Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Congressional research reportFeb 6, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Energy and Water Development:

FY2012 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Energy Policy

February 6, 2012

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41908

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 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.

President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in

February 2011, but the Congress was concerned for the first months of the year with completing

the appropriations cycle for FY2011. 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. 112-10) that became law April 15, 2011.

For FY2012 the level of overall spending was a major issue. In addition, issues specific to Energy

and Water Development programs included:

•

the proposal to offset additional emergency supplemental funding for the Corps,

for flood-related expenditures in the Midwest and elsewhere, with cuts in other

programs;

•

the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II)

projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above

Administration requests;

•

alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste

Disposal); and

•

large differences in funding proposals for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (EERE) programs (Title III).

On June 2, 2011, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

approved a FY2012 bill that would appropriate $30.6 billion for these programs, compared to the

Administration’s request of $36.5 billion. The full Appropriations Committee voted out the bill

(H.R. 2354) June 15. The bill passed the House July 15 by a vote of 219-196. On September 7 the

Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version of H.R. 2354 (S.Rept. 112-75).

On October 4 the House agreed to a Senate-passed version of H.R. 2608, the Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2012, funding government programs at the FY2011 level through November

18. The bill earlier had emergency funding for the Corps and for the Federal Energy Management

Administration (FEMA), but that was deleted when agreement could not be reached over whether

funding should be offset.

After several more short-term continuing resolutions, the House on December 16 and Senate on

December 17 passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74),

including Energy and Water Development Programs in Division B. Emergency funding for the

Corps was included, without offsets, in a stand-alone bill (H.R. 3672, P.L. 112-77) that passed on

the same days.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1

Status................................................................................................................................................ 1

Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Title I: Army Corps of Engineers..................................................................................................... 3

An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects.................................................................... 3

Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers.................................................................................... 5

Emergency Supplemental Funding ..................................................................................... 5

New Starts and Authorized Project Backlog ....................................................................... 5

Trust Funds.......................................................................................................................... 6

Asian Carp........................................................................................................................... 7

Everglades ........................................................................................................................... 8

Other Reductions: Continuing Authorities Programs, Low-Use Navigation ...................... 8

Title II: Department of the Interior .................................................................................................. 9

Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation...................................................................... 9

Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation............................................................................ 11

Background ....................................................................................................................... 11

Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations.......................................................................... 11

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund................................................................................. 12

WaterSMART Program ..................................................................................................... 12

Title III: Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 13

Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy............................................................................. 15

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) .......................................................... 15

Nuclear Energy.................................................................................................................. 26

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................ 31

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 32

Science .............................................................................................................................. 34

ARPA-E............................................................................................................................. 36

Nuclear Waste Disposal..................................................................................................... 37

Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 38

Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship .......................................................................... 42

Nonproliferation and National Security Programs............................................................ 54

Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian Nuclear

Energy Research Facilities............................................................................................. 55

Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 66

Title IV: Independent Agencies...................................................................................................... 67

Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies ............................................................................. 68

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................... 68

Tables

Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2012.................................. 1

Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2012 .............................. 2

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ............................................... 2

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

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 ................................................................................................................... 10

Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation........... 10

Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy........... 13

Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 16

Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D) ....................................... 32

Table 10. Science ........................................................................................................................... 34

Table 11. Funding for Weapons Activities ..................................................................................... 43

Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program ............................................................. 43

Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........................................................ 54

Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management ...................................... 59

Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies......... 68

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 70

Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 70

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in

February 2011, but Congress was concerned for the first months of the year with completing the

appropriations cycle for FY2011. A continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year, P.L. 11210, was signed by the President April 15, 2011.

On June 2, 2011, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

approved a bill that would have appropriated $30.634 billion for these programs, compared to the

$36.505 billion in the President’s request. The full House Appropriations Committee voted the

bill out June 15 (H.R. 2354). After considering numerous amendments and adopting 32, the

House passed the bill July 15 by a vote of 219-196. On September 7 the Senate Appropriations

Committee reported out its version of H.R. 2354 (S.Rept. 112-75), funding the programs at

$31.626 billion.

On October 4 the House agreed to a Senate-passed version of H.R. 2608, the Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2012, funding government programs at the FY2011 level through November

18. The bill earlier had emergency funding for the Corps and the Federal Energy Management

Administration (FEMA), but that was deleted when agreement could not be reached over whether

funding should be offset. The issue of offsets emerged again in consideration of H.R. 2354, in

which the House bill offset emergency Corps funding and the Senate bill did not.

After several more short-term continuing resolutions, the House on December 16 and Senate on

December 17 passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74),

including $32.010 billion for Energy and Water Development Programs in Division B.

Emergency funding of $1.724 billion for the Corps was included, without offsets, in a stand-alone

bill (H.R. 3672, P.L. 112-77) that passed on the same days.

Status

Table 1 indicates the status of the FY2012 funding legislation.

Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2012

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

6/2/11

9/6/11

Final Approval

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

H.Rept.

112-118

7/15/11

S.Rept.

112-75

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

H.Rept.

112-331

House

Senate

12/16/11

12/17/11

Public

Law

P.L.

112-74

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)

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

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

FY2005 to FY2012.

Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,

FY2005 to FY2012

(budget authority in billions of current dollars)

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012a

30.2

36.7b

29.4

30.9

40.5c

33.4

31.7

33.7

Source: Compiled by CRS.

Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.

Includes P.L. 112-74 and $1.7 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers (P.L. 112-77).

Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.

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

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

P.L. 112-74

Title I: Corps of Engineers

$4,857.2

$4,573.0

$4,762.7

$4,864.0

$5002.0

Title II: CUP & Reclamation

1,094.5

1,051.4

934.0

1,067.4

1,076.4

Title III: Department of Energy

25,591.2

30,683.8

24,732.0

25,549.0

25,784.1

Title IV: Independent Agencies

247.0

267.6

276.6

240.6

254.5

31,790.0

36,575.8

30,705.4

31,721.0

32,081.0

-107.9

-71.0

-95.0

-71.0

31,682.0

36,504.8

30,634.4

31,626.0

32,010.0

E&W Subtotal

Scorekeeping Adjustments

E&W Total

Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as amended, S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-74.

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

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

FY2011-FY2012. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the

major programs in the four titles. For the Department of Energy, P.L. 112-10 did not spell out

detailed funding for many subprograms for FY2011. However, the House report for the FY2012

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

bill, H.R. 2354, did give funding levels for FY2011, and that report is the source for the detailed

discussion of programs in Title III.

Title I: Army Corps of Engineers

The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding for the civil program of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, an agency in the Department of Defense with both military and civilian

responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a

wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts congressional attention because its

projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and environmental effects, in

addition to their water resource development purposes.

A number of recent changes have affected Corps appropriations, including earmark moratoriums

in both houses in the 112th Congress, reductions in funding from previous years, and the

drawdown of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and other

supplemental funding. Additionally, flooding events in the spring and summer of 2011 on the

Mississippi and Missouri rivers and in other areas may strain the financial resources of the Corps.

In most years, the President’s budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is below the

agency’s final appropriation.1 Enacted appropriations for FY2011 continued this trend. In contrast

to the reductions enacted for most other agencies, the Corps received an increase in total funding

compared to the President’s request. Before accounting for rescissions of prior year funds, the

FY2011 appropriation for the Corps was $5.055 billion, or $174 million more than the President’s

request.2

The FY2012 President’s request again proposed reductions from the amount enacted by Congress

in the previous fiscal year. The President’s budget requested $4.573 billion for the Corps, a

significant decrease from the FY2011 enacted level. The House-passed bill included $4.763

billion for the Corps, an increase of $189 million from the President’s budget. The House also

recommended an additional $1.029 billion in emergency supplemental funding for emergency

flood-fighting activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $4.864 billion for

the Corps, and an additional $1.044 billion in emergency supplemental funding. The final enacted

bill provided $5.002 billion, and a separate bill (P.L. 112-77) provided an additional $1.724

billion in supplemental funding.

An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects

Corps funding is often a part of the debate on congressionally directed spending, or “earmarks.”

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 consideration of the agency’s appropriations. Site-specific Corps project line

For instance, in FY2010, the Administration requested $5.1 billion and Congress appropriated $5.44 billion.

As shown in Table 4, FY2011 included $198 million in rescissions of prior year appropriations in the Construction

and MR&T accounts.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

items added by Congress are typically subject to House and Senate chamber rules on earmark

disclosure.3 Absent specific direction from Congress, the Executive Branch may determine

project-level allocations internally.

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title I: Army Corps of Engineers

($ millions)

FY2010

Approp.

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

Senate

P.L. 11274

Investigations and

Planning

$160.0

$126.7

$104.0

$125.0

Construction

2,031.0

1,613.8

1,480.0

1,614.1

1,610.0

1,694.0

-176.0

-50.0

340.0

241.9

210.0

250.0

252.0

-22.0

-58.0

2,400.0

2,365.8

2,314.0

2,369.0

2,360.0

2,412.0

Regulatory

190.0

189.6

196.0

193.0

General Expenses

185.0

184.6

185.0

178.6

185.0

FUSRAPa

134.0

129.7

109.0

Flood Control & Coastal

Emergencies (FC&CE)

27.0

Office of the Asst.

Secretary of the Army

5.0

6.0

5.0

5,445.0

4,857.2

4,573.0

4,762.7b

4,864.0b

5,002.0

1,028.7c

1,044d

1,724e

Program

Rescission

Mississippi River &

Tributaries (MR&T)

Rescission

Operation and

Maintenance (O&M)

Total Title I

Emergency Supplemental

House

Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118 and H.R. 2354, as passed by the House, S.Rept. 112-75,

H.Rept. 112-331.

Notes: Annual totals (including FY2011) include rescissions of prior year funds.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.

Does not include Emergency Supplemental funding available for obligation.

The House included emergency supplemental funding for the Corps under a separate title (Title V) in the

following accounts: Construction ($376,000); O&M ($204.9 million); FC&CE ($233.8 million); and MR&T

($589.5 million). These funds were made available through a transfer of Department of Transportation

funds for high speed rail projects that was originally provided under Title XII of P.L. 111-5.

The Senate bill included emergency supplemental funding for the Corps under Title VI: MR&T ($890

million), O&M ($88 million), and FC&CE ($66 million).

While earmarks make up a relatively small percentage of most agency budgets, a significant number of Corps projects

have historically received additional funding from Congress for operational expenditures.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Emergency funding was not included in P.L. 112-74. A stand-alone bill, H.R. 3672 (P.L. 112-77) included

emergency supplemental funding for the Corps without offsets: MR&T ($802 million), O&M ($534 million)

and FC&CE ($388 million).

Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers

Emergency Supplemental Funding

In the spring and summer of 2011, major flooding events on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers

and their tributaries has resulted in increased Corps flood-fighting activities and expenditures. To

date, the Corps has paid for these activities through the transfer of funds from existing FY2011

projects. However, new flood-fighting activities, including repair of damaged flood control

infrastructure (i.e., levees), are likely to result in more expenditures and increased financial stress

on the Corps. Without additional appropriations from Congress, the Corps would fund these

activities with additional transfers from ongoing projects.

The House-passed bill included $1.029 billion in emergency supplemental funding to the Corps

for flood fighting activities.4 This funding was provided by the House as a transfer of high speed

rail funding previously made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.

111-5). In its markup of H.R. 2354, the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $1.044 billion

in additional funding to the Corps for disaster relief. However, unlike the House, the Senate did

not provide this funding through a transfer of prior appropriations. The issue of offsetting

emergency appropriations with cuts in other programs caused intense debate over passage of a

continuing resolution (H.R. 2608) to keep the government funded as FY2012 began. While

Congress did not provide supplemental funding for the Corps in the final enacted bill, it passed a

separate bill, H.R. 3672 (P.L. 112-77) that provided $1.724 billion in funding, with no offsets.

New Starts and Authorized Project Backlog

Funding for “new starts” (i.e., projects that have been authorized but not funded) receives

attention from Congress because of the large number of authorized Corps projects that have not

received appropriations to date (sometimes referred to as the “backlog” of authorized projects).

