# Energy and Water Development: FY2011 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41150 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** May 11, 2011 - **Citation:** R41150 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41150. Public record. Not legal advice.