appropriations again recommended zero funding.
Key Program Increases Proposed
The Solar Program would have got a net funding increase of $55.4 million in the FY2011 request,
or about 22% over the FY2010 appropriation. The Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) subprogram
10
H.Rept. 111-203, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
would have got the majority of the increase, $48.5 million, to support a demonstration project.
DOE expects that the project would accelerate CSP deployment in the desert Southwest by two to
three years, leading to about 1,000 megawatts (mw) of new capacity. This is the first time since
the early 1980s that DOE has proposed a major CSP demonstration project. Assessments show a
huge CSP resource potential. At the Bureau of Land Management, firms are competing intensely
for CSP development permits. Water issues pose a potentially serious barrier to CSP
development.11
The Photovoltaic (PV) R&D Program would have received an increase of $23.5 million, mainly
to provide the first year of full funding for the PV Manufacturing Initiative. The Initiative aims to
accelerate PV technology cost reduction and commercialization. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $50.0 million for the CSP demonstration project, but otherwise
recommends $30.0 million less than the request.
The Wind Program would have received a net increase of $42.5 million, or about 53%. A new
activity geared to help commercialize offshore wind development would get $49.0 million. Most
of that amount would support a competitive solicitation for an offshore wind demonstration
project. Financial, regulatory, technical, environmental, and social barriers would be addressed.
DOE anticipates that the demonstration would accelerate market deployment of more than three
gigawatts (billions of watts, gw) of currently planned offshore projects. This is the first time since
the early 1980s that DOE has proposed a major wind demonstration project. The Cape Wind
project has been delayed for several years. The Senate Committee on Appropriations would have
provided a nearly identical amount as the request, recommending that DOE undertake at least two
offshore wind demonstration projects off the Atlantic Coast.
The Geothermal Program would have been increased by $11.0 million, or about 25%. Virtually
all of that increase would support two activities. One is a collaborative R&D activity with DOE’s
Office of Science on geophysical R&D and modeling efforts which address induced seismicity,
water availability, and other potential lifecycle risks associated with enhanced geothermal
systems. The second activity would be an increased effort on low temperature geothermal
including fluids co-production from oil and gas operations and fluids from geo-pressured
resources. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the same amount as the
request and directed DOE to apply at least $5.0 million to low-temperature systems.
The Vehicle Technologies Program would have received a net increase of about $13.9 million,
which encompasses an increase of about $17.7 million for the Battery/Energy Storage
subprogram. That increase is aimed at reaching higher performance and cost goals with lithium
batteries for electric vehicles. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended nearly the
same total amount as the request.
The Building Technologies Program would have received a net increase of about $8.7 million.
The Energy Efficient Building Systems Design Hub would have got a modest increase from $22.0
million to $24.3 million. Of the three hubs funded in FY2010, this is the only one for which DOE
sought more funding in FY2011. The omnibus climate/energy bills H.R. 2454 (§171) and S. 1733
(§205) of the 111th Congress would have authorized DOE to establish more hubs. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $8.7 million less than the request for the Buildings
11
For details, see CRS Report R40631, Water Issues of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Electricity in the U.S.
Southwest, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Program. Most of the difference is reflected in a lower amount, $16.0 million, for the Building
Design Hub. Based on reports about problems with the ENERGY STAR program, the committee
directed GAO to determine whether new program guidelines are needed.
The Industrial Technologies Program would have received a net increase of $4.0 million. A
Manufacturing Energy Systems subprogram would have been established with funding of $10.0
million, with goals to enhance innovation, reduce carbon intensity, and spur job creation.
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) would have increased by $10.3 million, or
about 32%. Most of the increase would support DOE efforts to meet goals established by the
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA, P.L. 110-140), and Executive Orders 13423 and
13514. Efforts would focus on DOE sites, emphasizing the following activity areas: (1)
comprehensive energy assessments and advanced metering; (2) retro-commissioning, continuous
commissioning, and capital projects related to those commissioning efforts; (3) hardware to
capture fugitive emissions; and (4) pilot projects for solar, biomass, and alternative fueling
stations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended nearly the same funding as the
request. Noting problems identified in a recent DOE Inspector General report, the committee
directed DOE to deliver an action plan to address the problems.
The Weatherization Program would have grown by $90.0 million, or about 43%. Most of that
increase, $85.8 million, would have supported the Administration’s goal to increase the number of
low-income households that are weatherized. DOE estimates an average weatherization cost of
$6,500 per household. Thus, $85.8 million would support weatherization of an additional 13,200
households. A modest portion of the overall increase, $4.2 million, would support the completion
of the multi-year evaluation of the Weatherization Program. The State Energy Program would
have increased by $25.0 million, to expand current activities. For the Weatherization Program, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $100.0 million less than the request, stating
that the $5.0 billion appropriated in the Recovery Act (P.L 111-5) was sufficient to carry the
program through FY2012.
The Facilities Program would have had a net increase of $38.5 million, an increase that would be
about double the amount of the FY2010 appropriation. Virtually all of that increase would be
used to fund completion of the Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) at NREL and to
purchase and/or install research equipment for ESIF. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
supported the exact amount requested.
Program Direction would have increased by $60.0 million, or about 43%. About $54.8 million of
that increase would be used for salaries and benefits associated with a ramp up of the federal
workforce to process more than 7,000 active contracts, grants and agreements valued in excess of
$4 billion. Due, in part, to residual Recovery Act follow-up, reporting and transparency
requirements, risk-management, and accountability work, DOE expects the number of
transactions to double during the period from FY2009 through FY2011.
Program Support would have received an increase of $42.3 million, or about 94%. Nearly half
that increase, $21.0 million, would be applied as an increase to the Strategic Priorities and Impact
Analysis (SPIA) subprogram. SPIA conducts analyses to clarify how the sum of EERE’s parts,
practices and policies can contribute to solutions as a whole. The FY2011 increase would focus
on the added workload associated with growing demand for policy analysis of EE and RE
technologies as a solution to climate change. Cross-cutting projects previously supported by all
EERE programs are incorporated within this subprogram, providing enhanced coordination and
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
value. The proposed funding increase would also incorporate the Low-Carbon Energy Systems
project, directly leveraging EERE and SPIA’s analytical expertise to help meet climate goals set
out at the United Nations’ 2009 Climate Change Conference (COP-15) at Copenhagen.
Another $15.0 million of the increase for Program Support would be used to expand support for
the International subprogram. The subprogram addresses energy security, economic goals, and
climate change through partnerships with developing countries (especially China, India, and
Brazil) that involve cooperative R&D, market transformation, and assessments of global clean
energy potential. The FY2011 increase would support new initiatives focused on global
technology deployment and climate change mitigation. DOE anticipates that new activities would
include the China and India Clean Energy Research Centers and programs launched under the
Major Economies Forum (MEF). The expanded funding would also provide EERE with resources
to support increased activity through a variety of regional partnerships, such as the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA),
Energy Development in Island Nations (EDIN), and a regional energy platform for Africa.
Additionally, the increased funding would support a greatly increased level of effort under
bilateral partnerships, with countries such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Canada, and Argentina,
that would continue to advance EE and RE technology RDD&D throughout the world.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $57.6 million less for Program
Management (Program Direction and Program Support), without specifying any details of
differences compared the request.
For congressionally directed projects, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended
$147.6 million to cover 134 activities.
Key Program Decreases Proposed
The Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Program would have been cut by $37.0 million, or about 21%. The
Market Transformation subprogram would have been cut by $16.9 million. Under that
subprogram, fuel cell deployment and early market activities would be deferred. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended restoring DOE’s proposed cut, which would put
FY2011 funding at the FY2010 level.
The Water Power Program would have been cut by $9.5 million, or about 19%. Water power
technologies employ marine and hydrokinetic (wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal) resources,
and conventional hydropower resources, to generate electricity. The Program addresses two key
areas: technology development and market acceleration. DOE states that FY2010 funds are
sufficient to continue resource and technology assessments initiated in 2008 and 2009 and to
initiate a number of new projects. DOE expects that the FY2011 request would allow the Program
to build upon activities begun in FY2010, as well as begin support for the development of costeffective incremental hydropower opportunities identified in 2010. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended about $20.0 million more than the request, with $15.0 million of
that designated for conventional hydropower.