Estimates of the backlog 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.5

The Administration’s FY2012 budget requested limited funding for new construction and

investigation starts. That is, the majority of projects included in the Corps FY2012 request were

ongoing projects. For FY2012, the Administration requested $11 million in funding for two new

H.R. 2354, Title V. See Table 4 above for account allocations of this funding.

For more information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization

and Appropriations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

construction starts, and $550,000 in funding for four new studies. The House provided no funding

for new starts.6 Likewise, the final enacted bill provided no such funding.

Trust Funds

In addition to regular appropriations, two congressionally authorized “trust funds” are

administered by the Corps and require annual appropriations: the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Both trust funds received attention in the FY2012

appropriations process. While the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has a surplus balance, the

Inland Waterway Trust Fund currently faces a shortfall and potential curtailments of activities.

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to recover operation and

maintenance (O&M) costs at U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors from maritime shippers. O&M

is mostly the dredging of harbor channels to their authorized depths and widths. The tax is levied

on importers and domestic shippers using coastal or Great Lakes ports.7 The tax revenues are

deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from which Congress appropriates

funds for harbor dredging.

In 1990, Congress increased the HMT rate from four cents per $100 of cargo value to 12.5 cents

per $100 of cargo value, one of many tax increases in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

(P.L. 101-508) designed to lower the federal deficit at that time. In recent years, HMTF annual

expenditures have remained relatively flat while HMT collections have increased due to rising

import volume (except in 2009 when collections declined along with import volume).

Consequently, a large “surplus” in the HMTF has developed. The maritime industry seeks to

enact a “spending guarantee” to spend down the surplus in the HMTF. Some harbor channels are

reportedly not being maintained at their authorized depth and width, requiring ships with the

deepest drafts to “light load” or wait for high tide. Harbors primarily used by fishing vessels or

recreational craft have also complained of insufficient maintenance dredging. Since spending

from the HMTF requires an appropriation from Congress, spending more from the HMTF could

reduce available funding for other Energy and Water Development activities under congressional

budget caps.

The Administration’s FY2012 budget requested $789 million from the HMTF, leaving an

estimated-end-of-FY2012 balance of $6,928 million.8 (For more information on harbor

maintenance, see CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by (name

redacted).)

The House Appropriations Committee noted that it defines “new starts” differently than the Administration. While the

Administration seems to define this term as any project which was not included in a previous President’s budget

request, the committee defines it as any project which has not previously received funding in enacted appropriations.

An estimate by the Corps is that improved collection from domestic shippers could increase annual receipts by $500

million.

The Administration estimates FY2012 HMT collections to total $1,514 million.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Inland Waterway Trust Fund

Since the 1980s, expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation projects on inland

waterways have been cost-shared on a 50/50 basis between the federal government and users

through the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF). IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax imposed

on vessels engaged in commercial transportation on designated waterways, plus investment

interest on the balance.9 The IWTF currently has a balance of less than $100 million, and needed

funding for eligible work exceeds available funding.

In FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations, as well as the ARRA (P.L. 111-5), Congress provided

additional federal funding compared to previous years for new projects and to temporarily ensure

solvency of the IWTF.10 Due to the drawdown of this funding and the lack of new or increased

revenues, FY2011 appropriations for inland waterway projects were limited to amounts available

with expected current-year fuel tax revenues. In FY2012, the Administration once again requested

that appropriations for inland waterway projects be limited to current-year fuel tax revenues.11

Without a new source of revenue or some other change directed by Congress, the overall number

of inland waterway projects is expected to be limited in FY2012.12 Previously the Administration

submitted a legislative proposal to replace the current fuel tax with a lock user fee that would

have increased user-generated revenues. This proposal was widely criticized by Congress and not

enacted. More recently, in 2010 user groups proposed changes that would result in an overall

increase for inland waterway funding, including an increase to the federal share of inland

waterway projects. Congress has not acted on this proposal. (For more information on inland

waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for

Congress, by (name redacted).)

Asian Carp

In recent years, the Corps has taken on a prominent role in efforts to prevent the Asian carp from

encroaching on the Great Lakes through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC). Along

with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Corps is a lead agency in Asian carp monitoring and prevention efforts.

The President’s FY2012 budget included $27 million in funding for the Corps to combat Asian

carp, an increase of approximately $4 million over the enacted level for FY2011. This amount

includes $24 million to construct and operate two electronic barriers on the CSSC and $3 million

for a major study (known as the GLMRIS study) evaluating the long-term options for permanent

separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River drainage basins. Under the current timeline,

Pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), the fuel tax has been fixed at $0.20 per

gallon since 1992.

Pursuant to language in these bills, 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. The effect of

these provisions and the additional federal funding under ARRA has been to generally slow down the drop in IWTF

balances.

Assuming annual fuel tax revenues of approximately $80 million, overall spending on inland waterways construction

for FY2011 and FY2012 would be approximately $160 million for each year (or approximately $90 million less than

the average funding provided from FY1992-2010).

According to the Corps, the only project scheduled to receive construction funds through FY2015 under the current

baseline is Olmstead Lock & Dam on the Ohio River.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

the remaining cost for the study after FY2012 would be $17.8 million, and the first part of this

study is expected to be complete by FY2015. Some groups contend that this is not fast enough,

and that the Corps should further expedite the study, which would require additional funding. The

final appropriations bill did not specifically mention the Asian carp program. (For more

information on Asian Carp prevention efforts, see CRS Report R41082, Asian Carp and the Great

Lakes Region, by (name redacted) et al.)

Everglades

The Energy and Water bill typically includes funding for restoration of the Everglades in South

Florida, including the Corps component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program,

or CERP.13 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. As a result of recent reductions in state funding levels for Everglades

restoration, federal funding for Everglades restoration may receive additional scrutiny in coming

years.

The FY2012 Obama Administration request for the Corps’ component of south Florida

Everglades restoration work was $163 million. The House-passed bill reduced funding for the

Corps component of Everglades restoration by $32 million. In its report, the Committee noted

that while it supports funding for Everglades restoration, it did not believe the requested funding

was equitable compared to the larger Corps budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee did

not include this reduction, and the final enacted bill funded the original request of $163 million.

Other Reductions: Continuing Authorities Programs, Low-Use Navigation

Projects funded under the Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs) are typically smaller

projects that can be carried out without obtaining a project-specific study or construction

authorization or project-specific appropriations.14 CAPs are typically referred to by the section

number in the bill where the CAP was first authorized. The Administration’s FY2012 budget

requested no funding for four of the nine CAPs, including Section 14 (emergency streambank and

shoreline protection), Section 103 (shore protection), Section 107 (navigation), and Section 208

(snagging and clearing for flood control). Additionally, the Administration proposed to reprogram

$23 million in prior-year carry over from these same four programs to fund four of the remaining

five CAPs that are to be continued. The House-passed bill agreed to these reductions, but the

Senate bill provided limited funding for several CAPs. The final enacted bill did not agree to the

Administration’s request, and provided more than $43 million for the CAPs (specifying the

amounts by section).

The Administration’s FY2012 request also included reductions in several other categories,

including a $76 million (45%) reduction for operations and maintenance of navigation projects

with low commercial usage. Combined with reductions to other accounts (e.g., Construction),

these policies would result in significantly less funding for a number of projects in FY2012 than

For more information, see CRS Report R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation

Progress, by (name redacted).

A summary of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program is provided on p. 11 of CRS Report R41243, Army

Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations, by (name redacted) and (name redac

ted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

has been appropriated in prior years. In the past, many of these reductions have been restored by

earmarks.

The House-passed bill included an addition of $133 million for the O&M account for “additional”

unspecified projects in two areas: navigation ($123 million) and flood and storm damage

reduction ($10 million). Similarly, the Senate Appropriations Committee included an additional

$149 million for several categories of “ongoing work” within the O&M account, including small

or remote harbors and inland navigation channel maintenance. Within the Construction account,

the House provided an additional $242 million for additional navigation projects, while the

Senate providing $189 million for such projects.15 Similarly, the final enacted bill included

funding for most of these categories, with instructions for the Corps to report back to Congress

with a Work Plan describing funding amounts at the project level within 45 days of enactment.

Title II: Department of the Interior

Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation

The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for the Central Utah Project (CUP) and

the Bureau of Reclamation, both part of the Department of the Interior. The total discretionary

budget request for Title II funding for the Central Utah Project and Reclamation was

approximately $1.051 billion, or a decrease of $45 million from the FY2011 enacted amount. The

Obama Administration requested $33 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion

Account in FY2012, or $1 million more than the amount appropriated under the long-term

continuing resolution for FY2011 and $9 million less than the 2010 enacted level. The FY2012

request for the Bureau of Reclamation totaled $1.018 billion in gross current budget authority.

This amount was $44 million less than the enacted amount for FY2011. The FY2012 request for

the Bureau of Reclamation included an “offset” of $52.8 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 $965.6 million. As in previous years, additional funding is estimated to

be available for FY2012 via “permanent and other” funds.

The House provided its funding under a single line (e.g., “Additional Navigation”) while the Senate provided its

funding for several more specific areas of a larger category, “Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.”

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account

($ millions)

FY2010

Approp.

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

P.L.

112-74

$38.8

n/a

$29.4

$25.2

$25.4

$25.2

Mitigation and Conservation

Commission Activities

1.5

n/a

2.0

DOI Oversight and

Administration

1.7

n/a

1.6

DOI Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Projects

n/a

Total, Central Utah

Project

42.0

32.0

32.9

28.7

29.0

28.7

Program

Central Utah Water

Conservancy District

Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-331.

Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Bureau of Reclamation

($ millions)

FY2010

Approp.

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

P.L.

112-74

$951.2

$911.7

$805.2

$822.3

$885.7

$895.0

Policy and Administration

61.2

61.1

60.0

CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)

35.4

49.9

53.1

Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)

40.0

39.9

39.7

35.9

39.7

San Joaquin Restoration Fund

—

9.0

-66.0

––

Indian Water Rights Settlement

—

51.5

—

––

Gross Current Reclamation

Authority

1,087.0

1,062.6

1,018.4

905.3

1,038.4

1,047.7

Total, Title II (CUP and

Reclamation)

1,129.7

1,094.5

1,051.4

934.0

1,067.4

1,076.4

Program

Water and Related Resources

Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-331.

Notes: Consistent with prior enacted appropriations, the House provided funding for the proposed Indian

Water Rights Settlement account within the Water and Related Resources account.

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 $805.2

million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2012, a reduction from FY2011 of

$106.5 million or approximately 12%. The House-passed bill recommended $822 million for this

account. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $885 million. The final enacted

bill included $895 million.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 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.” Also similar to the Corps, previously Reclamation

projects have often been subject to earmark disclosure rules. Thus the current moratorium may

have a different effect on the Reclamation budgetary process compared to agencies that receive

most of their funds through programs.

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 attempts to prevent Reclamation from implementing Biological

Opinions (BiOps) which in some cases restrict CVP operations because of the project’s potential

effects on certain fish species.16 For example, in FY2011 appropriations, the House included a

provision prohibiting the use of any federal funds to implement the primary components of these

BiOps.17 A similar amendment was previously proposed during FY2010 appropriations.

Neither the FY2010 nor the FY2011 provisions preventing implementation of BiOps in the CVP

were enacted. However, other measures have been passed so as to lessen the impact of these

restrictions. For instance, the FY2010 enacted bill included an amendment providing for a twoyear 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).

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 delta smelt and salmon

and other endangered species in California. OCAP allowed increased pumping from the delta, which some believe has

further imperiled fish species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Others note that

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. In

the meantime, low water deliveries to certain water districts (e.g., those with junior water rights) are reportedly

exacerbating unemployment in an area with an economy already challenged by other stressors.

112th Congress, H.R. 1.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund

The San Joaquin River Restoration 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.18 The Fund is supported 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. Significant actions planned for

FY2012 include release of interim flows and continued planning and environmental compliance

for initial channel and structural improvements.

