Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 25, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2014 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
February 25, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43121
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects
of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.
FY2013 Energy and Water Development appropriations were considered in the context of the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits
for FY2012-FY2021. On March 26, 2013, the President signed H.R. 933, the FY2013 Defense
and Military Construction/VA, Full Year Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-6). The act funded
Energy and Water Development accounts at the FY2012 enacted level for the rest of FY2013,
with some exceptions. However, under BCA, an automatic spending reduction process, consisting
of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, went into effect March
1, 2013.
For FY2014, as in previous years, the level of overall spending was a major issue. President
Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in April 2013.
The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 26 the House Appropriations Committee reported a
bill, H.R. 2609, with a total of $30.4 billion; the bill passed the House, with amendments, on July
10. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a bill, S. 1245, on June 27, with a total of
$34.4 billion. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014,
H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal programs, including Energy and Water
Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013 post-sequestration spending level. On
December 26 the President signed H.J.Res. 59 (P.L. 113-67), which contained the Bipartisan
Budget Act establishing less stringent spending caps for FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA and
easing the way for an appropriations agreement. On January 17, 2014, the President signed H.R.
3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), containing appropriations for all
12 FY2014 appropriations bills, including Energy and Water Development programs (Division
D).
In addition to funding levels, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs
included
•
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);
•
proposed FY2014 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) programs (Title III) that were more than 50% higher in the
Administration’s request than the amount appropriated for FY2012; and,
•
funding for the nuclear weapons program and other defense activities, which
make up half of the total Department of Energy budget.
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Status................................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development Appropriations for
FY2013 and FY2014 .............................................................................................................. 1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers..................................................................................................... 3
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................... 4
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers.................................................................................... 5
Project Backlog and New Starts .......................................................................................... 5
Navigation Trust Funds ....................................................................................................... 6
Ecosystem Restoration Projects .......................................................................................... 8
Continuing Authorities Program ......................................................................................... 9
Title II: Department of the Interior .................................................................................................. 9
Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project...................................................................... 9
Central Utah Project ................................................................................................................ 11
Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................................ 11
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations .......................................................................... 12
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ................................................................................. 12
WaterSMART Program ..................................................................................................... 13
Title III: Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 14
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy ............................................................................. 16
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) .......................................................... 16
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER) Program ......................................... 25
Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................. 25
Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................ 30
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 32
Science .............................................................................................................................. 33
ARPA-E ............................................................................................................................. 39
Nuclear Waste Disposal..................................................................................................... 39
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 42
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship .......................................................................... 45
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs ............................................................ 55
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research Facilities ............................................................................................. 57
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 64
Title IV: Independent Agencies...................................................................................................... 65
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies ............................................................................. 66
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................... 66
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2014.................................. 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007 to FY2014 .............................. 2
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ............................................... 3
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers .......... 5
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. Reclamation WaterSMART Program ............................................................................... 13
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ........... 14
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 16
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development ..................................................................... 31
Table 11. Science ........................................................................................................................... 34
Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2013-FY2014 ....................................................... 45
Table 13. Weapons Activities: FY2014 Request and FY2015-FY2018 Plan ................................ 46
Table 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........................................................ 55
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management ...................................... 61
Table 16. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies ......... 66
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 68
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 68
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
April 2013. The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 18, 2013, the House Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee approved a FY2014 bill totaling $30.4 billion. The bill, H.R. 2609,
passed the House with amendments on July 10. The Senate Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee reported out a bill June 25, totaling $34.4 billion, and the full Appropriations
Committee approved the bill, S. 1245, on June 27. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal
programs, including Energy and Water Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013
post-sequestration spending level. On December 26 the President signed H.J.Res. 59 (P.L. 11367), which contained the Bipartisan Budget Act establishing less stringent spending caps for
FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA, thus easing the way for an appropriations agreement. On
January 17, 2014, the President signed H.R. 3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014
(P.L. 113-76), containing appropriations for all 12 FY2014 appropriations bills, including Energy
and Water Development programs (Division D).
Status
Table 1 indicates the status of the FY2014 funding legislation.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2014
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
6/18/13
6/25/13
Final Approval
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
P.L.
113-76
H.Rept.
113-135
7/10/13
S.Rept.
113-47
—
—
1/15/14
1/16/14
1/17/14
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP)
and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC).
The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development
Appropriations for FY2013 and FY2014
FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021.