Under Industrial Programs, a $7.4 million cut would have terminated subprograms for the steel,
aluminum, and forest/paper industries. Also, a $2.4 million cut would have reduced funding for
the chemicals industry subprogram by more than half. DOE says it is making a “shift” to greater
support of cross-cutting technology efforts that are “more productive” than specific industry
activities. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.0 million for the
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Industries of the Future (Specific) program, which is $1.2 million less than FY2010 funding and
$11.4 million more than the request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program
The FY2011 request would have provided $185.9 million to the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, a net increase of $13.9 million (8.1%) above the FY2010 appropriation. The
Energy Storage subprogram would grow by $26.0 million, while most other R&D subprograms
would be trimmed, yielding a net increase of $19.4 million for R&D. Energy storage has gained
attention as a potential answer to key electric power infrastructure issues, including supply
congestion, rising penetration of variable renewable energy generation, increased power quality
demands, and concern over greenhouse gas emissions. The FY2011 increase for storage would
direct new research efforts on lithium-based batteries designed to meet the size and performance
requirements of stationary applications. Specifically, research on new electrolytes, power
conditioning systems, electrode and separator materials, and integration issues would aim to
reduce system capital and life cycle costs. Also, new analytical methods would be developed to
identify promising locations for pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage systems.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the exact amount of the request for
programs, but added $4.3 million to cover six congressionally directed projects. P.L. 112-10 cut
the EDER total appropriation to $144.7 million.
Nuclear Energy
The Obama Administration’s FY2011 funding request for nuclear energy research and
development totaled $824.1 million—including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and
infrastructure support. The total nuclear energy request was 4.8% above the FY2010
appropriation. P.L. 112-10 provided $732.1 million for those programs. An additional $88.2
million was requested under Other Defense Activities for DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy to pay
for safeguards and security at DOE’s Idaho nuclear facilities.
According to DOE’s FY2011 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 FY2011 nuclear energy request was similar to levels in previous
years, the Obama Administration has significantly reorganized the budget request and established
new priorities. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which had assisted the near-term design and
licensing of new nuclear power plants, was completed in FY2010 and is receiving no further
funding. However, a newly established Reactor Concepts Research, Development and
Demonstration Program is to include new programs to develop small modular reactors and extend
the lives and improve the operation of existing commercial nuclear power plants.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development was to be boosted 47.8%, to $201 million, and continue
the previous year’s shift away from the design and construction of nuclear fuel recycling facilities
toward an emphasis on longer-term research. Much of the additional funding is to be used for
research on spent nuclear fuel disposal and nuclear fuel cycle options, such as partial recycling.
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
The FY2011 budget request also proposed a new program area called Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies (NEET), to be funded at $99.3 million. This program area includes research that
supports a variety of nuclear technologies, advanced nuclear power concepts, and modeling and
simulation. Generation IV Research and Development, previously funded as a separate program
to develop advanced reactor technology, is being split between NEET and Reactor Concepts
RD&D.
Funding for university nuclear education and research, previously provided under the Integrated
University Program, is to be continued at the same level, $5 million, under the DOE-wide REENERGYSE initiative. The budget request also included $3 million for International Nuclear
Energy Cooperation, including ongoing international activities by the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), which have continued despite a major refocusing of the domestic portion of
the program.
Reactor Concepts
The Reactor Concepts RD&D program area proposed by the FY2011 budget request includes the
existing Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) demonstration project and research on advanced
reactors previously funded under the Generation IV program. New programs are also being
established to develop small modular reactors and enhance the “sustainability” of existing
commercial nuclear plants. The total funding request for Reactor Concepts RD&D was $195
million.
NGNP is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The reactor is intended to produce high-temperature heat that could
be used to generate electricity, help separate hydrogen from water, or be used in other industrial
processes. The Obama Administration’s first budget request (for FY2010) had not specifically
mentioned the NGNP project, but the House Appropriations Committee called it a high priority,
and Congress ultimately provided $169 million. The FY2011 budget request included $103
million for NGNP, including high-temperature fuel development, process heat applications, and
materials testing. DOE is to make a decision on moving forward to final design and construction
by the end of FY2011. If the project goes forward, a cost-shared contract for final design and
construction is not expected to be awarded before FY2012, and therefore no design funds were
being requested for FY2011.12
The newly established Advanced Reactor Concepts program, with a funding request of $21.9
million, is described by the budget justification as “an expanded version” of the existing
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program. “The program will focus on reactors that could
dramatically improve performance in sustainability, safety, economics, security, and proliferation
resistance,” according to the justification. Nuclear technology development under this program is
to include “fast reactors,” using high-energy neutrons, and reactors that would use a variety of
heat-transfer fluids, such as liquid sodium. International research collaboration in this area would
continue under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF).
DOE requested $38.9 million for its proposed Small Modular Reactors Program. A number of
small reactor concepts have recently been proposed as alternatives to existing commercial
reactors, which typically exceed 1,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity. Such large sizes
12
E-mail from Thomas J. O’Connor, Director of Gas Reactor Deployment, U.S. Department of Energy, March 9, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
have generally been considered necessary to achieve economies of scale. The budget justification
contends that small modular reactors (SMRs) could be built in factories to reduce costs and could
be installed in small increments, which could make them easier to finance than large plants. DOE
plans to hold a competitive solicitation to award cost-shared financial assistance to as many as
two SMR designs, according to the justification.
DOE’s new Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program, to receive $25.8 million under the
budget request, is to conduct research on extending the life of existing commercial light water
reactors beyond 60 years, the maximum operating period currently licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The program is to study the aging of reactor materials and analyze
safety margins of aging plants. Other research under this program is to focus on improving the
efficiency of existing plants, through such measures as increasing plant capacity and upgrading
instrumentation and control systems.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development
The Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program conducts “long-term, science-based”
research on a wide variety of technologies for improving the management of spent nuclear fuel,
according to the DOE budget justification. The total FY2011 funding request for this program
was $201 million, $65 million above the FY2010 appropriation.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, when the program was called the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it had focused on near-term development and deployment of a specific
type of spent fuel reprocessing technology, UREX, which was intended to recycle plutonium,
uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials into new nuclear fuel. AFCI had constituted
the domestic portion of the Bush Administration’s GNEP initiative, which had been intended to
provide secure nuclear fuel services to discourage the international spread of nuclear fuel cycle
technology.
Under the Obama Administration, the program is to develop technology options for a wider range
of nuclear fuel cycle approaches, including direct disposal of spent fuel (the “once through”
cycle) and partial and full recycling. “The program will also conduct scientific research and
technology development to enable storage, transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and
all radioactive wastes generated by existing and future nuclear fuel cycles,” according to the
justification.
Much of the planned research on spent fuel management options is expected to support the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which is developing alternatives to the
planned Yucca Mountain, NV, spent fuel repository, which President Obama wants to terminate.
In addition to researching potential waste treatment technologies and approaches that may be
considered by the Blue Ribbon Commission, the program will study “a variety of geologic
disposal media such as granite, tuff, deep boreholes, clay, shale, salt, and basalt,” according to the
justification.
Other major research areas in the Fuel Cycle R&D Program include the development of advanced
fuels for existing commercial reactors and advanced reactors, improvements in nuclear waste
characteristics, and modeling and simulation of fuel cycle options.
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
The newly established NEET program is intended to conduct research on “the full range of
nuclear energy technology issues,” according to the DOE budget justification.
Under the category of Crosscutting Technology Development, research is to be conducted on new
types of reactor materials, weapons proliferation risks of fuel cycle options, advanced nuclear
plant manufacturing methods, and advanced sensors and instrumentation. The Energy Innovation
Hub for Modeling and Simulation, created in FY2010, is to be moved from the Generation IV
program to NEET with a slight increase in funding, to $24.3 million. The Modeling and
Simulation Hub is intended to create a computer model of an operating reactor to allow a better
understanding of nuclear technology, with the benefits of such modeling extending to other
energy technologies in the future, according to the justification.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
For FY2011, the Obama Administration requested $586.6 million for Fossil Energy Research and
Development; which represents a 12.7% decrease ($95.8 million) from the FY2010 appropriation
(Table 9). The decrease from the previous year’s request reflects the cut in funding for Natural
Gas Technologies, Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies, and Cooperative Research and
Development. P.L. 112-10 appropriated $584.5 million.
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
Innovations for Existing Plants
52.0
65.0
––
Advanced IGCC
63.0
55.0
Advanced Turbines
32.0
31.0
Carbon Sequestration
154.0
143.0
Fuels
25.0
12.0
Fuel Cell
50.0
50.0
Advanced Research
28.0
47.9
Subtotal
404.0
403.9
Natural Gas Technologies
—
—
Methane Hydrates
—
—
Independent Producers Research
—
—
Water Treatment Demonstration
—
—
Subtotal
17.3
0.0
Petroleum-Oil Technologies
—
—
Unconventional Fossil Energy Tech
20.0
0.0
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
P.L. 112-10
Fuels and Power Systems
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
Research, Develop & Demonstrate
Risked Based Data Mgmt Sys.