Funding for the San Joaquin River settlement has been controversial in the past. In FY2011

appropriations, the House-passed continuing resolution (H.R. 1) included a requirement that no

funding be available for implementation of some of the most important components of the

settlement agreement. This provision was not enacted. Recently legislation (H.R. 1837) was

introduced that would repeal some portions of the settlement.

For FY2012, Reclamation proposed an allocation of $9 million within a new account for

discretionary funds for San Joaquin River restoration activities, as well as $24 million in other

receipts into the restoration fund that are available for expenditure without further appropriation.

The House eliminated the requested funding for FY2012, and also proposed permanently

rescinding unobligated mandatory funds within this account, for a net savings of $66 million. The

Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration’s request of $9 million (plus

other mandatory funds), but did not provide the discretionary funding within a separate account.

The final enacted bill agreed with this recommendation.

WaterSMART Program

In recent years Reclamation has combined funding for several individual “bureau-wide”

programs into a single program—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 also includes work by the U.S. Geological

Survey. In the FY2012 request the WaterSMART program included four individual components:

WaterSMART Grants (formerly known as Challenge Grants), Basin Studies, Title XVI Projects,

and Water Conservation Field Services.19 Reclamation proposed $59 million, a net decrease of

approximately $10 million from the corresponding enacted levels for these programs in FY2011.

For individual program components of WaterSMART, Reclamation’s FY2012 request included

$18.5 million for WaterSMART/Challenge Grants (a decrease of $14.5 million from FY2011), $6

million for Basin Studies (same level as FY2011), $29 million for Title XVI Projects (increase of

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. 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).

Prior to FY2012, the Water Conservation Field Services program had been a “bureau-wide” program. For

consistency, comparisons to prior year funding in this report include this program within WaterSMART totals.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

$9 million from FY2011), and $5 million for Water Conservation Field Services (decrease of $2.7

million). The final enacted bill included $12 million for WaterSMART grants, $5 million for

Basin Studies, $25 million for Title XVI Projects, and $5 million for Water Conservation Field

Services.

Title III: Department of Energy

The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE’s programs since FY2005. Major

DOE activities 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, as well as programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve, and energy statistics.

The FY2011 appropriations act, P.L. 112-10, funded DOE programs at $25.6 billion. For FY2012,

the Obama Administration requested $30.7 billion for DOE programs. The House bill, H.R. 2354,

would have funded DOE at $24.7 billion. The Senate version of H.R. 2354 would have provided

$25.5 billion for DOE programs. The final bill, P.L. 112-74, appropriated $25.7 billion.

Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title III: Department of Energy

($ millions)

Program

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

P.L.

112-74

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy

$1,795.6

$3,200.1

$1,308.6

$1,795.6

$1,815.1

Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability

141.0

237.7

139.5

141.0

139.5

Nuclear Energy

725.8

754.0

733.6

583.8

768.7

Fossil Energy R&D

444.5

453.0

477.0

258.5

347.0

Clean Coal Technology

-16.5

––

Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves

20.9

14.9

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

123.1

121.7

192.7

––

-250.0

-500.0

Northeast Home Heating Oil

Reserve

11.0

10.1

Northeast Home Heating Oil

Reserve Sale

––

-100.0

Energy Information Administration

95.0

124.0

105.0

Non-Defense Environmental

Cleanup

223.5

219.1

254.1

219.1

235.7

Uranium D&D Fund

497.1

504.2

449.0

429.0

472.9

4,842.7

5,416.1

4,800.0

4,842.7

4,889.0

SPR Account

Science

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Program

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

P.L.

112-74

Energy Transformation Acceleration

Fund (ARPA-E)

179.6

550.0

179.6

250.0

275.0

Nuclear Waste Disposal

-2.8

0.0

25.0

0.0

Departmental Admin. (net)

48.7

128.7

-38.5

127.7

126.0

Office of Inspector General

42.8

41.8

42.0

Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan

10.0

6.0

Innovative Tech. Loan Guarantee

-0.3

1,060.0

160.0

200

0.0

Better Building Loan Guarantee for

Universities, Schools and Hospitals

––

105.0

0.0

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS

9,181.7

12,596.4

8,258.3

8,616.0

8,839.7

Weapons Activities

6,896.4

7,589.4

7,091.7

7,190.0

7,234.0

Nuclear Nonproliferation

2,273.7

2,519.5

2,091.8

2,383.3

2,303.3

Naval Reactors

959.2

1,153.7

1,030.6

1,100.0

1,080.0

Office of Administrator

393.3

450.1

400.0

404.0

410.0

Contractor Pay Freeze

––

-27.3

Total, NNSA

10,522.5

11,712.6

10,599.0

11,050.0

11,000.0

Defense Environmental Cleanup

4,979.7

5,406.8

4,937.6

5,002.3

5,023.0

785.0

860.0

814.0

819.0

823.4

0.0

16,287.3

17,979.3

16,365.7

16,871.3

16,846.4

Southeastern

0.0

Southwestern

13.1

11.9

Western

109.0

96.0

0.2

122.2

108.1

––

-46.4

-46.0

25,591.2

30,683.8

24,740.7

25,549.0

25,748.1

0.0

DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA)

Other Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

TOTAL, DEFENSE

ACTIVITIES

POWER MARKETING

ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)

Falcon & Amistad O&M

TOTAL, PMAs

Contractor Pay Freeze (nondefense)

Total,Title III

Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as passed, S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-331.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy

DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the

following pages, some of the most important programs are described and major issues are

identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

In President Obama’s February 2011 State of the Union address, he continued to stress his priority

for energy efficiency and clean energy:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a

level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a

few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest

in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology—an

investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs

for our people.

In that speech, the President also proposed the establishment of a Clean Energy Standard as a

complementary demand-side policy to stimulate a stable market for the supply of new clean

energy technologies.20 The President’s 2012 Economic Report further stressed the importance of

clean energy innovation and development to new industries, exports, and international

competitiveness.

FY2012 Request Overview and Comparison with FY2011 Appropriation

For FY2012, DOE requested $3,200.1 million for the EERE programs. Compared with the

FY2010 appropriation, the FY2012 request would have increased EERE funding by $957.6

million, or 42.7%. However, the final FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) reduced EERE

funding by $416.9 million (18.6%) relative to the FY2010 appropriation. So, compared with the

FY2011 appropriation, the FY2012 request would have increased EERE funding by $1,374.5

million, or 75.3%. That dollar amount was the largest single year increase ever requested for

EERE. Given the FY2011 reduction, and the concerns about the budget deficit, there was intense

debate over the FY2012 request for EERE. The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2354,

signaled the beginning of that debate by recommending EERE funding at $1,308 million (see

below).

DOE requested an additional $237.7 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

(EDER) programs. Relative to the FY2010 appropriation, that would have been an increase of

$65.7 million, or 38.2%. However, P.L. 112-10 set the FY2011 appropriation at $144.7 million.

Compared with the FY2011 appropriation, the FY2012 request would have provided an increase

of $93.0 million, or 64.2%. Such a large proposed increase was also controversial. Table 8 gives

the programmatic breakdown of the regular appropriations for EERE and EDER.

For more about the Clean Energy Standard, see CRS Report R41720, Clean Energy Standard: Design Elements,

State Baseline Compliance and Policy Considerations, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R41797,

Clean Energy

Standard: Potential Qualifying Energy Sources, coordinated by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs

($ millions)

Program

Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems

FY2010

Approp.

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

Conf.

$174.0

$98.0

$100.5

$91.5

$98.0

$104.0

182.7

340.5

180.0

200.0

220.0

150.0

Solar Energy

247.0

263.5

457.0

166.1

290.0

—Concentrating Solar Power

(CSP)

49.7

—-

50.0

—-

—Photovoltaic (PV) Power

128.5

—-

380.0

—-

Wind Energy

80.0

126.9

76.0

80.0

93.6

Geothermal Technology

44.0

38.0

101.5

38.0

34.0

38.0

Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)

50.0

30.0

38.5

50.0

34.0

59.0

Subtotal, Renew. and

Hydrogen

815.0

692.2

1,164.8

571.6

716.0

680.6

Vehicle Technologies

311.4

300.0

588.0

254.0

318.8

330.0

Building Technologies

222.0

210.5

470.7

150.0

210.5

220.0

Industrial Technologies

96.0

108.2

319.8

96.0

116.0

Federal Energy Management

32.0

30.4

33.1

30.0

Subtotal, Efficiency R&D

661.4

649.1

1,411.6

530.0

655.3

696.0

Facilities and Infrastructure

19.0

51.0

26.4

Program Management

185.0

170.0

176.6

110.0

165.0

Strategic Programs

—-

32.0

53.2

19.0

25.0

1,680.4

1,594.3

2,832.6

1,263.0

1,587.7

1,697.0

Renewables Deployment

10.0

7.0

10.0

Subtotal, Demon. And

Deployment

10.0

7.0

10.0

Weatherization Grants

210.0

174.3

320.0

33.0

174.3

68.0

State Energy Grants

50.0

63.8

25.0

50.0

Efficiency Block Grants

0.0

Non-specific EERE RDD&D

0.0

Cong.-Directed Assistance

292.1

0.0

Rescission

—

-30.0

—

—-

—

Floor Amendments (nonspecific)

—

9.8

—

Prior Year Balances

0.0

-26.4

0.0

Rescission

0.0

-30.0

0.0

-9.9

R&D Subtotal

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Program

Total Appropriation

Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability (EDER)

FY2010

Approp.

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

House

Senate

Conf.

2,242.5

1,795.6

3,200.1

1,308.4a

1,795.6

1,815.1

172.0

141.0

237.7

139.5

141.0

139.5

Sources: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-331.

House floor amendments: H.Amdt. 608 cut $0.2 million, and H.Amdt. 658 added $10.0 million. In sum, floor

amendments increased EERE funding by $3.8 million over the committee recommendation.

Primarily to address major new initiatives, the FY2012 request proposed a large increase relative

to the FY2011 appropriation level for each of five program areas. In declining order of funding

amount, the largest program increases were proposed for Vehicles ($288.0 million), Buildings

($260.2 million), Industry ($211.5 million), Solar Energy ($193.5 million), and Biomass ($157.8

million).

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $1,304.6 million for EERE, which

was $1,895.4 million (59.2%) less than the FY2012 request. Compared with the request, the

committee recommended major cuts for nearly all program areas. It proposed the largest cuts for

the five programs that were proposed to be home to key DOE initiatives, as noted above: Vehicles

(-$334.0 million), Buildings (-$320.7 million), Industry (-$223.8 million), Solar Energy (-$290.9

million), and Biomass (-$190.5 million).The committee recommended an increase for only one

program—Water Power (+$11.5 million).

Relative to the FY2011 appropriation, the committee recommended a cut of $491.0 million

(27.3%). This total proposed EERE cut, and proposed cuts for key programs, were smaller than

the cuts measured relative to the request, but were still significant. Proposed cuts for the five

program areas with key DOE initiatives were: Vehicles (-$46.0 million), Buildings (-$60.5

million), Industry (-$12.2 million), Solar Energy (-$97.4 million), and Biomass (-$32.7 million).

House Appropriations Committee Concerns, Directives, and Funding

Recommendations

For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee report identified “major concerns” about

DOE’s “strategic direction,” putting a special focus on EERE programs. Acknowledging that the

nation “faces an unprecedented global race to lead tomorrow’s energy sector,” the committee

nevertheless contended that the DOE request sought “billions of dollars in additional ‘clean

energy’ research and development, [but] it provides little justification for these increases.” The

committee stated that it would apply strong oversight to ensure good DOE stewardship of public

funds and thereby assure “America’s innovation leadership.”

The committee found that DOE does not adequately follow congressional funding directions,

specifically:

The Committee is concerned that the Department engages in practices that contravene

congressional direction for these [annual] funding levels by regularly redirecting a

percentage of program budgets to other purposes ...The Department also frequently funds

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Presidential, Secretarial, and senior management initiatives by redirecting funds away from

purposes directed by the Congress ...The Committee is concerned with the Department’s lack

of transparency and respect for congressional direction, and the recommendation includes

language within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, where the problem

may be the most pervasive, requiring reporting on these practices within that account.21

The key DOE-proposed initiatives—and the related funding proposals from DOE and the House

Appropriations Committee report—are described below.