The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit
Congressional Research Service
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit
reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process
established by the BCA was triggered; this process consists of a combination of sequestration and
lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The “joint
committee” sequestration process for FY2013 required the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve
equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be
determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by the BCA. For further
information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), enacted on January 2, 2013, made a
number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that took place during FY2013. First,
the date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two months, until
March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by $24
billion. Third, the statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were
lowered. Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint
committee sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013.1 For further information on the changes
to BCA procedures made by ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act
of 2012: Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by (name
redacted)
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2007 to FY2014.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2007 to FY2014
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014a
29.4
30.9
40.5b
33.4
31.7
34.4c
30.5
34.9
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a.
Requested budget authority.
b.
Includes $7.5 billion for Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.
c.
Includes $1.7 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles.
1
White House, President Obama, Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
Senate
P.L. 11376
Title I: Corps of Engineers
10,068.3b
4,726.0
4,898.0
5,272.0
5,467.5
Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1,014.1
1,049.6
990.0
1,099.6
1,113.1
Title III: Department of Energy
25,148.7
28,927.9
24,866.9
28,209.9
27,281.0
Title IV: Independent Agencies
252.2
243.8
249.3
253.8
265.1
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsc
-565.5
-565.5
-565.5
-565.5
-565.5
35,916.6b
34,381.8
30,438.7
34,269.8
33,561.3
Title
E&W Total
House
Source: FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47, P.L. 113-76 Joint Explanatory Statement.
a.
Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
b.
Includes $5,350 billion in supplemental funding for the Corps of Engineers under the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
c.
Includes offsetting revenues from various sources.
Tables 4 through 16 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
FY2012-FY2013, and proposed funding for FY2014. The FY2013 figures do not reflect the
March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25. Accompanying these tables is a discussion
of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers2
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding for the civil program of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), 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 and 113th Congress and reductions for some projects and classes of
projects compared to previous years. Additionally, in recent years flooding events on the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers and in the northeastern United States affected a number of Corps
projects which received supplemental funds. In addition to the regular appropriation for the
Corps, Congress appropriated $1.724 billion in supplemental funding for response and recovery
related to 2012 flooding and $5.35 billion in supplemental funding related to Hurricane Sandy.3
(See Table 4.)
2
3
This section was prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Some of these funds were restricted to areas that were impacted by these storms.
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps is below the agency’s enacted
appropriation. However, in FY2013 the final amount provided by Congress to the Corps was less
than the Administration’s request. Congress provided the Corps with $4.718 billion (post
sequestration, post rescission), or $13 million less than the $4.731 billion requested by the
Administration.4
FY2014 returned appropriations to the pattern of Congress providing more to the Corps than
requested by the President. The President’s FY2014 budget request for the Corps was $4.826
billion, not accounting for proposed rescission of prior year funds. In its markup, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $4.876 billion for the Corps, or about $50 million more
than the amount requested by the Administration for FY2014. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $5.272 billion for the Corps, or $546 million more than the
Administration’s request. P.L. 113-76 provided more than any of these; under the enacted bill, the
agency’s civil works appropriations for FY2014 totaled $5.468 billion.
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers
Corps funding is part of the debate over 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 competitive grants. Generally
about 85% of the appropriations for Corps civil works activities are directed to specific projects.
In addition to specific projects identified for funding in the President’s budget, in past years many
Corps projects have received additional funding from Congress in the appropriations process.5
Since the 112th Congress, site-specific project line items added by Congress (i.e., earmarks) have
been among those projects subject to House and Senate earmark moratoriums. As a result,
additional congressional funding at the project level has not been provided since FY2010. In lieu
of the traditional project-based increases, Congress has included additional funding for selected
categories of Corps projects (e.g., “ongoing navigation work”) that were not funded in the
President’s budget, and provided limited direction to the Corps for allocation of these funds.6 The
House and Senate both continued this practice in their FY2014 recommendations.
4
The final enacted Continuing Resolution for FY2013 extended FY2012 funding levels generally but did not provide
funding at the project level or outline post-sequestration funding. These totals were delineated in the Corps FY2013
Work Plan. These documents are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
5
While congressional earmarks make up a relatively small percentage of most agency budgets, a significant number of
Corps projects historically received additional funding from Congress for construction or operational expenditures.
6
Congress provided additional funding and guidance for several broad categories of projects in the FY2012 conference
report (H.Rept. 112-331), and these allocations were carried over by reference in FY2013’s long term continuing
resolution. The FY2012 report instructed the Corps to make project level allocations in a “work plan” and report back
to Congress. Some of the categories to be funded in the work plan were designated by Congress as only being available
for projects which were not included in the Administration’s budget request. Recent Work Plan allocations are
available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
Program
FY2012
Approp.