Subtotal
Other
Plant and Capital Equipment
20.0
20.0
Fossil Energy Environ. Restoration
10.0
10.0
Special Recruitment Program
0.7
0.7
Cooperative R&D
5.0
0.0
Subtotal
35.7
30.7
Cong. Directed Projects
36.9
—
672.4
586.6
Program Direction
Total
P.L. 112-10
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
584.5
Source: FY2011 budget request; text of P.L. 112-10.
The DOE Office of Fossil Energy intends to propose a new budget structure for the FY2012 Coal
subprogram that currently includes CCPI, and Fuels and Power Systems. The proposed change
will reflect increased focus on carbon capture and storage (CC&S) technologies.
In 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, which ARRA funded at $1.52 billion. The FutureGen project originally intended to
demonstrate clean coal-based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation
with capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions.
The FY2011 request had no funding for the Carbon Capture Initiative. DOE has also abandoned
the FutureGen project concept and instead will use $1 billion in funding to refit and repower an
existing plant to capture CO2. The money will go to the Futuregen Alliance, Ameren Energy
Resources, Babcock & Wilcox and Air Liquide Process & Construction to install new equipment
at an Ameren 200-MW unit in Meredosia, IL.
The Clean Coal Technology program has only project-closeout activities remaining, so the
administration has requested no further funding in FY2011.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a 24% increase in the Fossil Energy budget,
bringing it up to $725.95 million. The recommendation would have increased the Fuels and
Power Systems by $48.15 million, restores the Natural Gas Technologies program, and funds a
the new Unconventional Fossil Energy program directed by the previous year’s appropriation.
The committee added that it supports research and development projects to produce high quality
fuels derived from coal/biomass feedstocks that meet military and civilian specifications, albeit
greater in carbon lifecycle emissions than conventional petroleum based fuels.
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
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. 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. By
early 2010, the SPR was filled to its current capacity of 727 million barrels. The Northeast
Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) established during the Clinton Administration stores 2 million
barrels of refined home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and
Rhode Island.
The federal government has not purchased oil for the SPR since 1994. Beginning in 2000,
additions to the SPR were made with royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil acquired by the Department of
Energy in lieu of cash royalties paid on production from federal offshore leases. The Procedures
for the Acquisition of Petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve include provisions for
acquiring crude oil through direct purchase, by transfer of royalty oil from the Department of the
Interior, and by receipt of premium barrels resulting from deferral of scheduled deliveries of
petroleum for the Reserve. 13 In May 2008, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 110-232) ordering
DOE to suspend RIK fill for the balance of the calendar year unless the price of crude oil dropped
below $75/barrel. However, the sharp decline in crude oil prices since spiking to $147/barrel in
the summer of 2008 brought about a resumption of fill of the SPR. On January 2, 2009, the Bush
Administration announced plans that included the purchase of nearly 10.7 million barrels for the
SPR to replace oil that was sold after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. In May 2009, RIK fill
was resumed at an average volume of 26,000 barrels per day, totaling over 6.1 million barrels to
be delivered by January 2010. These activities have brought the SPR to capacity.
On September 16, 2009, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior announced a transitional
phasing out of the RIK Program. 14 As RIK oil and natural gas sales contracts expire, the oil and
natural gas properties will revert to in-value status. As a result of the announcement, the
upcoming natural gas sales (Gulf of Mexico and Wyoming) previously advertised will not be
conducted.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) required expansion of the SPR to its authorized
maximum of 1 billion barrels, and a site in Richton, MS, has been evaluated as a possible location
for an additional 160 million barrels of capacity. However, in its FY2011 request, the
Administration proposed to suspend spending in support of expansion of the SPR. The budget
request proposed redirecting $71 million in balances previously appropriated for expansion, to be
used to “partially fund SPR non-expansion operations and maintenance activities.” In support of
its proposal, the Administration cited, in the budget justification, EIA projections that “U.S.
petroleum consumption and dependence on imports will decline in the future and the current
Reserve’s projection will gradually increase to 90 days by 2025.” This has reduced the FY2011
request for the SPR to $138.9 million, a sharp reduction from the $243.8 million appropriated for
FY2010.
13
Final Rule, 65376 Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 216 , November 8, 2006; Rules and Regulations.
Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation and Enforcement. http://www.mrm.boemre.gov/AssetManagement/
default.htm
14
Congressional Research Service
24
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Congress approved $11.3 million for the NHOR in FY2010, and the Administration has proposed
the same amount for FY2011. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $209.9
million for the SPR, and did not support cancellation of $71 million in prior appropriated funds
for the proposed expansion of the Richton, MS, SPR site. P.L. 112-10 set the SPR spending level
at the Senate Committee figure, $209.9, but rescinded a total of $86.8 million from prior year
appropriations.
Science
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences,
high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, advanced scientific
computing research, and fusion energy sciences. Through these programs, DOE is the thirdlargest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.15 For FY2011, DOE requested $5.121 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of
4.4% from the FY2010 appropriation of $4.904 billion. In the 111th Congress, the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development recommended $4.900 billion,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5.012 billion.
In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 as passed by the House would have provided $4.018 billion for the
Office of Science. The Senate amendment S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 would have provided $4.733
billion. P.L. 112-10 as passed appropriated $4,857.7 billion. None of the 112th Congress bills
specified how the total should be allocated by program. P.L. 1120-10 rescinded $15 million
appropriated in prior years but not yet obligated.
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 FY2016.16 This
continues a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January 2006 as part of its American
Competitiveness Initiative. The 4.4% increase requested for FY2011 was less than the 7.2%
annual rate required to achieve a doubling in 10 years. The amount appropriated in P.L. 112-10 is
less than the FY2010 level.
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, was
$1.835 billion, up 12.1% from $1.636 billion in FY2010. Funding for Energy Frontier Research
Centers (EFRCs) would have increased by $40 million. EFRCs are “multi-investigator and multidisciplinary centers that foster, encourage, and accelerate basic research to provide the basis for
transformative energy technologies of the future.” A new energy innovation hub on materials for
batteries and energy storage would have received $34 million, and the existing hub on fuels from
sunlight, currently funded by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, would have
received $24 million. The Administration proposed to initiate a total of eight energy innovation
hubs in FY2010, but Congress funded only three. The aim of the hubs is “to address basic science
and technology hindering the nation’s secure and sustainable energy future” by assembling
multidisciplinary teams of researchers “spanning science, engineering, and other disciplines, but
15
Based on preliminary FY2009 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2007-09, NSF 10-305 (May 2010).
16
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and
Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Science Agencies in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010,
http://www.innovationtaskforce.org/docs/White%20House%20Fact%20Sheet%20on%20Doubling%20R&
D%20at%20Key%20Agencies.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
focused on a single critical national need identified by the Department.” In the 111th Congress, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.739 billion for basic energy sciences. It did
not provide the requested increase for new EFRCs. It provided about two-thirds of the requested
funding for the two energy innovation hubs.
For high-energy physics, the request was $829 million, up 2.3% from $810 million in FY2010.
Proposed increases included $17 million for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino
Experiment and the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment, both at Fermilab. The request
would have provided $84 million, an increase of $4 million, in support of the Large Hadron
Collider. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $820
million. It expressed support for design work on the two Fermilab construction projects, but
directed DOE to provide a report on their expected benefits, strategy, and funding needs.
The request for biological and environmental research was $627 million, up 3.8% from $604
million in FY2010. Proposed increases included $16 million for climate and Earth system
modeling and $11 million for genomic science. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $614 million. It provided $11 million for an artificial retina project that
the request would not continue, and it transferred $15 million to the nuclear physics program for
nuclear medicine research. H.R. 1 would have limited FY2011 funding for biological and
environmental research to a maximum of $302 million.
For nuclear physics, the request was $562 million, up 5.0% from $535 million in FY2010. The
balance among the five subprograms would have remained about the same. Construction of an
upgrade at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) would have received
$36 million, up from $20 million in FY2010. The CEBAF project’s total cost and completion date
did not changed, but its FY2011 request was less than previously projected because some
construction activities previously planned for FY2010 and FY2011 were moved forward and paid
for with funding from the Recovery Act. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $554 million, including the $15 million transferred from the biological
and environmental research program.
The request for advanced scientific computing research was $426 million, up 8.1% from $394
million in FY2010. A proposed increase of $35 million for leadership computing facilities at two
of the national laboratories would have been partly offset by a decrease of $6 million for research
and evaluation prototypes. The latter decrease results from the conclusion of a partnership with
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on high-productivity computing
systems. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $418 million.