House-Passed Version of H.R. 2354

The final House-passed bill included $1.308 billion for EERE, which was $487.2 million less

than the FY2011 appropriation and $1.892 billion less than the FY2012 request. Compared with

the request, the House bill would have provided major decreases for EERE programs, including

Vehicle Technologies (-$334.0 million), Building Technologies (-$320.7 million), Solar

Technologies (-$290.9 million), Industrial Technologies (-$223.8 million), and Biomass

Technologies (-$190.5 million). Also, major cuts would have been applied to Weatherization

Grants (-$287.0 million) and to EDER programs (-$98.2 million).

In House floor action, six amendments to EERE funding were adopted: three changed funding

levels relative to the committee recommendations and three prohibited certain funding uses.

First, H.Amdt. 600 cut $6.0 million from the International Subprogram under Strategic Programs.

Two additional amendments would have restricted certain uses of the remaining $2 million

approved for the subprogram: H.Amdt. 675 would have allowed funds to be used only for U.S.Israel Energy Cooperation and H.Amdt. 684 would have prohibited the use of funds to support

EERE activities in China.

Second, two amendments changed overall EERE funding: H.Amdt. 608 cut $0.2 million and

H.Amdt. 658 added $10.0 million. So the net change was an addition of $9.8 million.

Third, the Burgess Amendment (H.Amdt. 70) to H.R. 2354 prohibited the use of funds for DOE

implementation of energy efficiency standards. The amendment stated that:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used—(1) to implement or enforce

section 430.32(x) of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, or (2) to implement or enforce the

standards established by the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B) with respect to BPAR incandescent reflector

lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

The Burgess Amendment appears as Section 623 of the House-passed bill. The amendment aims

to stop implementation of energy efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. The standards

were scheduled to begin taking effect on January 1, 2012. Proponents of the amendment

contended that it would stop excessive government regulation of consumer lighting products and

promote consumer choice. Opponents argued that domestic industry investment in new lighting

technologies would be stranded, foreign competitors would gain competitive advantage, and

potential energy and cost savings would be lost.

H.Rept. 112-118. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2012. p. 74.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Senate Appropriations Committee Recommendations

The Senate Appropriations Committee’s reported version of the bill would have provided

$1,795.6 million for EERE, the same amount as the FY2011 appropriation. That amount would

have been $1,404.4 million less than the FY2012 request and $487.2 million more than the House

bill. Relative to the House-passed bill, the Committee’s bill would have provided major increases

for Solar Technologies ($123.9 million), Vehicle Technologies ($64.8 million), Building

Technologies ($60.5 million), and Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies ($30.0 million). In contrast,

Water Technologies would have been cut by $16.0 million. Also, the bill would have applied

major increases to Weatherization Grants ($141.3 million), State Energy Grants ($25.0 million),

and Program Management ($55.0 million).

The Committee observed that DOE had established energy efficiency standards for many

appliances, with the exception of televisions. It noted that recent studies show that set-top boxes

that control modern televisions use large amounts of energy, most of which occurs when the

television is off. The Committee directed DOE (Appliance Standard Program under the Office of

Buildings) to initiate a rulemaking process that would establish efficiency standards for

“electronic devices, including both televisions and set-top boxes, within 12 months.”

The Senate committee’s version of the bill did not contain any provisions similar to those in the

Burgess Amendment (§603) of the House-passed bill.

The final version of the bill (P.L. 112-74) included the Burgess Amendment as Section 315.

Solar PV “Sunshot” Initiative

The Sunshot Initiative was the largest new power initiative proposed in the FY2012 request. The

initiative aims to reduce utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) cost 75% by 2020, reaching grid parity at

a capacity cost target of $1,000 per kilowatt (kw) or at an electric power cost target of six cents

per kilowatt-hour (kwh). The Initiative would support the Administration’s proposed Clean

Energy Standard (CES) by aiming to install 375 gigawatts (gw) of PV power plant capacity by

2030, which was estimated to meet about 13% of projected power demand.

EERE would conduct the Sunshot Initiative in collaboration with DOE’s Office of Science and

with DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The initiative would focus

on improving technology and reducing costs for power electronics controls, building integrated

photovoltaics (BIPV), and balance of system equipment. The request stated that the ultimate goal

is to regain world leadership in PV manufacturing and, thereby, grow jobs.

DOE requested an increase of $213.6 million above the FY2010 appropriation for the Solar

Energy Program. The proposed Sunshot Initiative would have accounted for most of the

requested $210.8 million increase (above the FY2010 appropriation) in funding for the

Photovoltaic R&D subprogram and all of the requested $20.3 million increase (above the FY2010

appropriation) for the Systems Integration subprogram.

For the entire Solar Energy Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $193.5 million increase above

the FY2011 appropriation.

The House Appropriations Committee report made no specific statement of support for the

Sunshot Initiative, which was identified with the bulk of the DOE requested increase for Solar

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Programs. For the entire Solar Energy Program, the committee report recommended—and the

House approved—a $290.9 million cut below the request ($97.4 million cut below the FY2011

appropriation).

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $123.9 million more than the House

approved. Also, the report provided guidance on three solar issues: it directs DOE to continue

funding for the Solar Demonstration Zone Project; it encourages DOE to establish a Center for

Solar Energy Innovation; and it encourages DOE to support R&D on organic PV cells.

The conference report provided $290.0 million for the Solar Program, an increase of $26.5

million over the FY2011 appropriation. The report does not mention the Sunshot Initiative.

Biomass and Biorefinery Program Initiatives

Under this program, the main subprogram initiative in the FY2012 request was the Cellulosic

Biofuels Reverse Auction. The auction would have employed a competitive bidding process for

the lowest cost to produce cellulosic biofuels with an innovative “pioneer” or “first-of-its-kind”

facility. The goal was to lower the cost per gallon to produce cellulosic biofuels, while providing

an investment financing incentive in the form of a guaranteed cash flow. DOE requested $150

million for this production cost subsidy.

DOE requested $25 million for a new Integrated Biorefineries subprogram. These facilities would

convert biomass feedstock to advanced biofuels, biopower (process heat and power), and/or

bioproducts (chemicals). The funding would continue, and build upon, cost-shared projects begun

with industry partners through support provided by the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). The new phase

in FY2012 would focus on scale-up and replication of biorefineries.

DOE also requested $22.5 million for a new subprogram of pilot-scale demonstrations of utilityscale biomass cofiring with coal. Up to 10 megawatts (mw) of new capacity would be developed

by 2015 and an additional 20 mw by 2016. An industry cost share of 20% to 50% would be

required for all new biopower projects.

For the entire Biomass and Biorefinery Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $157.8 million

increase above the FY2011 appropriation.

For the Biomass Program, the House Appropriations Committee recommended—and the House

approved—a $190.5 million cut below the FY2012 request ($32.7 million cut below the FY2011

appropriation). The report stated that the proposed Cellulosic Biofuels Reverse Auction would be

ineffective and fiscally unsustainable and, thus, included no funds for it. To avoid possible side

effects on crop and food prices, the report directed DOE to conduct work only on biomass

technologies “that could not be otherwise used as food.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $30 million more than the House

approved. The report directed that $30 million of its total recommendation go to algae biofuels.

The conference report provided $200.0 million for the Biomass Program, an increase of $17.3

million over the FY2011 appropriation.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Better Buildings Initiative

DOE requested support for a major new commercial buildings initiative, named the Better

Buildings Initiative. The initiative would aim to stimulate private sector investment to upgrade

offices, stores, schools, municipal buildings, universities, hospitals, and other commercial

buildings. The collective goal would be a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. Tax

incentives and financing support would be offered to private building owners. A new $181.6

million “Race to the Green” competitive grant program would be established for state and local

governments to streamline regulations, building codes, and performance standards. The goal

would be to overcome market barriers and accelerate efficiency upgrades to existing buildings.

Also, a Commercial Building Partners subprogram would provide support for new construction

and to establish community extension partnerships.

The existing Innovation Hub for Energy Efficient Building Systems Design would have been

extended with a new request for $24.4 million. Also, the request sought a $35.0 million increase

(above the FY2010 appropriation) to accelerate the scope and effectiveness of equipment

efficiency standards.

For the entire Buildings Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $260.2 million increase above the

FY2011 appropriation.

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—a $320.7

million cut below the FY2012 request ($60.5 million cut below the FY2011 appropriation). It

specifically included no funds for the proposed Race to the Green grant program. The report

recommended $24.4 million for the third year of the Energy Efficient Building Systems Design

Energy Innovation Hub. DOE was directed to report to the committee within 60 days of bill

enactment on the current status of the Hub, including past and future milestones and performance

measures.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $60.5 million more than the House

approved. Further, the report directed that $12 million of the program funding be focused on the

manufacturing of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting technology. It also urged that a strategic

plan be developed to promote the innovation and use of ground source heat pumps.

The conference report provided $220.0 million, an increase of $9.5 million over the FY2011

appropriation.

Vehicles Program Initiatives

The President announced a goal to put one million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2015.

To help achieve that goal, DOE requested $200.0 million (above the FY2010 appropriation)

under the Outreach subprogram for Vehicle Technology Deployment to support a new

deployment initiative that would make available competitive grants for infrastructure and fleet

conversion. Much of that total would be used to support establishment of EV recharging points.

That activity would be complemented by an $89.4 million increase (above the FY2010

appropriation) for the Batteries and Electric Drive Technology subprogram to support an R&D

initiative that would focus on doubling battery energy density and reducing production cost 70%

by 2014.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

For the entire Vehicles Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $288.0 million increase above the

FY2011 appropriation.

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$334.0

million less than the request for the Vehicles Program ($46.0 million less than the FY2011

appropriation). It would have provided $26.5 million for Vehicle Technology Deployment,

specifically prohibiting use of funding to support EV vehicle charging points. The report stated

that federal funding for such charging points could crowd out businesses that may seek to provide

such charging points as a marketable service. Instead, the report directed DOE to use $3 million

of its recommended funding to support a National Academy of Sciences study of the market

barriers affecting the purchase, deployment, and charging infrastructure for EVs.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $64.8 million more than the House

approved. The report provided two points of special guidance. First, it directed DOE to respond to

an overdue congressional requirement that it prepare a status report on revisions to the definition

of alternative-fueled vehicles (AFVs) applicable to federal and state fleet conversions. Second, it

recommended that $5 million be used to support a National Academy of Sciences study of market

barriers to electric vehicles.

The conference report provided $330 million, an increase of $30 million over the FY2011

appropriation.

Industry Program Initiatives

Under the Industry Program, DOE identified a general goal to double energy productivity and

reduce carbon intensity by 2020. To meet that goal, it requested an increase of about $225.5

million (above the FY2010 appropriation) for new initiatives. Two “Next Generation” initiatives

would be launched: one focused on materials and one focused on manufacturing processes. Those

two initiatives would be complemented by two additional initiatives: one focused on industrial

technical assistance and one focused on new manufacturing energy systems.

An increase of $89.4 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support a Next Generation

Materials subprogram. It would aim to achieve breakthroughs in nanomaterials, new cements,

ceramics, and other materials to reduce energy and carbon intensity while enhancing U.S. clean

energy (green) manufacturing competitiveness. Included in that increase would be $20.0 million

to fund a new Innovation Hub for Critical Materials. The hub would be established through a

competitive process and would focus on recycling and other strategies to reduce dependence on

critical materials.

An increase of $77.4 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support a new Next

Generation Manufacturing Processes subprogram. The subprogram would aim to provide critical

energy and environmental improvements to increase competitiveness and stimulate job growth by

improving the productivity, responsiveness, agility, and adaptability of U.S. factories. There

would be a focus on production systems, innovative bioprocessing techniques, nano-scale

processes, and smart process manufacturing.