FY2012
Suppa
FY2013
Suppb
FY2013
Enactedc
FY2014
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 11376
Investigations and
Planning
117.0
-
50.0
118.5
90.0
90.0
120.0
125.0
1,617.0
-
3,461.0
1,586.6
1,350.0
1,343.0
1,542.0
1,656.0
Mississippi River &
Tributaries (MR&T)
252.0
802.0
-
238.8
200.0
249.0
300.0
307.0
Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
2,412.0
534.0
821.0
2,286.0
2,588.0
2,682.0
2,700.0
2,861.0
Regulatory
193.0
-
-
182.9
279.0
193.0
200.0
200.0
General Expenses
185.0
-
-
175.3
182.0
182.0
182.0
182.0
FUSRAPd
109.0
-
-
99.9
104.0
104.0
195.0
103.5
Flood Control &
Coastal Emergencies
(FC&CE)
112.0
388.0
1,008.0
25.6
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
Office of the Asst.
Secretary of the Army
5.0
-
10.0
4.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5,002.0
1,724.0
5,350.0
4,726.0e
4,876.0
5,272.0
5,467.5
Construction
Total Title I
4,718.3
Source: Corps FY2013 Work Plan, FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47, and P.L. 113-76.
Notes:
a.
$1.724 billion in supplemental funding was provided under the FY2012 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act
(P.L. 112-77) for flooding in the Midwestern United States, among other things.
b.
$5.35 billion in supplemental funding related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy was provided under
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
c.
Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
d.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
e.
The Administration’s request included a $100 million rescission from formerly appropriated funds, which
was not included by the House or Senate.
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers
Project Backlog and New Starts
The large number of authorized Corps studies and projects that have not received appropriations
to date, or that are authorized and have received funding but are incomplete, is often referred to as
the “backlog” of authorized projects. Estimates of the construction backlog range from $20
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
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
that have never received appropriations). The backlog raises policy questions, such as which
activities to fund among authorized activities.7
Recent budget requests by the Administration have included few new studies and construction
starts, and enacted appropriations for FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 barred any funding for new
projects (defined as projects or studies that have not received appropriations previously). For
FY2014, the Administration requested funding for four new construction starts and 10 new
studies.8 The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding for New Starts in
FY2014. The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration’s request and
recommended that the Corps produce a list of an additional five new studies and three new
construction starts in its Work Plan for FY2014. P.L. 113-76 allows up to nine new study starts
and four new construction starts.
Navigation 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 support cost shared investments in federal navigation
infrastructure and have both received attention in recent years. While the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund has a surplus balance, the Inland Waterway Trust Fund currently faces a shortfall and
a curtailment of activities. Both trust funds are subject to appropriations. Authorization issues
associated with these trust funds are often addressed through Water Resources Development Acts,
or similar legislation.9 Both trust funds are discussed below.
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. The tax revenues are
deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from which Congress appropriates
funds for most harbor dredging.
In 1990, Congress increased the HMT rate from 4 cents per $100 of cargo value to 12.5 cents per
$100 of cargo value in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 101-508). In recent years,
HMTF annual expenditures have remained relatively flat while HMT collections have increased
due to rising import volume.10 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
(see H.R. 335 and S. 218). 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
7
For more information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations,
Appropriations, and Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
8
The Administration’s FY2014 proposed new starts were Hamilton City, CA (Ecosystem Restoration); Lower
Colorado River Basin, TX (Flood Risk Management); Louisiana Coastal Area, LA (Ecosystem Restoration); Columbia
River, OR and WA (Navigation).
9
For more information on congressional consideration of Corps trust fund authorization legislation, see CRS Report
R43298, H.R. 3080 and S. 601: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions, by (name redacted) et al.
10
The exception was 2009, when collections declined along with import volume.
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
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 FY2014 budget requested $890 million from the HMTF, leaving an
estimated-end-of-year balance of more than $8.9 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $1 billion for HMTF expenditures, or $110 million more than the Administration’s
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not specify an overall funding level for the
HMTF in its markup. Like most appropriations bills that fund the Corps, P.L. 113-76 does not
specify a specific amount of HMTF funds to be used in FY2014; based on the harbor operation
and maintenance activities identified in the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76,
more than $1 billion in eligible HMTF expenditures may occur.
For more information on harbor maintenance funding, see CRS Report R41042, Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by (name redacted).