The request for fusion energy sciences was $380 million, down 10.8% from $426 million in
FY2010. The U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER),
a fusion facility under construction in France, would have dropped from $135 million in FY2010
to $80 million in FY2011 because of delays in the construction schedule. The ITER partners are
China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. The current
estimate for ITER’s total project cost is $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion. Between June 2009 and
February 2010, the expected start-up date for ITER slipped from 2016 to November 2019.17
Nevertheless, DOE believes that “the costs associated with the schedule delays to date ... are
17
Daniel Clery, “Fusion Delayed: ITER Start Date Moved Again,” Science Insider, March 11, 2010,
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/fusion-delayed-iter-startdate-mo.html.
Congressional Research Service
26
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
manageable within the existing ... cost range.”18 In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $384 million for fusion energy sciences, including $4 million more
than requested for inertial fusion. The committee expressed concern about the cost and schedule
of ITER and about U.S. leadership and competitiveness in materials science for fusion.
Table 10. Science
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
Senate
(111th)
P.L. 112-10
Basic Energy Sciences
$1,636.5
$1,835.0
$1,739.1
—
High Energy Physics
810.5
829.0
820.1
—
Biological and
Environmental
Research
604.2
626.9
614.5
—
Nuclear Physics
535.0
562.0
554.0
—
Advanced Scientific
Computing Research
394.0
426.0
418.0
—
Fusion Energy
Sciences
426.0
380.0
384.0
—
Workforce
Development for
Teachers and
Scientists
20.7
35.6
21.0
—
Science Laboratories
Infrastructure
127.6
126.0
126.0
—
Safeguards and
Security
83.0
86.5
86.5
—
Science Program
Direction
189.4
214.4
208.0
—
Congressionally
Directed Projects
76.9
0.0
40.8
—
4,903.7
5,121.4
5,012.0
4.857.7
Total
Source: FY2011 budget request, S.Rept. 111-228, text of P.L. 112-10.
ARPA-E
The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was authorized by the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to support transformational energy technology research projects.19
It received its first funding in FY2009, mostly through the Recovery Act, and announced its first
round of contract awards in October 2009. DOE budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as
overcoming long-term, high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy
18
DOE FY2012 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 234.
For more information, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E):
Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
19
Congressional Research Service
27
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
technologies. The request for ARPA-E in FY2011 was $300 million.20 P.L. 112-10 appropriated
$179.6 million.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
President Obama’s FY2011 budget called for termination of DOE’s Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), which was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) to dispose of highly radioactive waste from
nuclear power plants and defense facilities. OCRWM had been developing a permanent nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, as specified by an NWPA amendment in 1987. DOE
filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository in June 2008.
The Obama Administration “has determined that developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not
a workable option and the Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal,”
according to the DOE FY2011 budget justification. As a result, no funding for Yucca Mountain or
OCRWM is being requested for FY2011. P.L. 112-10 provides no funding for the program..
DOE filed a motion with NRC to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application on March 3,
2010. An NRC licensing panel rejected DOE’s withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, on the grounds
that NWPA requires full consideration of the license application by NRC. The full NRC
commission is now considering the withdrawal, which is strongly opposed by states that have
defense-related waste awaiting permanent disposal.
Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are to be evaluated by the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future, which was formally established by DOE on March 1, 2010. Congress
provided $5 million for the Commission in the FY2010 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act. The Commission is to study options for temporary storage, treatment, and
permanent disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste, along with an evaluation of nuclear waste
research and development programs and the need for legislation. A draft report is to be issued
within 18 months and a final report within two years.21
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has taken over the remaining functions of OCRWM and
will “lead all future waste management activities,” according to the budget justification.
Substantial funding has been requested for NE to conduct research on nuclear waste disposal
technologies and options and to provide support for the Blue Ribbon Commission (see “Nuclear
Energy” section for more details).
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. 22
20
Some budget documents show this amount as the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund.
21
Department of Energy, Advisory Committee Charter, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, March
1, 2010, http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/BRC_Charter.pdf.
22
Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Before the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
(For more information, see CRS Report R40202, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca
Mountain, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL33461,
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted);
and CRS Report R40996, Contract Liability Arising from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)
of 1982, 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 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58). Sec. 1703 of the act authorized loan
guarantees for energy projects using “new or significantly improved technologies” to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Estimated future government costs resulting from the loan guarantees
(such as through defaults of guaranteed loans) must be paid up front by each project. These
“subsidy costs,” which are expected to range from about 1% to 10% of the loan guarantee
amount, can be paid with appropriated funds or directly by the project owner.
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 billion 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.
President Obama’s FY2011 budget request called for nearly tripling the loan guarantee ceiling for
nuclear power plants, to $54.5 billion. Because federal loan guarantees are widely considered to
be a prerequisite for obtaining financing for new nuclear power plants, the nuclear industry had
strongly urged that the loan guarantee ceiling be raised dramatically. DOE announced the first
preliminary nuclear loan guarantee on February 16, 2010, to a project to add two reactors to the
existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The conditional guarantee agreement, which
cannot be implemented before the proposed reactors receive an NRC license, would guarantee a
total of $8.33 billion in financing for the two reactors. At that level, the current $18.5 billion
nuclear loan guarantee ceiling would be enough for about four reactors, while the proposed
increase to $54.5 billion could cover about 13 reactors (depending on their size and the
percentage of their costs that would be guaranteed). Nuclear critics have attacked the proposed
tripling of nuclear loan guarantees as a “taxpayer bailout” that would divert limited financial
resources away from cleaner energy technologies such as efficiency and renewables. 23
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) created a new, temporary
loan guarantee program for renewable energy and electric transmission projects by adding a new
Sec. 1705 to EPAct. In establishing the Sec. 1705 loan guarantee program, ARRA included a $6
billion appropriation to cover the subsidy costs, so that up-front payment would not have to be
collected from project owners. However, $2 billion of that funding has since been transferred to
the “cash for clunkers” automobile trade-in program by P.L. 111-47, and another $1.5 billion was
rescinded to help pay for the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. If the subsidy costs
average 10% of each loan guarantee, then the remaining $2.5 billion of the ARRA subsidy cost
appropriation should support loan guarantees totaling $25 billion.
(...continued)
House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007.
23
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “Stop a $54 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of Rich Nuclear Utilities,” web
petition, http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2096.
Congressional Research Service
29
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
In addition to the $2.5 billion in subsidy costs provided by ARRA for the temporary Sec. 1705
program, President Obama requested a $500 million appropriation to pay subsidy costs for energy
efficiency and renewable energy loan guarantees under the permanent Sec. 1703 program
originally established by EPAct. The DOE budget justification estimates that the $500 million
appropriation for subsidy costs would support renewable energy and energy efficiency loan
guarantees totaling $3 billion-$5 billion. DOE also requested $58 million for administrative costs,
which are to be fully offset by receipts.
P.L. 112-10 reduced the loan guarantee authority for Section 1703 non-nuclear technologies to
$7.3 billion. Including the $2 billion in FY2007 authority that has not been designated for
uranium enrichment, the Section 1703 non-nuclear loan guarantee ceiling now stands at about
$9.3 billion. Nuclear loan guarantees remain at $18.5 billion, and uranium enrichment totals $4
billion.
Remaining appropriations for subsidy cost payments under the Section 1705 loan guarantee
program are to expire at the end of FY2011. However, P.L. 112-10 provides $170 million, with no
expiration, to pay subsidy costs for renewable energy and efficiency projects under the Section
1703 program. P.L. 112-10 also provides authority for up to $1.183 billion in loan guarantees for
renewable energy and efficiency projects, in addition to the $31.8 billion in remaining Section
1703 authority provided by earlier appropriations acts. The additional loan guarantee authority
and subsidy cost appropriation provided by P.L. 112-10 is available to projects that applied under
the expiring Section 1705 before February 24, 2011.
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. 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.
DOE requested $10 million in FY2011 to cover the program’s administrative expenses, nearly all
of which was provided by P.L. 112-10.
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 FY2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, P.L. 111-84, section 3111, amended this language to state that the program is
to ensure “(1) the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United
States in nuclear weapons, including weapons design, system integration, manufacturing, security,
use control, reliability assessment, and certification; and (2) that the nuclear weapons stockpile is
safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing.” 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).
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account, as
described below. Table 11 presents Weapons Activities funding. NNSA manages two programs
outside of that account: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and
Naval Reactors.