A net increase of $44.1 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support new initiatives

under the Industrial Technical Assistance subprogram. The main initiative would be a new $50.0

million Energy Efficiency Partnership between DOE and the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce. The goal would be to accelerate the

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

development of advanced technologies that allow existing manufacturing facilities to employ

energy efficient technologies, such as cogeneration and waste heat recovery. An additional

increase of $7.1 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would have supported an Energy

Services Development subprogram, with the goal of conducting free energy audits for small- and

medium-sized manufacturers and conducting market development activities for combined heat

and power equipment and other energy technologies.

A net increase of $15.0 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would have supported a new

Manufacturing Energy Systems (MES) subprogram. MES centers would have been based at

premier U.S. universities to help catalyze private sector efforts in clean energy. Goals would have

included accelerating the movement of innovation from laboratory to commercial products and

processes, spawning complementary businesses to facilitate technology adoption, and stimulating

competitiveness and job creation.

For the entire Industry Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $211.5 million increase above the

FY2011 appropriation.

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$223.8

million less than the request for the Industry Program ($12.2 million less than the FY2011

appropriation). It would have provided $66.8 million less than the request for Next Generation

Materials ($34.0 million below the FY2011 appropriation). From that amount, $20.0 million

would have gone to the proposed Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub. The Committee

expressed particular interest in work toward rebuilding/advancing a domestic rare earths supply

chain. It directed DOE to report on the Hub’s organization, milestones, and plans for coordination

with ARPA-E. The Committee report stated that the proposed Manufacturing Energy Systems

program would be redundant, and recommended no funding for it.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended the same level of funding—$96.0

million—as the House approved.

The conference report provided $116.0 million, an increase of $7.8 million over the FY2011

appropriation.

Other Large Increases Proposed

For the Weatherization Grant Program, DOE requested $320.0 million, an increase of $110.0

million over the FY2010 appropriation ($145.7 million above the FY2011 appropriation). From

that total, $43.3 million would have gone directly to increasing the number of low-income

households that are weatherized. The remaining $67.0 million of the requested increase would

have supported the Innovations in Weatherization subprogram. Its goal is to demonstrate new

ways to increase the number of homes weatherized and to lower the federal cost per home. DOE’s

main strategy is to leverage outside funding through partnerships with non-traditional

weatherization providers such as foundations, non-profits, labor unions, churches, private

contractors, and large companies. The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—

and the House approved—$287.0 million less than the request ($141.3 million less than the

FY2011 appropriation). The report estimated that the program will have about $1.5 billion of

unspent funding from the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5) available for use in FY2012. The Senate

Appropriations Committee report recommended $141.3 million more than the House approved.

The conference report provided $68 million, a cut of $106.3 million below the FY2011

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

appropriation. In real dollar terms, this is the smallest appropriation since the program was

established in FY1977.22

For the Geothermal Program, DOE requested $101.5 million, an increase of $58.4 million above

the FY2010 appropriation ($63.5 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Four subprograms

would receive the majority of the funding increase. First, Enhanced Geothermal Systems would

have received the largest increase, $18.4 million, to expand work on improving reservoir

performance and reducing production costs. Second, a new subprogram, Innovative Exploration

Technologies, would have received $15.0 million to develop exploration tools (e.g. remote

sensing, seismic processing) to confirm the availability of hydrothermal resources in the Western

states. Third, a new subprogram, Low Temperature and Coproduced Resources, would have

received $14.0 million to support efforts on low temperature geothermal resources, including

fluids co-produced from oil and gas operations that have surface and subsurface infrastructure in

place. Fourth, a new subprogram, Permeable Sedimentary Resources, would have been

established with $6.0 million focused on geographic expansion of the potential resource base by

improving subsurface characterization in sedimentary formations and by helping to adapt tools

and technologies from the oil and gas industry. The House Appropriations Committee report

recommended—and the House approved—$63.5 million less than the request (just a few

thousand dollars less than the FY2011 appropriation). In its report, the Committee expressed

concern that DOE had overcommitted to multi-year (mortgaging) funding for this program. The

report directed DOE to use FY2012 funds only to pay “mortgages” on past awards, and forbid

DOE to announce new funding opportunities until its remaining mortgages for future years are

less than half of the overall program appropriation for FY2012. The Senate Appropriations

Committee report recommended $4 million less than the House approved. The report directed that

at least $5 million be applied to low-temperature geothermal systems. The conference report

provided $38 million, which is the same amount as the FY2011 appropriation.

For the Wind Program, DOE requested $126.9 million, a net increase of $47.9 million above the

FY2010 appropriation ($48.9 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Together with some

subprogram reductions, a total of $63.7 million would have supported demonstration of offshore

wind projects under the Technology Development and Testing subprogram. DOE anticipates that

the demonstration would accelerate market deployment of more than five gigawatts 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 off the Massachusetts coast would be

the first U.S. commercial offshore wind farm, but it has been delayed for several years. The

House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$63.5 million

less than the request ($4.0 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The report stressed the

Committee’s support for offshore wind development, especially in deepwater locations. The

Senate Appropriations Committee report recommends $4 million more than the House approved.

It expressed the Committee’s support for offshore wind energy technologies and installations. The

conference report provided $93.6 million, an increase of $13.6 million over the FY2011

appropriation.

DOE requested $53.2 million for a “new” activity entitled Strategic Programs, an increase of $8.2

million over the FY2010 appropriation ($21.2 million above the FY2011 appropriation). This is

actually a renaming of the existing activity entitled Program Support. The only significant change

For more details about the history of Weatherization Program funding, see CRS Report R42147, DOE

Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

requested is an increase of about $8.1 million for the Innovation and Deployment subprogram.

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$28.2

million less than the request ($7.0 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The report

specified that $8.0 million would have gone to the International subprogram. The Senate

Appropriations Committee report recommended the same amount, $25.0 million, as the House

approved. The conference report provided $25 million, a cut of $7 million from the FY2011

appropriation.

Key Program Decreases Proposed

The DOE request did not seek funding for Congressionally Directed Projects, which would have

represented a cut of $292.1 million below the FY2010 appropriation (no change from the zero

FY2011 appropriation). The House Appropriations Committee report—and the House-approved

bill—also did not recommend any funds for Congressionally Directed Projects in FY2012.

Likewise, the Senate Appropriations Committee report did not recommend any funds for

Congressionally Directed Projects. The conference report did not recommend any funds for these

projects.

For the Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Program, DOE requested $100.5 million, a cut of $69.8 million

below the FY2010 appropriation (an increase of $2.5 million above the FY2011 appropriation).

The cut would have been spread mostly over three subprograms. DOE explained that the funding

cut would allow most work to continue, but at a slower pace. First, the Fuel Cells subprogram

would have been cut by $30.2 million. It is focused on development of innovative nano materials

that can reduce the need for expensive platinum group metals (PGM), development of PGM-free

catalysts, development of polymer electrolytes, and reduction of materials degradation. Second,

the Market Transformation subprogram would have been eliminated by a cut of $15.0 million.

DOE explained that this activity would be put on hold, while performance and cost data are

collected for past deployment efforts funded by $42.0 million from the Recovery Act. Third, the

Hydrogen Fuel R&D subprogram would have been cut by $10.8 million. It is focused on

breakthrough technologies and materials to enable hydrogen production, delivery, and storage for

diverse fuel cell applications. DOE explains that the proposed decrease reflected consolidation of

the projects portfolio, completion of current obligations, and limitations on new project starts for

hydrogen storage and hydrogen production from wind and solar energy. The House

Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$9.0 million less

than the request ($6.6 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The Senate Appropriations

Committee report recommended $6.6 million more than the House approved. The conference

report provided $104 million, an increase of $6 million over the FY2011 appropriation.

For the Water Power Program, DOE requested $38.5 million, $10.2 million less than the FY2010

appropriation ($8.5 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). Water power technologies

employ marine and hydrokinetic (wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal) resources, and

conventional hydropower resources, to generate electricity. DOE’s request document did not

present specifics about the proposed cut. The House Appropriations Committee report

recommended—and the House approved—$11.5 million more than the request ($20.0 million

more than the FY2011 appropriation). The report recommended that $25.0 million go to marine

and hydrokinetic technology and $25.0 million go to conventional hydropower technology. The

Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $16.0 million less than the House

approved. Further, the Committee directed that DOE apply a minimum of $10.0 million to

building infrastructure at test sites and that DOE apply a minimum of $15.0 million to fund

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

competitions for demonstration projects. The conference report provided $59 million, an increase

of $29 million over the FY2011 appropriation.

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program

The FY2012 request would have provided $237.7 million to the Office of Electricity Delivery

and Energy Reliability, which would have been a net increase of $65.7 million above the FY2010

appropriation ($96.7 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Under the R&D Program,

significant increases would have been spread over three subprograms. First, the Energy Storage

subprogram is focused on 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 FY2012 requested increase of $43.4 million (above

the FY2010 appropriation) would have aimed to reduce system capital and life-cycle costs for

lithium-based batteries and supported grid-scale demonstration projects. Second, the Clean

Energy subprogram would have been increased by $23.4 million (above the FY2010

appropriation), of which $19.4 million would have supported a new Innovation Hub for Smart

Grid Technology and Systems. Third, the Smart Grid subprogram would have been increased by

$13.5 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) to support a new power electronics effort

(develop solid state devices to replace electromechanical devices) and to study the impacts of

electric vehicle charging on grid performance.

The House Appropriations Committee report recommended—and the House approved—$98.2

million below the request ($1.5 million below the FY2011 appropriation). For Clean Energy

Transmission and Reliability the report included $20.0 million, which would have been $40.8

million less than the request ($6.0 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). For Smart Grid

R&D the report included $33.8 million, which would have been $11.2 million less than the

request ($4.8 million more than the FY2011 appropriation). The Committee directed DOE to

report on the Grid Modeling subprogram by 180 days after bill enactment and to report on grid

cyber security and risk assessment measures by March 1, 2012.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $1.5 million more than the House

approved. The Committee recommended no funding for DOE’s proposed Smart Grid Innovation

Hub. Also, the report encouraged DOE to draw from funds appropriated to provide grants for

regional transmission planning and technical assistance for deployment of renewables.

The conference report provided $139.5 million, a $1.5 million decrease below the FY2011

appropriation.

Nuclear Energy

The Obama Administration’s FY2012 funding request for nuclear energy research and

development totaled $754 million. Including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and

infrastructure support, the total nuclear energy request was about $22 million above the FY2011

funding level approved by Congress on April 14, 2011. The FY2011 level is about $37 million

below the FY2010 appropriation. The House bill would have cut the Administration request by

about $20 million, to $733.6 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a cut

of $170.2 million from the Administration request, for a total of $583.8 million. The conference

agreement provides $768.7 million. Those totals exclude funding provided under Other Defense

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Activities for safeguards and security at DOE’s Idaho nuclear facilities, for which $98.5 million

was requested and $93.4 million appropriated for FY2012.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report said the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster in

Japan had “resulted in a reexamination of our Nation’s policies regarding the safety of

commercial reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel.” The Committee directed the Blue

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which is developing recommendations on

future U.S. nuclear waste policy, “to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal statutes based

on its recommendations” and for DOE to develop a nuclear waste management strategy based on

the Commission’s recommendations. The Senate panel included funding for various nuclear

reactor and waste safety programs throughout the DOE nuclear energy budget. The conferees

directed DOE “to develop a strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear

waste” within six months after the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report.

Using reorganized budget categories established for FY2011, the Administration’s FY2012

nuclear R&D budget request was consistent with DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and

Development Roadmap issued in April 2010.23 The Roadmap lays out the following four main

goals for the program:

•

Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain

the safety, and extend the life of current reactors;

•

Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear

energy to help meet the Administration’s energy security and climate change

goals;

•

Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and

•

Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

Reactor Concepts

The Reactor Concepts program area includes the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)

demonstration project and research on other advanced reactors (often referred to as Generation IV

reactors). This area also includes funding for developing advanced small modular reactors

(discussed in the next section) and to enhance the “sustainability” of existing commercial light

water reactors. The total FY2012 funding request for this program was $125 million. The House

bill would have provided $137 million, $12 million above the request but $31.5 million below the

FY2011 level. The Senate Appropriations Committee would have cut Reactor Concepts to $31.9

million. The enacted bill provided $115.5 million.