Congressional Research Service
30
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
P.L. 111-84, section 3113, established a “stockpile management” program “to provide for the
effective management of the weapons in the nuclear weapons stockpile, including the extension
of the effective life of such weapons.” Objectives for the program include increasing the
reliability, safety, and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile and further reducing the
likelihood of nuclear testing. Section 3113 required that any changes to the stockpile shall be
made to further the objectives set for the program and shall “remain consistent with the basic
design parameters by including, to the maximum extent feasible, components that are well
understood or are certifiable without the need to resume underground nuclear weapons testing.”
The stockpile management program is to support the stockpile stewardship program.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex (the “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 11. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
Program
FY2010
Approps.
FY2011
Request
Senate
Committee
(111th)
DSW
1,505.9
1,898.4
1,874.3
Campaigns
1,571.2
1,716.4
1,693.6
RTBF
1,842.9
1,849.0
1,920.0
Othera
1,464.5
1,544.9
1,531.0
Total
6,384.4
7,008.8
7,018.9
P.L. 112-10
6,946.4
Source: FY2011 budget request, S.Rept. 111-228, text of P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities.
a.
FY2011 includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, and Cyber Security.
FY2010 also includes congressionally directed projects and use of prior year balances.
The FY2011 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP), which, like many programs in the Defense Department, projects the budget
and components for FY2012-FY2015 (see Table 12).
Congressional Research Service
31
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
DSW
1,900.7
1,999.5
2,240.1
2,346.3
Campaigns
1,732.3
1,716.4
1,717.4
1,731.0
RTBF
1,872.5
1,841.3
1,926.6
1,997.8
Othera
1,527.0
1,524.9
1,516.9
1,573.1
Total
7,032.7
7,082.1
7,401.0
7,468.2
Source: DOE, FY2011 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 48.
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 “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 reductions, 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. 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). 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 long-term 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.”
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.24 For details, see the Final Complex Transformation
24
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/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2008, along
with two Records of Decision of December 2008.25
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.26
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 RRW funds and made some changes to individual programs. It did
not provide general comments on Complex transformation. P.L. 111-8, FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, provided no RRW funds. Neither the FY2010 nor the FY2011 budgets
requested RRW funds. A FY2010 budget document stated, “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.”27
The FY2011 budget request for Weapons Activities was $7,008.8 million, vs. FY2010
appropriations of $6,384.4 million. The Department of Defense submitted its Nuclear Posture
Review Report in April 2010, which set forth the role of U.S. nuclear forces and plans for
sustaining the nuclear arsenal.28 According to a White House document of May 2010, the
President provided Congress with a classified report required by the FY2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, Section 1251, “on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms
[that is, bombers and missiles that deliver nuclear weapons]; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and
reliable U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex.”29
(...continued)
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.
25
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.
26
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2009,
unnumbered committee print, June 2008, pp. 123-124.
27
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.
28
U.S. Department of Defense. Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/
2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf.
29
U.S. White House. “The New START Treaty—Maintaining a Strong Nuclear Deterrent,” fact sheet, May 13, 2010,
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/May/20100514114003xjsnommis0.6300318.html.
Congressional Research Service
33
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
According to that document, “the Administration intends to invest $80 billion in the next decade
to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex.” The projections for weapons stockpile
and infrastructure costs (billions of then-year dollars) are: FY2011, $7.0; FY2012, 7.0; FY2013,
$7.1; FY2014, $7.4; FY2015, $7.7; FY2016, $8.4; FY2017, $8.9; FY2018, $9.0; FY2019, $8.7;
and FY2020, $8.8.
In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 as passed by the House proposed to reduce the requested increase
by $312.4 million, about half. This reduction was contentious. A key part of the compromise that
the Administration worked out with Senate Republicans to gain their support for the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was that funding for Weapons Activities would
increase substantially over the period FY2010-FY2020 in order to modernize the nuclear
weapons complex and maintain nuclear weapons. An Administration document of November
2010 set forth the rationale and a budget plan for this increase.30 Further, the New START
resolution of ratification stated, “It is the sense of the Senate that—(1) the United States is
committed to proceeding with a robust stockpile stewardship program, and to maintaining and
modernizing the nuclear weapons production capabilities and capacities, that will ensure the
safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear arsenal.... ” The President’s
FY2012 budget request called for Weapons Activities to increase to $7,629.7 million. A reduction
in the FY2011 request for Weapons Activities would raise questions about whether Congress will
provide the funds requested for FY2012. The issue was resolved for FY2011 in P.L. 112-10,
which provided $6,946.4 million for Weapons Activities, a further reduction below H.R. 1 of $50
million.
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; conducting 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 through design, certification, manufacture, and replacement of
components. An LEP for the B61 mods 7 and 11 bombs was completed in
FY2009. An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched
ballistic missile is ongoing; the life-extended warhead is termed the W76-1. The
FY2010 appropriation was $223.2 million, and the FY2011 request was $249.5
million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested
amount. It required NNSA to submit reports when NNSA completes a study of
the LEP for the B61 bomb, stated that one type of B61 LEP would “extend the
life of the weapon for both strategic and tactical missions for 30 years,” and
referred to the “upcoming” LEP for the W78 warhead.
•
Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of
limited-life components, ongoing assessment, and the like for all weapon types in
the stockpile. The FY2010 appropriation was $357.8 million. The FY2011
request was $649.4 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
30
“November 2010 Update to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2010 Section 1251 Report, New START
Treaty Framework and Nuclear Force Structure Plans,” available at http://www.lasg.org/CMRR/
Sect1251_update_17Nov2010.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
34
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
the requested amount. The largest increase is for the B61 bomb ($92.0 million to
$317.1 million); other substantial increases are for the W78 warhead ($48.3
million to $85.9 million) and the W87 warhead ($48.1 million to $62.6 million).
B61 funds fall into two categories: B61 system sustainment ($59.5 million for
FY2010 to $65.5 million requested for FY2011) and B61 phase 6.2/6.2A study
($32.5 million for FY2010 to $251.6 million requested for FY2011). The former
activity conducts maintenance, inspections, assessments, and the like. According
to the budget request, funding for the latter would “[support] a life extension
study of the nuclear and non-nuclear components scope, including
implementation of enhanced surety, extended service life and modification
consolidation.… The study will evaluate options for improving safety and use
control features and ensures compatibility and integration with modern aircraft
such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.” The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount for Stockpile Systems, of which “at least
$165,000,000 shall be used for surveillance activities,” i.e., those that monitor the
status of nuclear weapons. It stated, “A robust surveillance program is required to
maintain confidence in the performance of nuclear weapons in the absence of
underground nuclear testing.” It expressed concerns that shortfalls in surveillance
could jeopardize the annual process for assessing the safety and reliability of
nuclear weapons.
•
The B61 bomb has several variants. A study on a new variant, the B61-12, which
would modify most variants of B61’s into a single common version, was
controversial in the FY2010 appropriations cycle. The House bill recommended
no funds for it. The House Appropriations Committee “will not support a major
warhead redesign in the absence of clearly defined nuclear weapons strategy,
stockpile, and complex plans.” The Senate bill included the amount requested.
The conference bill included $92.0 million for B61 stockpile systems activities,
of which $32.5 million was for a study of nonnuclear components for the
proposed B61-12, a version of the B61 that would modify various types of B61s
into a single common version. 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 called for two reports on the B6112. The FY2011 request focused on the possibility of life-extending individual
B61 variants, but the proposed appropriations language states, “Provided further,
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 nonnuclear upgrade study, with notification to cognizant
congressional committees within 15 days of the implementation of this action.”
For FY2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested
amount and directed NNSA to submit a report describing safety and security
features that NNSA would add to a refurbished B61 and a cost-benefit analysis of
installing these features. It also directed NNSA to submit a revised analysis of
B61 LEP alternatives on costs and benefits of combining nuclear and nonnuclear
refurbishment of the B61.
Congressional Research Service
35
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
•
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. Because of the large number of warheads being
retired, there is a need to dismantle some warheads and to further break down
some components to “prevent storage problems across the [nuclear weapons]
enterprise.” WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be dismantled;
dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components
and materials). The FY2010 current appropriation is $96.1 million, and the
FY2011 request is $58.0 million. According to the budget request, the decrease
reflects a reduction in dismantlements and component dispositions, and “a return
to baseline funding after a one-time Congressional increase in FY 2010.” The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $64.4 million, an increase of
$6.4 million above the request, of which $27.5 million shall be used to help
“restore” weapons dismantlement activities at Pantex.
Several components of WDD have been moved to different organizations within DOE or
to different budget categories within Weapons Activities in the last several years. Within
WDD, the major activity for FY2009 was the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
(PDCF), which was moved to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account for
FY2010. The “pit” is the fissile component (usually plutonium) of a nuclear warhead that
initiates a thermonuclear explosion. As warheads are dismantled, pits may be stored, but
for permanent disposition PDCF would convert the plutonium in pits to plutonium oxide
for use in a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), where it would become fuel
for commercial light-water nuclear reactors. In FY2008, MFFF was transferred from
NNSA to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. WDD includes a Waste Solidification
Building (WSB) to convert liquid wastes from PDCF and MFFF into solids for disposal
off-site. For FY2010, the WSB account has been moved to the Fissile Materials
Disposition Program within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
•
Stockpile Services. This category includes Production Support; R&D Support;
R&D Certification and Safety; Management, Technology, and Production; and
Plutonium Sustainment. NNSA states, “Stockpile Services provides the
foundation for the production capability and capacity within the nuclear security
enterprise. All enduring systems, LEPs, and dismantlements rely on Stockpile
Services to provide the base development, production and logistics capability
needed to meet program requirements. In addition, Stockpile Services funds
research, development and production activities that support two or more
weapons-types, and work that is not identified or allocated to a specific weapontype.” The FY2010 appropriation was $828.8 million; the FY2011 request was
$941.5 million. The largest increase ($141.9 million to $190.3 million) was for
Plutonium Sustainment, which “maintains the plutonium technical base skills
which support activities encompassing all capabilities requiring the use and
handling of plutonium.” Further, “The increase restores the capability to build up
to 10 pits per year.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
reducing the request by $30.5 million, and directed that within the funds
provided, at least $74.0 million shall be used to support surveillance, no more
than $160.0 million shall be used for plutonium sustainment, and $84.1 million
shall be used for weapons assembly, disassembly, and dismantlement at Pantex.
Congressional Research Service
36
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Campaigns
These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide specialized scientific knowledge
and technical support to the directed stockpile work on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” Many
campaigns have significance for policy decisions. For example, the Science Campaign’s goals
include improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving
readiness to conduct nuclear tests should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Campaigns also fund some large experimental
facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The
FY2011 request included five campaigns:
•
Science Campaign. According to NNSA, this campaign “develops improved
scientific capabilities and experimental infrastructure to assess the safety,
security, reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosives package (NEP)
portion of weapons without reliance on further underground testing.” The
FY2010 current appropriation is $295.6 million; the FY2011 request is $365.2
million. The element showing the largest increase in this campaign is Advanced
Certification, which would go from $19.4 million to $77.0 million. This program
will “improve the weapons certification process; refine computational tools and
methods; advance the physical understanding of surety mechanisms; understand
failure modes; assess new manufacturing processes; and study system
requirements.” The increase would fund certain experiments at the Nevada Test
Site and at the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility at Los
Alamos National Laboratory “to examine options for modernized surety.” The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended reducing the request by $10.9
million. Of the recommended amount, $53.3 million is provided to the Z facility
at Sandia, and another $10.0 million to help that facility conduct experiments on
plutonium. The Z facility, in Albuquerque, NM, releases an enormous amount of
energy in a brief pulse, and is used, among other things, to study how materials
react under high temperature and pressure. The committee describes the facility’s
activities as “critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.”
•
Engineering Campaign. This campaign seeks to “develop capabilities to assess
and improve the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosive
package and non-nuclear engineering components throughout a nuclear weapon’s
lifetime without further underground testing. Additionally, the purpose is to
increase our ability to predict the response and have confidence in the design of
all components and subsystems to external stimuli …; the effects of aging; and to
develop essential engineering capabilities and infrastructure.” The FY2010
appropriation was $150.0 million; the FY2011 request was $141.9 million. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended increasing that amount by $8.0
million. Noting that nuclear weapons may have to function in a nuclear
environment, the committee provided funds to support capabilities to create or
simulate that environment.
•
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign. This campaign
is developing the tools to create extremely high temperatures and pressures in the
laboratory—approaching those of a nuclear explosion—to support weaponsrelated research and to attract scientific talent to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. NNSA states, “Virtually all of the energy from a nuclear weapon is
generated while in the high energy density (HED) state. High energy density
Congressional Research Service
37
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
physics (HEDP) experiments on ICF facilities are required to validate the
advanced theoretical models that are used to assess and certify the stockpile
without nuclear testing. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) will extend HEDP
experiments to include access to thermonuclear burn conditions in the laboratory,
a unique and unprecedented scientific achievement.” The centerpiece of this
campaign is NIF, the world’s largest laser. While NIF was controversial in
Congress for many years and had significant cost growth and technical problems,
controversy waned as the program progressed. The facility was dedicated in May
2009.31 According to a press report of January 2010, scientists working at NIF
“successfully fired an array of 192 laser beams [the total number of beams at
NIF] at a helium-filled target no larger than a BB shot and instantly heated it to 6
million degrees Fahrenheit. The gas vanished in a tiny explosion. The scientists
said that result marked the most important advance yet in more than 10 years of
work at the $3.5 billion facility.”32 The FY2010 appropriation was $457.9
million; the FY2011 request was $481.5 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the requested amount. The committee supported
creating an independent advisory board to evaluate experiments planned at NIF.
•
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. This campaign develops
computation-based models of nuclear weapons that integrate data from other
campaigns, past test data, laboratory experiments, and elsewhere to create what
NNSA calls “the computational surrogate for nuclear testing,” thereby enabling
“comprehensive understanding of the entire weapons lifecycle from design to
safe processes for dismantlement.” Some analysts doubt that simulation can be
relied upon to provide the confidence needed to certify the safety, security, and
reliability of warheads, and advocate a return to testing. The campaign includes
funds for hardware and operations as well as for software. The FY2010
appropriation was $567.6 million; the FY2011 request was $615.7 million. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount.
•
Readiness Campaign. This campaign develops technologies and techniques to
improve the safety and efficiency of manufacturing and reduce its costs. The
FY2010 current appropriation is $100.0 million; the FY2011 request is $112.1
million. Within the Readiness Campaign, the largest dollar increase ($5.7 million
for FY2010, $18.9 million requested for FY2011) is for Stockpile Readiness, a
subprogram that “ensures the availability of future manufacturing capabilities for
the production of weapon components containing special materials.” The
increase provides for advances in manufacturing lithium parts at the Y-12
National Security Complex and for ensuring capability remains at the Savannah
River Site to produce and test other components (gas transfer system reservoirs).
The largest dollar decrease ($68.2 million for FY2010, $50.2 million requested
for FY2011) is for Tritium Readiness. NNSA explains that the decrease “is due to
the cyclical nature of the fixed-price contracting approach taken by the program
for the manufacture and irradiation of tritium producing burnable absorber rods
and other materials. There are no major procurements expected during FY2011.”
31
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Dedication of World’s Largest Laser Marks the Dawn of a New Era,”
press release, May 29, 2009, https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2009/NR-09-05-05.html.
32
David Perlman, “Livermore Lab Turns the Heat up—Way up—in Search for Fusion,” San Francisco Chronicle,
January 29, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
38
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended reducing one component of
this campaign, Tritium Readiness, from $50.2 million requested to $30.2 million
and specified that no more than the latter amount could be used for tritium
production efforts. “The Committee is concerned about the technical challenges
NNSA is facing with tritium production at the Watts Bar reactor and the slow
progress in increasing production capacity.”
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
This program funds infrastructure and operations at Complex sites. The FY2010 appropriation
was $1,842.9 million; the FY2011 request was $1,849.0 million. It has six subprograms. The
largest is Operations of Facilities (FY2010 current appropriation, $1,348.3.million; FY2011
request, $1,258.0 million). Others are Program Readiness, which supports activities at multiple
sites or in multiple programs (FY2010 appropriation, $73.0 million; FY2011 request, $69.3
million); Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers plutonium, enriched uranium, and
tritium from weapons production and disassembly (FY2010 appropriation, $69.5 million; FY2011
request, $70.4 million); and Construction (FY2010 appropriation, $303.9 million; FY2011
request, $399.0 million). Within Operations of Facilities, Institutional Site Support dropped from
$120.1 million (FY2010) to $41.0 million (requested, FY2011). NNSA explains the reduction as
due mainly to “the nonrecurring request in FY2010 for direct support of management and
operating contractor pension costs.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
increasing RTBF funds by $71.0 million above the request. It expressed concern that the request
for Pantex and Y-12 did not contain sufficient funds, and stated, “The increase in funding will fill
significant gaps at these facilities that would avoid layoffs and disruption to dismantlement and
life extension schedules.” Among other things, the committee restored funding for the Los
Alamos Neutron Science Center and expressed concern about NNSA’s use of funds for a
replacement facility for the Kansas City Plant.