NGNP is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05). 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. DOE requested $49.6 million for the NGNP project for FY2012, down from

$103 million requested in FY2011. The House bill recommended $63.6 million. Under

EPACT05, the Secretary of Energy was to decide by the end of FY2011 whether to proceed

toward construction of a demonstration plant. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu informed Congress

Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, Washington, DC,

April 2010, http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

on October 17, 2011, that DOE would not proceed with a demonstration plant design “at this

time” but would continue research on the technology.24 Potential obstacles facing NGNP include

low prices for natural gas, the major competing fuel, and private-sector unwillingness to share the

project’s costs as required by EPACT05.25 The Senate Appropriations Committee eliminated

funding for the NGNP program in its current form, citing its “lack of progress and failure to

resolve the upfront cost-share issue.” The conferees provided $40 million, including $30 million

“to accelerate fuel development and qualification activities.”

The FY2012 funding request for the Advanced Reactor Concepts program was $21.9 million, the

same as the FY2011 request, and the same as the enacted FY2012 appropriation. The program

was described by the FY2011 budget justification as “an expanded version” of the previous

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 FY2011 and FY2012 justifications. Nuclear technology development

under this program includes “fast reactors,” using high-energy neutrons, and reactors that would

use a variety of heat-transfer fluids, such as liquid sodium and supercritical carbon dioxide.

International research collaboration in this area would continue under the Generation IV

International Forum (GIF).

DOE’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program request was $21.4 million, about $4.4 million

below the FY2011 request. The program conducts 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, which is to be cost-shared with

the nuclear industry, 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. Research on longer-life LWR fuel is aimed at eliminating fuel leakage and

increasing safety and performance, according to the budget justification. The House bill would

have provided $25 million for the program. The Senate Appropriations Committee specified that

$10 million of Reactor Concepts funding be used “for research and development of the current

fleet of operating reactors to determine how long they can safely operate.” The conferees adopted

the House-passed level of $25 million and directed that an unspecified amount be used to conduct

the Senate’s proposed research on reactors’ safe lifespans.

Small Modular Light Water Reactors

Rising cost estimates for large conventional nuclear reactors—widely projected to be $6 billion or

more—have contributed to growing interest in proposals for small modular reactors (SMRs).

Ranging from about 40 to 350 megawatts of electrical capacity, such reactors would be only a

fraction of the size of current commercial reactors. Several modular reactors would be installed

together to make up a power block with a single control room, under most concepts. Current

SMR proposals would use a variety of technologies, including high-temperature gas technology

in the NGNP program and the light water (LWR) technology used by today’s commercial

reactors.

Idaho National Laboratory, NGNP Project 2011 Status and Path Forward, INL/EXT-11-23907, December 2011.

Yanmei Xie, “Cheap Natural Gas, Cost-Share Disagreement Jeopardize NGNP,” Nucleonics Week, April 28, 2011,

p. 1.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

DOE requested $67 million for FY2012 to provide technical support for licensing small modular

LWRs, a substantial boost from the FY2011 request of $38.9 million. The House bill included the

full request, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended zero. The conferees

provided the full request for FY2012 in anticipation of a five-year program totaling $452 million.

The program would be similar to DOE’s support for larger commercial reactor designs under the

Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which ended in FY2010. DOE would provide support for design

certification, standards, and licensing. As with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, at least half the

costs of the LWR SMR program are to be covered by industry partners, according to DOE. On

January 20, 2012, DOE announced that it would hold a competitive solicitation to award costshared financial assistance to as many as two SMR LWR designs.26

An additional $28.7 million was requested under the Reactor Concepts program (described in the

section above) for SMR advanced concepts R&D. The House bill recommended the same

amount, and it was included in the enacted bill. Unlike the SMR licensing support program,

which focuses on conventional technology, the SMR advanced concepts program would conduct

research on technologies that might be deployed in the longer term, according to the budget

justification.

Small modular reactors would go against the overall trend in nuclear power technology toward

ever-larger reactors intended to spread construction costs over a greater output of electricity.

Proponents of small reactors contend that they would be economically viable despite their far

lower electrical output because modules could be assembled in factories and shipped to plant

sites, and because their smaller size would allow for simpler safety systems. In addition, although

modular plants might have similar or higher costs per kilowatt-hour than conventional large

reactors, their ability to be constructed in smaller increments could reduce electric utilities’

financial commitment and risk.

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 FY2012 funding request for this program

was $155 million. The House bill recommended $132 million, $23 million below the request and

$55.6 million below the FY2011 level. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an

increase to $187.9 million, $300,000 above FY2011. The Senate panel included $10 million for

modeling and simulation of the safety of spent fuel storage. The Committee recommended $60

million for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, including $10 million to develop standardized storage,

transportation, and disposal canisters, $3 million for spent fuel management partnerships, and $7

million for “characterization of potential geologic repository media.” The Senate panel

recommended $59 million for developing advanced fuels that might reduce the consequences of

nuclear accidents like the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster. The final bill provided $187.4 million for

fuel cycle R&D, including $60 million for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition and $59 million for

advanced fuels, as recommended by the Senate panel.

Department of Energy, “Energy Department Takes First Step to Spur U.S. Manufacturing of Small Modular Nuclear

Reactors,” January 20, 2012, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-takes-first-step-spur-us-manufacturingsmall-modular-nuclear-reactors.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Under the George W. Bush Administration, when it was called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

(AFCI), the program 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 Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (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 has been redirected toward development of

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, according to the

justification. “Specifically, the program will research and develop a suite of technology options

that will enable future decision-makers to make informed decisions about how best to manage

nuclear waste and used fuel from reactors,” the justification says.

Much of the planned research on spent fuel management options has supported 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. 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, modeling and simulation of fuel cycle options, and technology to increase nuclear

fuel resources, such as uranium extraction from seawater.

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies

Research under the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program is intended to

“contribute to a wide variety of existing and developing reactor and fuel cycle technologies,”

according to the FY2012 DOE budget justification. The funding request for the program was

$97.4 million, $46 million above the FY2011 level. The House bill would have provided $95

million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $68.9 million. The final bill

appropriated $74.9 million for the program.

Under the category of Crosscutting Technology Development, for which $41.2 million was

requested, research is to be conducted on new types of reactor materials, the 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, had a request of $24.3 million, the same as in FY2011. The Modeling and

Simulation Hub is creating 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. The conferees provided $36

million for crosscutting technology and the full request for the Modeling and Simulation Hub.

Transformative Nuclear Concepts Research, with a request of $14.6 million, is to provide

competitive support to “investigator-initiated transformative projects that are high-risk, highreward concepts with the potential for making significant leaps forward in advanced nuclear

technology development,” according to the FY2012 justification. Awards are to be available to

national laboratories, universities, research institutions, and industry. DOE also requested $14.6

million for the National Science User Facility to support up to five university partnerships to

conduct experiments “at facilities not normally accessible.” Funding for the User Facility had

previously been provided under Idaho Facilities Management, according to the House report,

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

which approved the shift. The Senate Committee provided no funding for transformative

research. Conferees provided the full request for the User Facility and no funding for

transformative research.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

The Obama Administration proposed a new budget structure for the FY2012 Fossil Energy

Research and Development (FER&D) program that emphasized coal with a focus on carbon

capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The CCS program intends to demonstrate advanced

clean coal technologies on a commercial-project scale, and build and operate near-zero

atmospheric emissions power plants that capture and store carbon dioxide (CO2). A Carbon

Capture sub-program focuses on separate CO2 in both pre-combustion and post-combustion

systems. The Carbon Storage sub-program focuses on long-term geologic storage of CO2,

including small- and large-scale CO2 injection tests. An Advanced Energy Systems sub-program

focuses on improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems to capture CO2. The Advanced

Energy Systems sub-program focuses on improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems,

enabling affordable CO2 capture, increasing plant availability, and maintaining the highest

environmental standards. The Cross-cutting Research activity serves as a bridge between basic

and applied research by fostering the development and deployment of innovative systems.

The Administration had proposed cutting Natural Gas, Unconventional Fossil Energy

Technologies, and Cooperative R&D for FY2011, and had requested $586.6 million for Fossil

Energy R&D. The restructured Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D)

program eliminated spending on Natural Gas, Unconventional Technologies, and Cooperative

R&D. For FY2012, the Administration requested $476 million and the use of $23 million in

prior-year balances, bringing spending on Fossil Energy R&D to $453 million.

The House Appropriations Committee recommended $477 million for FER&D ($32.5 million

above FY2011 and $24 million above the budget request). The committee stated its concern that

the Administration’s budget request continues to shift the focus of FER&D towards CCS instead

of investing in a broad array of research avenues and opportunities to use natural resources more

efficiently. The committee recommended $338.8 million for the CCS and Power Systems

program ($47.4 million above the budget request). Under this program, $105 million applies to

Advanced Energy Systems ($40.8 million above the budget request), of which: $25 million

applies to RD&D of solid oxide fuel cell systems; $5 million applies to High Performance

Materials ($4 million above the request); $10 million applies to Coal and Coal-Biomass to

Liquids program; $8 million applies to Gasification Systems advanced air separation

technologies; and $49.4 million for Cross Cutting Research ($6.6 million above the budget

request). For Natural Gas Technologies, the committee recommended $15 million ($13 million

above FY2011 and $15 million above the budget request), of which $10 million applies to gas

hydrates R&D. Finally, the committee recommended $120.85 million for Program Direction

($30.9 million below FY2011 and $38.4 million below the budget request).

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $445.5 million for Fossil Energy Research

and Development, including the use of $23 million of prior year balances as proposed in the

request. This is $7.5 million less than the budget request which reflects a reduction in program

direction to FY2011 levels. The committee also rescinds $187 million in prior year funds. The

committee recommended $291.4 million for CCS and Power Systems (the same as requested);

$151.7 million for program direction (to remain available until September 30, 2014); $16.8

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

million for Plant and Capital Equipment; $7.9 million for Fossil Energy Environmental

Restoration; and $0.7 million for Special Recruitment Programs.

Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D)

($ millions)

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

FY2012

House

FY2012

Senate

P.L. 11274

400.2

0.0

Carbon Capture

0.0

68.9

Carbon Storage

0.0

115.5

Advanced Energy Systems

0.0

64.2

105.0

64.2

100.0

Cross Cutting Research

0.0

42.8

49.4

49.2

National Energy Tech. Lab Coal R&D

0.0

35.0

CCS Subtotal

0.0

291.4

338.8

291.4

368.6

2.0

0.0

15.0

0.0

15.0

PROGRAM DIRECTION

151.7

159.2

120.8

151.7

120.0

Plant and Capital Equipment

20.0

16.8

Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration

10.0

7.9

Special Recruitment Program

0.7

584.5

476.0

500.0

468.5

534.0

0.0

-23.0

0.0

Rescission

-140.0

0.0

-187.0

Total

444.5

453.0

477.0

258.5

347.0

FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS

CCS DEMONSTRATION

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

Subtotal

Prior-year balances

Source: FY2012 Budget Request; H.Rept. 112-118. S.Rept. 112-75, H.Rept. 112-331.

The final bill (P.L. 112-74) appropriated $534 million for FER&D and rescinded $187

million, for a total of $347 million. Of that amount, $368.6 million was allotted to CCS

programs, including $35.0 million transferred from Program Direction to fund coal R&D

at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The conference report specified $100

million within CCS for Advanced Energy Systems, and “not less than $25 million” to

continue RD&D of solid oxide fuel cell systems.

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

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

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.27

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.28 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 Interior announced a transitional phasing out of the

RIK Program.29 As RIK oil and natural gas sales contracts expire, the oil and natural gas

properties will revert to in-value status.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) required expansion of the SPR to its authorized

maximum of 1 billion barrels. DOE subsequently evaluated a site in Richton, MS, as a possible

location for an additional 160 million barrels of capacity. However, in its FY2011 request, the

Administration proposed suspending the SPR’s expansion. Instead, it proposed redirecting $71

million in balances previously appropriated for expansion to “partially fund SPR non-Expansion

operations and maintenance activities.30 In support of its proposal, the Administration cited EIA

projections that “U.S. petroleum consumption and dependence on imports will decline in the

future and the current Reserve’s projection [of import replacement capacity] will gradually

increase to 90 days by 2025.” The Administration consequently reduced the FY2011 request for

the SPR to $138.9 million, sharply down from the $243.8 million appropriated for FY2010.