The most costly item in Construction, and among the most controversial in the Weapons
Activities account, is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (FY2010 appropriation, $97.0 million; FY2011 request, $225.0
million). It would replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building, which is over
50 years old. Among other things, CMR houses research into plutonium and supports pit
production at Los Alamos. In considering the FY2008 budget, the House Appropriations
Committee stated, “Proceeding with the CMRR project as currently designed will strongly
prejudice any nuclear complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no coherent mission
to justify it unless the decision is made to begin an aggressive new nuclear warhead design and
pit production mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory.” The Senate Appropriations
Committee stated, “The current authorization basis for the existing CMR [facility] lasts only
through 2010, as it does not provide adequate worker safety or containment precautions.
However, deep spending cuts ... will likely result in delays that will require the laboratory to
continue operations in the existing CMR facility.”
In its FY2009 report, the House Appropriations Committee stated, regarding CMRR and another
facility at Los Alamos (the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility), “In the absence of
critical decisions on the nature and size of the stockpile, which in turn generate requirements for
the nature and capacity of the nuclear weapons complex, it is impossible to determine the
capacity required of either of these facilities. It would be imprudent to design and construct on the
basis of a guess at their required capacity.” It recommended no funds for either project. The
Congressional Research Service
39
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $125.0 million, an increase of $24.8 million, for
CMRR “to make up for [previous] funding shortfalls.”
As justification for the increase requested for CMRR for FY2011, NNSA states that capabilities at
the CMR “are currently substantially restricted,” precluding the level of operations NNSA
requires. Others counter that another building at Los Alamos, Plutonium Facility 4 (PF-4), could
be modified to conduct some of the work that would be done in CMRR, and that CMRR’s
capacity is excessive to needs. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested
amount.
Other Programs
Weapons Activities includes several smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, and
RTBF. Among them:
•
Secure Transportation Asset provides for safe and secure transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials. It includes special vehicles for this purpose,
communications and other supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The
FY2010 appropriation was $234.9 million. The FY2011 request was $248.0
million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested
amount.
•
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response “responds to and mitigates nuclear
and radiological incidents worldwide and has a lead role in defending the Nation
from the threat of nuclear terrorism.” The FY2010 appropriation was $221.9
million. The FY2011 request was $233.1 million; the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the requested amount.
•
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) “continues its
mission to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear
security enterprise.” It focuses on “elimination of legacy deferred maintenance.”
The FY2010 appropriation was $93.9 million. The FY2011 request was $94.0
million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested
amount.
•
Site Stewardship seeks to “ensure environmental compliance and energy and
operational efficiency throughout the nuclear security enterprise.” It was a new
program for FY2010, consolidating several earlier programs. The FY2010
request was $90.4 million. The House Appropriations Committee said it
supported the program but made a reduction due to “budget limitations.” The
House bill included $62.4 million. The Senate bill included $61.3 million and
denied funding for the stewardship planning initiative because “the mission
priorities are poorly defined.” The FY2010 appropriation was $61.3 million. The
FY2011 request was $105.5 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended reducing that amount by $5.0 million.
Safeguards and Security consists of two elements: (1) Defense Nuclear Security provides
operations, maintenance, and construction funds for protective forces, physical security systems,
personnel security, and the like. The FY2010 appropriation was $769.0 million; the FY2011
request was $720.0 million. According to NNSA, the bulk of the reduction, $38.8 million, is due
to “efficiencies achieved through risk-informed decisions regarding staffing levels to support the
enterprise mission, and common procurement of equipment and supplies.” The Senate
Congressional Research Service
40
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Appropriations Committee recommended $668.0, as requested, for Defense Nuclear Security
operations and maintenance, but recommended reducing the amount requested for construction by
$9.0 million to $43.0 million on grounds that the amount required for the project in question,
safeguards and security upgrades, will depend on the size of the CMRR project’s nuclear facility.
(2) Cyber Security seeks to “ensure that sufficient information technology and information
management security safeguards are implemented throughout the NNSA enterprise to adequately
protect the NNSA information assets.” The FY2010 appropriation was $122.5 million. The
FY2011 request was $124.3 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
requested amount.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
nonproliferation and national security programs are included in the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
$317.3
$351.6
Nonproliferation and International Securitya
187.2
155.9
International Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting (MPC&A)
572.1
590.1
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
Production
24.5
—
Fissile Materials Dispositionb
701.9
1,030.7
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
333.5
558.8
0.3
—
2,136.7
2,687.2
Program
Cong. Dir. Projects
Total
P.L. 112-10
2,318.7
Sources: FY2011 budget request, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
table, S.Rept. 111-228.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a.
Includes funding for two formerly separate programs: Russian Transition Initiatives and HEU Transparency
Implementation.
b.
Funding for MOX plant was transferred to Nuclear Energy, and Pit Disassembly plant to NNSA for FY2009.
The FY2010 budget returned the MOX project to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The FY2011 budget
request would return the Pit Disassembly plant to the Nonproliferation program.
Funding for these programs in FY2010 was $2.137 billion, up from $1.482 billion for FY2009.
Most of this increase resulted from returning two major construction projects, the Mixed-Oxide
(MOX) plant and the Waste Solidification Building, to the Fissile Materials Disposition program
from other parts of DOE. For FY2011 the Obama Administration asked for a further increase to
return another construction project, the Pit Disassembly plant, to the Fissile Materials Disposition
program. (See below.)
Congressional Research Service
41
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was funded at $317.3 million for FY2010.
The request for FY2011 was $351.6 million. Nonproliferation and International Security
programs include international safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. The
FY2011 request for these programs was $155.9 million, compared with $187.2 million
appropriated for FY2010.
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A), which is concerned with
reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, was
funded at $572.1 million in FY2010; the FY2011 request was $590.1 million. Elimination of
Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production is aimed at persuading Russia to shut down three nuclear
reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium and also supply power to several communities.
Two of the three reactors were shut down in 2008 and their power replaced by a refurbished
fossil-fueled facility. The third plutonium-producing reactor, scheduled to be shut down in
December 2010, will be replaced by construction of another fossil-fueled facility. The program
was funded at $24.5 million for FY2010; no further funding was requested for FY2011.
The goal of the Fissile Materials Disposition program is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons
plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power reactors, including construction of a
facility to convert the plutonium to “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC,
and a similar program in Russia. Funding for the U.S. side of the program was controversial for
several years, because of lack of progress on the program to dispose of Russian plutonium.
However, for FY2010 the Obama Administration requested and got a total of $701.9 million for
Fissile Materials Disposition, noting that “DOE and its Russian counterpart agency, Rosatom,
agreed on a financially and technically credible program to dispose of Russian surplus weapongrade plutonium in November 2007.” The program would rely on Russian fast reactors “operating
under certain nonproliferation restrictions,” according to the budget document. The FY2011
request was $1,030.7 million, to continue construction of the Savannah River project and also to
supply $100 million of a promised $400 million for research and development of a gas-turbine
modular helium reactor to be built in Russia under the plutonium disposal agreement.
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is aimed at converting research reactors around the world
from using highly enriched uranium, removing and disposing of excess nuclear materials, and
protecting nuclear materials from theft or sabotage. The FY2011 request for this program was
$558.8 million, compared to $333.5 million appropriated for FY2010.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Nuclear Energy
Research Facilities
In 1989, DOE established what is now the Office of Environmental Management to consolidate
the cleanup of former nuclear weapons production facilities. Cleanup includes the disposal of
large amounts of radioactive and other hazardous wastes, management and disposal of surplus
nuclear materials, remediation of soil and groundwater contamination, and decontamination and
decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities. The Office of Environmental Management
also administers the cleanup of federal civilian nuclear energy research laboratories.
Congressional Research Service
42
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Over 100 federal facilities33 across the United States were involved in the production of nuclear
weapons and nuclear energy research, encompassing 2 million acres combined. 34 Although
planned cleanup actions are complete at the vast majority of these facilities, DOE expects cleanup
to continue at the larger and more complex facilities for several years, even decades, especially at
facilities where large volumes of high-level radioactive wastes are stored and contamination is
more severe. As of the beginning of FY2010, the Office of Environmental Management
administered 18 facilities where cleanup was not yet complete. 35 DOE estimates that the
outstanding costs to complete cleanup at all of these remaining facilities could range between
$192.8 billion and $247.2 billion. 36
DOE expects that additional funds beyond these amounts may be needed at many facilities to
operate and maintain cleanup remedies once they are in place and to monitor contaminant levels
to ensure the effectiveness of the remedies over time. At sites where the cleanup remedies involve
the permanent containment of radioactive wastes, such long-term activities may need to be
continued indefinitely because of the lengthy periods of time required for radioactivity to decay to
acceptable levels set by applicable standards.
Some of the facilities historically administered under the Office of Environmental Management
have been transferred to other offices within DOE and to the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1997,
Congress directed the Office of Environmental Management to transfer responsibility for the
cleanup of smaller, less contaminated facilities under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP) to the Corps.37 The cleanup of FUSRAP sites is funded within the
civil works budget of the Corps. (See Table 4 earlier in this report.) Once cleanup of a FUSRAP
site is complete, the Corps is responsible for activities that may be needed only for the first two
years after the initial cleanup work is completed. After that time, jurisdiction over the site is
transferred back to DOE. The Department’s Office of Legacy Management administers any longterm operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities that may be needed at FUSRAP sites, and
at facilities cleaned up under the Office of Environmental Management. Funding for both of these
offices are discussed below.
Office of Environmental Management
Three appropriations accounts fund the Office of Environmental Management: Defense
Environmental Cleanup, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund. The Defense Environmental Cleanup
Account constitutes the vast majority of the funding for the Office of Environmental
Management. For these three accounts combined, P.L. 112-10 included a total of $5.69 billion for
33
The term “facility” in the context of cleanup refers not only to buildings and structures, but also to the land, including
contamination in the soil, groundwater, and surface water, and contamination that migrates beyond a facility.
34
For a geographic listing of each facility and its cleanup status, see DOE’s Office of Environmental Management
website at http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/SitesLocations.aspx?PAGEID=MAIN.
35
Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2011 Congressional Budget Request, February 2010,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 37. The Office of Environmental Management administers one additional
facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. This facility is not a cleanup site, but is a permanent, geologic
repository for “transuranic” wastes that are removed from other DOE facilities as part of their cleanup. DOE estimates
that operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will be complete sometime between 2035 and 2039.
36
Ibid., p. 71.
37
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-62) directed DOE to transfer certain
smaller, less contaminated facilities to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Research Service
43
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
DOE’s Office of Environmental Management in FY2011. The enacted amount is a $358 million
decrease below the President’s request of $6.05 billion, and a $319 million decrease below the
FY2010 enacted appropriation of $6.01 billion. Table 14 presents a breakout of the FY2011
enacted appropriations for each of the three accounts that fund DOE’s Office of Environmental
Management. The table also provides a comparison to the President’s FY2011 request and the
FY2010 enacted appropriations for each account.
In addition to enacting appropriations for FY2011, P.L. 112-10 also rescinded a total of $22.7
million in unobligated balances of funds appropriated in previous fiscal years for the three
accounts that fund DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. The $22.7 million rescission in
unobligated balances includes $11.9 million from the Defense Environmental Cleanup account,
$9.9 million from the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account, and $900,000 from the NonDefense Environmental Cleanup account.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management
($ millions)
Accounts
FY2010
Enacteda
Defense Environmental Cleanup
FY2011
Requestb
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10c
5,642.3
5,588.0
4,991.6
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanupd
254.7
225.2
224.3
Uranium Enrichment D&D Funde
573.9
730.5
507.0
Offset for the Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment
D&D Fund from Defense Environmental Cleanup
-463.0
-496.7
-33.6
6,007.9
6,047.0
5,689.3
Total Office of Environmental Management
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
a.
FY2010 enacted amounts are from the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-278), p. 145, p. 152-154.
b.
FY2011 requested amounts are from the Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2011
Congressional Budget Request, February 2010, Volume 5, Environmental Management, pp. 7-9.
c.
FY2011 enacted amounts are as specified in P.L. 112-10, and adjusted by CRS to reflect the 0.2% across-theboard rescission to all accounts as required in Section 1119 of the law, and other reductions to accounts as
required in Section 1482, resulting from a contractor pay freeze.
d.
As authorized in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010
(P.L. 111-85), the FY2010 enacted amount for the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account includes
$10 million in previously appropriated funds transferred from DOE’s Office of the Administrator, which
DOE allocated to the cleanup of “small” sites funded within the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
account.
e.
The President requested $730.5 million in appropriations from the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund in
FY2011, and estimated $200 million in offsetting receipts to the fund from his proposed reinstatement of
nuclear utility assessments that expired in 2007. The reinstatement of the nuclear utility assessments would
be subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation.
High-Level Radioactive Waste Facilities
The pace of cleanup has been of particular concern at DOE’s largest nuclear weapons production
facilities, where high-level radioactive wastes are stored. These facilities include Hanford in the
State of Washington, the “Savannah River” Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National
Congressional Research Service
44
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
Laboratory. These facilities present some of the most complex cleanup challenges resulting from
decades of nuclear weapons production, and therefore present the greatest overall funding needs
among the facilities administered by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. In recent
years, funding for these three facilities combined has represented over one-half of the total
funding for the Office of Environmental Management.
Funding needs at these three facilities are expected to continue for decades. DOE estimates that
cleanup may not be complete at Hanford until as late as 2062, at the Savannah River Site until
2040, and at the Idaho National Laboratory until 2044.38 These lengthy horizons in part are due to
the time that is expected to be needed to treat and dispose of the substantial volumes of high-level
radioactive wastes stored at these sites. According to a DOE estimate in 2009, there are 54 million
gallons of high-level wastes stored in 177 tanks at Hanford, 33 million gallons in 49 tanks at the
Savannah River Site, and nearly 1 million gallons in 4 tanks at the Idaho National Laboratory.39
These high-level wastes are intended to be permanently disposed of in a geologic repository, but
the removal and treatment of the wastes to prepare them for disposal presents many technical
difficulties. The lack of availability of a geologic repository presents other challenges. Delays in
the construction of waste treatment facilities have raised concern about environmental risks from
the potential release of untreated wastes still stored in the tanks. Some of the tanks at Hanford are
known or suspected to have leaked wastes into groundwater that discharges into the Columbia
River. DOE routinely monitors water quality in the Columbia River to determine whether
contaminants are at acceptable levels set by federal and state standards.
Uranium Enrichment Facilities
There also has been rising interest in the source of funding for the cleanup of three uranium
enrichment facilities administered by the Office of Environmental Management. These facilities
enriched uranium both for national defense purposes and for the generation of electricity by
commercial nuclear utilities. These three facilities are located at Paducah, KY; Portsmouth, OH;
and Oak Ridge, TN. Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) established the
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund to pay for the cleanup of these facilities, and to reimburse
uranium and thorium licensees for their costs of cleaning up sites that supported the enrichment
facilities.40 To finance this fund, Congress originally authorized the collection of special
assessments from nuclear utilities based on the portion of enrichment services each utility
purchased from the federal government.41 Congress also authorized payments by the federal
government to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund out of the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury,
subject to annual appropriations. 42
The original requirement for both the federal government, and the nuclear utilities that purchased
enrichment services, to contribute to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund was based on the
38
Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2011 Congressional Budget Request, February 2010,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 37.
39
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Report to Congress: Status of Environmental
Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the
Cold War, January 2009, p. 23-24.
40
42 U.S.C. § 2297g.
41
42 U.S.C. § 2297g-1(c).
42
42 U.S.C. § 2297g-1(d).
Congressional Research Service
45
Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations
premise that both the United States and the nuclear utilities benefitted from the production of
enriched uranium and therefore should share in the liability for cleanup of facilities involved in
these activities. The authority to collect the utility assessments, and the authorization of
appropriations for the federal payment, expired on October 24, 2007. Since that time, Congress
has continued federal payments to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund through the annual
appropriations process, without enacting separate reauthorizing legislation.
Whether to reauthorize the utility assessments and the federal payment has been an issue, as the
balance of the fund does not appear sufficient to pay the estimated costs to complete the cleanup
of the federal uranium enrichment facilities in the future. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reported that $4.5 billion remained available in the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund for
appropriation by Congress, as of the beginning of FY2010.43 However, this amount is far less
than DOE’s estimated range of $13.9 billion to $27.7 billion to meet all outstanding cleanup
needs over the long-term.44
The President proposed to reinstate the nuclear utility assessments as part of his FY2011 budget
request to increase the resources available for cleanup.45 Based on this proposal, OMB estimated
$200 million in assessments in FY2011, and a total of $2.2 billion over the 10-year period from
FY2011 through FY2020.46 The authority for the federal government to resume collection of the
assessments is subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation by Congress. In the 111th
Congress, at least two bills were introduced, but not enacted, to reauthorize the nuclear utility
assessments, H.R. 2471 and S. 1061. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee
questioned the current need for the reinstatement of the assessments in its report on S. 3635,
considering t
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.