The FY 2011 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 112-10) funded the SPR at $123.1 million, including a

rescission of $71.0 million from prior year appropriations. For FY2012, the Administration

requested $121.7 million. The Administration also proposed a sale of $500 million in petroleum

from the SPR, to be completed not later than March 1, 2012, for deposit in the General Fund of

the Treasury. The House Committee recommended the $500 million sale provided that the

quantity sold is replaced during FY2012 under paragraph (a)1 or 3 of Section 160 of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C 6240 (a)(1) or (3)), which authorizes acquisition of crude

oil produced from federal lands, or through purchase or exchange, respectively. Both

For details on the SPR see CRS Report R41687, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Refined Product Reserves:

Authorization and Drawdown Policy, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

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.

$14.5 million appropriated under P.L. 110-161, $31.5 under P.L. 110-329, and $25 million under P.L. 111-85.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

recommendations preceded the Administration’s June 24, 2011 announced sale of 30 million

barrels.

The House Appropriations Committee recommended $192.7 million for FY2012 ($69.5 million

above FY2011 and $71 million above the budget request). The Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended the same funding, and the final bill appropriated that amount. The final bill also

included a rescission of $500 million, rather than the proposed sale of reserves.

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.31 For FY2012, DOE requested $5.416 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of

12% from the FY2011 appropriation of $4.843 billion. The House bill would have provided

$4.800 billion. The Senate committee recommended $4.843 billion. The final appropriation was

$4.889 billion. (See Table 10.)

Table 10. Science

($ millions)

FY2011

Approp.

FY2012

Request

FY2012

House

FY2012

Senate

FY2012

Final

Basic Energy Sciences

$1,678.2

$1,985.0

$1,688.1

$1,693.9

$1,694.0

High Energy Physics

795.4

797.2

780.2

791.7

Biological and Environmental Research

611.8

717.9

547.1

621.8

611.8

Nuclear Physics

540.1

605.3

552.0

550.1

550.0

Advanced Scientific Computing Research

422.0

465.6

427.1

441.6

442.0

Fusion Energy Sciences

375.5

399.7

406.0

335.5

402.2

Science Program Direction

202.5

216.9

180.0

180.8

185.0

Science Laboratories Infrastructure

125.7

111.8

103.5

136.8

111.8

Safeguards and Security

83.8

83.9

82.0

Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists

22.6

35.6

17.8

20.0

18.5

Rescission

(15.0)

—

(2.7)

—

4,842.7

5,416.1

4,800.0

4,842.7

4,889.0

Program

Use of Prior-Year Balances

Total

Sources: FY2012 budget request, H.R. 2354 as passed by the House, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as reported in

the Senate, S.Rept. 112-75, P.L. 112-74, and H.Rept. 112-331.

The Administration’s stated goal is to double the funding of the Office of Science. This continues

a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January 2006. The original target under both

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).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Administrations was to achieve the doubling goal in the decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The

current policy no longer specifies a completion date. The FY2012 request was 49% more than the

FY2006 baseline. The amount in the House bill was 32% more than the baseline. The Senate

committee recommendation was 33% more than the baseline. The final appropriation was 35%

more than the baseline.

The FY2012 request for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, was $1.985

billion. This included $24 million for the existing Innovation Hub on Fuels from Sunlight,

currently funded by EERE, and $34 million for a new Energy Innovation Hub on Materials for

Batteries and Energy Storage.32 The House bill would have provided $1.668 billion for basic

energy sciences, including the requested amount for the existing hub and $20 million for the new

one. The House committee directed DOE to rank all ongoing multi-year research projects in this

program by performance and then terminate the lowest-ranking $25 million. The Senate

committee recommended $1.694 billion, including the same amounts as the House for the two

hubs. It directed DOE to create a performance ranking of all ongoing multi-year research projects

(across the entire Office of Science) but did not specify a sanction for low-ranking projects. The

conference report provided $1.694 billion, including the same amounts as the House and Senate

bills for the two hubs. The conference report language on performance ranking was similar to the

Senate’s.

For high-energy physics, the request was $797 million. The House bill would have provided the

requested amount. The Senate committee recommended $780 million. The final appropriation

was $792 million. Within this program, DOE is reconsidering its options for the future of the

Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE). The National Science Foundation has decided to

cease funding the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) at the

Homestake mine in South Dakota, which had been a likely site for LBNE’s far detector. The

House report cautioned DOE against taking over the construction and long-term management of

DUSEL but did not specifically address funding for LBNE. The Senate committee recommended

no funding for LBNE construction. The conference report provided $21 million for R&D and

engineering design for LBNE and $10 million for “minimal, sustaining operations” at the

Homestake mine, but no funding for LBNE long-lead procurement or construction. The conferees

expressed concern about the project’s readiness for construction and directed DOE to submit a

project plan with a refined total cost estimate. Scientific interest in LBNE may increase as a result

of the September 2011 finding, in a similar experiment in Europe, that neutrinos appear to travel

faster than light.

The request for biological and environmental research was $718 million. Within this total, the

$103 million requested for foundational genomics research was more than triple the FY2010

level. The House bill would have provided $547 million. The House committee asserted that most

of the program’s activities in climate and environmental sciences, which account for nearly half

of its requested budget, are “not directly related to the core mandate of ... research leading to

energy innovations” and that climate research may be better carried out by other federal agencies

rather than DOE. The Senate committee recommended $622 million, including $295 million (the

The Administration proposed to initiate eight energy innovation hubs in FY2010, but Congress funded only three.

The FY2012 budget request proposed funding for six hubs. The topics for the three proposed new hubs were batteries

and energy storage, critical materials, and Smart Grid technologies and systems. 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 focused on a single

critical national need identified by the Department.” (DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 86.)

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011 enacted amount) for climate and environmental sciences. The Senate report recognized

the climate and environmental sciences program for its “unique contributions ... in advancing

climate research.” The final appropriation was $612 million. The conference report did not

mention the climate and environmental sciences program.

For nuclear physics, the request was $605 million. As previously planned, this request included

$66 million for continued construction of an upgrade at the Continuous Electron Beam

Accelerator Facility (CEBAF). The House bill would have provided $552 million. The Senate

committee recommended $550 million, including $55 million for construction at CEBAF. The

conference report provided $550 million, including $50 million for the CEBAF upgrade. The

conference report total for nuclear physics also included $5 million, in addition to the $10 million

noted above under high-energy physics, for “minimal, sustaining operations” at the Homestake

mine.

The request for advanced scientific computing research was $466 million. The House bill would

have provided $427 million. The Senate committee recommended $442 million, which was also

the amount provided in the final appropriation.

The request for fusion energy sciences was $400 million. The proposed U.S. contribution to the

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility under construction in

France, was $105 million. Despite a slip of several years in the expected start-up date for ITER,

DOE stated in February 2011 that “the costs associated with the schedule delays to date ... are

manageable within the existing ... cost range” of $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion.33 Damage to

component test facilities in Japan, caused by the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami in March

2011, may result in additional delays.34 The House bill would have provided $406 million for

fusion energy sciences. The House committee expressed its support for ITER but also its concern

about the project’s future impact on funding for domestic fusion science. The Senate committee

recommended $335 million. Like the House committee, it expressed concern about ITER’s future

impact on the domestic program. The final appropriation for fusion energy sciences was $402

million. The House and Senate committees and the conference report all directed DOE to submit

a 10-year plan that considers fusion priorities under various budget scenarios.

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.35

It received its first funding in FY2009, mostly through the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), 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 technologies. The request for ARPA-E in FY2012 was $550

million, more than triple the FY2011 appropriation of $180 million.36 In addition, the

Administration proposed to allocate $100 million in mandatory funding to ARPA-E from a

DOE FY2012 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 234.

Geoff Brumfiel, “Japan Quake Rocks Fusion Project: Damaged Facilities Force Further Delay to ITER Experiment,”

Nature, May 31, 2011.

For more information, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E):

Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Some budget documents show the ARPA-E account as the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

proposed Wireless Innovation Fund that would be supported by the proceeds of spectrum

auctions. The House committee recommended $100 million. A floor amendment increased the

House amount to $179.6 million. The Senate committee recommended $250 million. The final

appropriation was $275 million.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

President Obama’s FY2012 budget included no funding for 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. No funding was requested

or provided for OCRWM in FY2011, so the office has been closed and activities at the Yucca

Mountain site halted.

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.

The House Appropriations Committee “rejects the Administration’s wasteful, partisan attempts to

shutter the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program,” according to a Committee news

release.37 DOE filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the

proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 but under the Obama Administration filed a

motion to withdraw the application on March 3, 2010. The FY2012 House bill included $25

million for DOE to continue work on the program and $10 million for NRC “to continue the

Yucca Mountain license application.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee provided no funding for OCRWM but included significant

funding related to nuclear waste policy, safety, and research in the DOE nuclear energy R&D

budget. The conferees largely adopted the Senate position, providing no funds for nuclear waste

disposal but including waste R&D funding in the nuclear R&D budget.

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

deadlocked on the issue September 9, 2011, leaving the licensing panel’s decision in place and

prohibiting DOE from withdrawing the Yucca Mountain application. However, the Commission

ordered at the same time that the licensing process be halted because of “budgetary limitations.”38

NRC was appropriated $10 million in FY2011 for nuclear waste licensing, the same as the

request, which had specified that the funding would be used to close down the licensing process.

The FY2012 House bill would have prohibited NRC funds from being used to halt the licensing

process unless NRC approved DOE’s license withdrawal motion. That language was dropped in

the final bill, although language was included to prevent the NRC Chairman from terminating

House Committee on Appropriations, “Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water

Appropriations Bill,” press release, June 1, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?

DocumentID=244898.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),”

CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/201107cli.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

programs without a majority vote of the Commission. No funding was provided in the final bill to

continue Yucca Mountain licensing activities.

Alternatives to Yucca Mountain were evaluated by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s

Nuclear Future, which was formally established by DOE on March 1, 2010. The Commission

issued its final report to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012.39 The report recommended

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. It did not recommend specific sites for new nuclear waste facilities or

evaluate the suitability of Yucca Mountain.

In its final report, the Commission recommended a “consent-based” approach to siting nuclear

waste facilities and that the roles of local, state, and tribal governments be negotiated for each

potential site. The development of consolidated waste storage and disposal facilities should begin

as soon as possible, the Commission urged. A new waste management organization should be

established to develop the repository, along with associated transportation and storage systems,

according to the Commission. The new organization should have “assured access” to the Nuclear

Waste Fund, which holds fees collected from nuclear power plant operators to pay for waste

disposal. Under NWPA, DOE could not spend those funds without congressional appropriations.

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 FY2011 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.40

(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 Loans41

DOE’s loan guarantee program for energy technology deployment is authorized by Title XVII of

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). No funding for additional loan

guarantees under Title XVII was provided for FY2012, although $38 million was approved for

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012,

http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf.

Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Before the

House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007.

For more details on loan guarantees, see CRS Report R42152, Loan Guarantees for Clean Energy Technologies:

Goals, Concerns, and Policy Options, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

administrative expenses. Two major loan guarantee programs are currently conducted by the DOE

Loan Programs Office:

•

Section 1703 innovative clean energy technology loan guarantees. Loan

guarantees are provided for “new or significantly improved technologies as

compared to commercial technologies” currently in service that “avoid, reduce,

or sequester” air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Eligible technology

categories include renewable energy, advanced fossil energy, advanced nuclear

energy, energy efficiency, and pollution control.

•

Section 1705 renewable energy, electric transmission, and advanced biofuels

loan guarantees. Established by Section 406 of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. P.L. 111-5), the Section 1705 program was

designed as a temporary economic stimulus measure available through the end of

FY2011. Unlike the Section 1703 program, which is limited to innovative

technologies, loan guarantees are available to already-commercialized renewable

energy and electric transmission technologies.

Title XVII allows DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 80% of construction costs for eligible

energy projects. Under such loan guarantee agreements, the federal government would repay all

covered loans if the borrower defaulted. This would reduce the risk to lenders and allow them to

provide financing at low interest rates. DOE reports that it has made conditional loan guarantee

commitments to four projects under Section 1703, totaling $10.65 billion for nuclear power,

nuclear fuel, and energy efficiency projects. Under Section 1705, final loan guarantees have been

issued for 28 projects, totaling $16.13 billion.42

DOE issued final rules for the program October 4, 2007.43 DOE’s proposed loan guarantee rules,

published May 16, 2007, had faced sharp criticism for limiting the guarantees to 90% of a

project’s debt. The industry contended that EPACT05 allows all of a project’s debt to be covered,

as long as debt does not exceed 80% of total construction costs. In its explanation of the proposed

rules, DOE expressed concern that guaranteeing 100% of a project’s debt could reduce lenders’

incentive to perform adequate due diligence and therefore increase default risks. In the final rule,

however, DOE agreed to guarantee up to 100% of debt, but only for loans issued by the Federal

Financing Bank.

Title XVII requires the estimated future government costs resulting from defaults on guaranteed

loans to be covered up-front by appropriations or by payments from project sponsors (borrowers).

These “subsidy costs” are calculated as the present value of the average possible future net costs

to the government for each loan guarantee, on a case-by-case basis. If those calculations are

accurate, the subsidy cost payments for all the guaranteed projects together should cover the

future costs of the program. However, the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the upfront subsidy cost payments will prove too low by at least 1% and is scoring bills accordingly.44

As a result, appropriations bills that provide loan guarantee authorizations include an adjustment

totaling 1% of the loan guarantee ceiling.

U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy

Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.

Published October 23, 2007 (72 Federal Register 60116).

Congressional Budget Office, S. 1321, Energy Savings Act of 2007, CBO Cost Estimate, Washington, DC, June 11,

2007, pp. 7-9, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8206/s1321.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Subsidy costs for Section 1703 loan guarantees must usually be paid by project sponsors, because

no appropriations for that program were provided before FY2011 (as described below). However,

ARRA appropriated $6 billion to cover the subsidy costs of Section 1705 loan guarantees, so

subsidy cost payments are not required from project sponsors under that program. The total loan

guarantee amounts that could be provided under ARRA depend on the level of subsidy costs that

would be charged. For example, if the subsidy costs averaged 10% of the total guaranteed loans,

then $6 billion in subsidy cost appropriations would support $60 billion in loan guarantees.

However, $2 billion of Section 1705 subsidy cost appropriation was subsequently 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 (P.L. 111-226), leaving

$2.5 billion. Of the $2.5 billion available for subsidy costs, $1.9 billion had been obligated by the

end of FY2011.45

DOE’s first loan guarantee under Section 1705 was issued in September 2009 to Solyndra Inc., a

manufacturer of photovoltaic equipment. Solyndra’s bankruptcy announcement on August 31,

2011, prompted strong congressional criticism of the Administration’s management of the loan

guarantee program.46 Solyndra’s DOE loan guarantee totaled $535 million, and the company’s

bankruptcy placed most or all of that amount at risk.

Under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), federal loan guarantees cannot be provided

without an authorized level in an appropriations act. The Senate-passed version of omnibus

energy legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 6) would have explicitly eliminated FCRA’s

applicability to DOE’s planned loan guarantees under EPACT05 (§124(b)). That provision would

have given DOE essentially unlimited loan guarantee authority for guarantees whose subsidy

costs were paid by project sponsors, but it was dropped from the final legislation (P.L. 110-140).

Similar language has been included in subsequent legislative proposals, but not enacted.

Pursuant to FCRA, the FY2007 continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) established an initial cap of $4

billion on loan guarantees under the program, without allocating that amount among the various

eligible technologies. The explanatory statement for the FY2008 omnibus funding act (P.L. 110161) increased the loan guarantee ceiling to $38.5 billion through FY2009, including $18.5

billion specifically for nuclear power plants and $2 billion for uranium enrichment plants.47

The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) increased DOE’s total loan guarantee

authority under Section 1703 to $47 billion, in addition to the $4 billion authorized in FY2007,

half of which DOE has designated for uranium enrichment. Of the $47 billion, $18.5 billion

continued to be reserved for nuclear power, $18.5 was for energy efficiency and renewables, $6

billion was for coal, $2 billion was for carbon capture and sequestration, and $2 billion was for

uranium enrichment. The time limits on the Section 1703 loan guarantee authority were

eliminated. The FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act

(P.L. 112-10) reduced the previous loan guarantee authority for Section 1703 non-nuclear

technologies to $8.3 billion but added new authority for a total of $9.5 billion. Including the $2

DOE Weekly Financial and Activity Report, September 30, 2011, http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/agency/

reporting/agency_reporting2.aspx?agency_code=89&dt=09/30/2011.

Opening Statement of the Honorable Cliff Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

“Solyndra and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program,” September 14, 2011,

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Stearns.pdf.

Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H15585.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

billion in FY2007 authority that has not been designated for uranium enrichment, the Section

1703 non-nuclear loan guarantee ceiling stands at about $11.5 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 expired at the end of FY2011, as noted above. However, the FY2011 Continuing

Appropriations Act provided $170 million, with no expiration, to pay subsidy costs for renewable

energy and efficiency projects under the Section 1703 program. The act also provided authority

for up to $1.183 billion in loan guarantees for those renewable energy and efficiency projects, in

addition to the $32.8 billion in Section 1703 authority remaining from earlier appropriations acts

for all technologies. The additional loan guarantee authority and subsidy cost appropriation

provided by the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act is available to projects that applied under

the expiring Section 1705 before February 24, 2011.

Following is a summary of the various elements of the current DOE loan guarantee program, as

modified by the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act (CR):

•

$8.3 billion ceiling in CR on non-nuclear technologies under Section 1703 ($317

million conditionally committed), reduced from ceilings set in FY2009.

•

$2 billion for unspecified projects from FY2007 under Section 1703, not affected

by CR.

•

$18.5 billion ceiling for nuclear power plants ($8.3 billion conditionally

committed).

•

$4 billion allocated for loan guarantees for uranium enrichment plants ($2 billion

conditionally committed).

•

$1.183 billion ceiling for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under

Section 1703, in addition to other ceiling amounts, which can include pending

applications under Section 1705.

•

An appropriation of $170 million for subsidy costs for renewable energy and

energy efficiency loan guarantees under Section 1703. If the subsidy costs

averaged 10% of the loan guarantees, this funding could support loan guarantees

totaling $1.7 billion.

•

$2.5 billion for Section 1705 subsidy costs appropriated by ARRA. As noted

above, about $1.9 billion of this funding was used to pay the subsidy costs for

$16.13 billion in loan guarantees with final commitments under Section 1705, for

which the deadline was September 30, 2011.48

DOE requested an additional appropriation of $200 million in FY2012 to cover the subsidy costs

of innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under Section 1703. That funding

would support about $1-2 billion in loan guarantees, according to the budget justification. DOE

also repeated its unsuccessful request from FY2011 to nearly triple the ceiling on loan guarantees

for nuclear power projects, from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion. The FY2012 House bill would

have appropriated $160 million for subsidy costs under Section 1703 and for projects that applied

for support under Section 1705 before February 24, 2011. The House bill did not include the

DOE Loan Programs Office, Our Projects, https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

proposed $36 billion increase in the nuclear loan guarantee ceiling. The Senate Appropriations

Committee approved the full $200 million request for renewable energy subsidy costs but

recommended no increase in nuclear loan guarantees. The final bill did not provide additional

funding for subsidy costs or increase the existing loan guarantee ceilings.

DOE also administers the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program

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 was designed to provide loans to eligible automobile manufacturers and parts

suppliers for making investments in their plant capacity to produce vehicles with improved fuel

economy. Along with the EPACT loan guarantee programs, the ATVM Loan Program is

administered by the DOE Loan Programs Office. DOE reports that five ATVM loans have been

issued, totaling $8.4 billion, plus a conditional commitment of $730 million.49 DOE did not

request any funding for subsidy costs for new loans in FY2012, and the final bill provided

funding only for administrative expenses.50

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.

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.

U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy

Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.

For more details, see CRS Report R42064, The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan

Program: Status and Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

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 National Security

Complex, TN); and the Nevada National Security Site (formerly 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

Approps.

FY2012

Request

FY2012

Approps.

DSW

1,564.3

1,885.4

1,963.6

1,879.5

Campaigns

1,574.5

1,690.6

1,796.7

1,702.0

RTBF

1,810.3

1,837.3

2,326.1

2,009.2

Othera

1,437.3

1,483.1

1,543.3

1,643.3

Total

6,386.4

6,896.4

7,629.7

7,234.0

Source: DOE, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 45; H. Rept. 112-331, Military Construction

and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, conference report to accompany H.R. 2055

[Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012], pp. 871-873.

Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in

Technical Base and Facilities.

FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 include Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident

Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security,

and Cyber Security. In addition, FY2010 includes Congressionally Directed Projects and Use of Prior Year

Balances; FY2011 includes Science, Technology and Engineering Capability and a Rescission; and FY2012

includes National Security Applications, Legacy Contractor Pensions, and a Rescission.

The FY2012 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security

Program, which projects the budget and components for FY2013-FY2016 (see Table 12).

Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program

($ millions)

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

DSW

2,111.4

2,327.9

2,530.0

2,630.7

Campaigns

1,809.9

1,812.7

1,815.8

1,852.3

RTBF

2,484.3

2,742.5

2,729.7

2,734.9

Othera

1,543.1

1,535.4

1,608.1

1,687.7

Total

7,948.7

8,418.5

8,683.5

8,905.6

Source: DOE, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 46.

Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, Facilities and

Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, and

National Security Applications.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

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 National Security Complex, a

Weapons Surveillance Facility at Pantex Plant, and a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research

Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.51 For details, see the Final

Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released

in October 2008, along with two Records of Decision of December 2008.52

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;

U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA Releases Draft Plan to Transform

Nuclear Weapons Complex.” Press release, December 18, 2007, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2007/

PR_2007-12-18_NA-07-64.htm; National Nuclear Security Administration, “Nuclear Weapons Complex

Transformation,” with links to plans for each site, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/complextransformation.htm; and Walter

Pincus, “Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program,” Washington Post, December 19, 2007, p. 1.

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.

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

(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.53

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, the 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.”54

The FY2011 budget request for Weapons Activities was $7,008.8 million, vs. FY2010 actual

appropriations of $6,386.4 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.55 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.”56

According to that document, “the Administration intends to invest $80 billion in the next decade

to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex.” The Administration submitted a revised

1251 report in November 2010; its projections for weapons stockpile and infrastructure costs

(billions of dollars) were: FY2011, 7.0; FY2012, 7.6; FY2013, 7.9; FY2014, 8.4; FY2015, 8.7;

FY2016, 8.9; FY2017, 8.9-9.0; FY2018, 9.2-9.3; FY2019, 9.4-9.6; and FY2020, 9.4-9.8. NNSA

issued a new strategic plan in May 2011.57 NNSA also issued a detailed stockpile stewardship and

management plan in April 2011.58 The FY2011 enacted figure, as presented in the FY2012 House

Appropriations Committee report on energy-water appropriations, was $6,896.4 million.

For FY2012, the Administration requested $7,589.4 million for Weapons Activities. The House

Appropriations Committee recommended $7,091.7 million for this account, and the House

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2009,

unnumbered committee print, June 2008, pp. 123-124.

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.

U.S. Department of Defense. Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/

2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf.

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.

U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security

Administration Strategic Plan, May 2011, http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/

2011_NNSA_Strat_Plan.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. FY 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and

Management Plan. Report to Congress, April 15, 2011, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/SSMP-FY12041511.pdf.

Congressional Rese

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.