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).11 IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax on
commercial vessels on designated waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.12 Since
FY2007, there has been a looming shortfall in the IWTF. In recent years Congress has taken
measures to ensure temporary solvency of the IWTF, either by appropriating federal funds
beyond the aforementioned 50% federal requirement (FY2009 and FY2010), or by limiting IWTF
expenditures to the amount available under current year fuel tax revenues (FY2011-FY2013). The
IWTF is expected to have a balance of approximately $70 million at the end of FY2013. Without
changes to the current system, needed funding for eligible work is expected to continue to exceed
available funding.
In the past multiple Administrations have proposed fees (e.g., lock user fees, congestion fees) that
would have increased IWTF revenues. These fees have been opposed by users and rejected by
Congress. In 2011, users endorsed a plan of their own that would increase the current fuel tax by
$0.06-$0.08 per gallon and alter the cost-share arrangement for some IWTF projects to increase
the portion paid for by the federal government. H.R. 1149 would authorize this proposal, which
has been opposed by the Obama Administration.
Recent estimates by the Corps indicate that one project, Olmsted Lock and Dam on the Ohio
River, is expected to use up the majority of IWTF revenues over the next 10 years.13 At the same
11
For more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
12
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.
13
Currently the Olmsted Project accounts for almost all IWTF appropriations. The project was originally authorized at
a cost of $775 million (plus inflationary increases) but recently required an increase to its authorization ceiling in
accordance with Section 902(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. §2280).The FY2014
Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-46, increased the project’s authorization from $775 million to $2.92 billion.
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
time, other navigation construction and major rehabilitation work is expected to stall. Without a
new source of revenue or some other change directed by Congress, the overall number of inland
waterway projects is expected to be extremely limited. Changes to IWTF policies have
historically been under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, but in recent years
appropriators have expressed frustration with the lack of action on this issue.
For FY2014, the Administration requested limited appropriations for IWTF projects based on
current-year fuel tax revenues.14 This is the same approach that was proposed and enacted in
FY2011-FY2013. The FY2014 Administration budget requested approximately $94 million in
inland waterway spending from the IWTF, with an equal amount to be drawn from the General
Fund of the Treasury. The Administration also assumed an additional $80 million in new revenues
from an unspecified user fee, presumably separate from the current fuel tax. The majority of
FY2014 requested IWTF funds were proposed for the Olmsted Project. The House
Appropriations Committee disagreed with the user fee approach, but continued to agree with the
approach of limiting appropriations to current year fuel revenue. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also disagreed with the user fee proposal, and proposed exempting the Olmsted
Project from IWTF cost sharing requirements in FY2014. This would allow other IWTF projects
to proceed using the trust fund revenues, but would fund Olmsted entirely out of the General
Fund of the Treasury. P.L. 113-76 reduces from 50% to 25% the costs of the Olmsted project that
are to come from the IWTF during FY2014.
For more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent
Proposals and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Ecosystem Restoration Projects
The Corps portion of the Energy and Water bill typically includes funding for ecosystem
restoration projects, such as restoration of the Everglades in South Florida.15 Previously some in
Congress have criticized the fact that while the Corps has requested reductions for some
“traditional” activities in recent budgets, funding for Corps environmental business line activities,
which include ecosystem restoration projects, has largely remained the same. For FY2014, the
Administration requested $449 million (approximately 9% of the total FY2014 Corps request,
spread among several accounts) for ecosystem restoration projects. This amount is less than has
been appropriated for these activities in recent years. Everglades restoration was among the
ecosystem restoration projects proposed for reduction in the FY2014 request. The President’s
budget requested $88 million for Everglades restoration, or a significant reduction from the
FY2012 enacted level of $135 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$83.6 million for the project, and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the
Administration’s request. P.L. 113-76 provides less; the explanatory statement accompanying the
bill identified $46.6 million for these activities.
14
Assuming annual fuel tax revenues of approximately $95 million, spending on inland waterways construction for
FY2014 would be approximately $190 million for each year (or approximately $60 million less than the average
funding provided from FY1992-2010).
15
Along with the Department of the Interior, the Corps typically receives funding for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Program, or CERP. For more information regarding Everglades restoration funding, see CRS Report
R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation Progress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Continuing Authorities Program
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.16 CAPs are referred to by the section number in
the bill where the CAP was first authorized. The Administration’s FY2014 budget requested $29
million in funding for five of the nine CAPs, or a significant decrease from previous enacted
levels. The Administration proposed no funding for four 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). The House Appropriations Committee
proposed $33 million in funding for eight CAPs, while the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $50 million in funding for eight CAPs. The explanatory statement accompanying
P.L. 113-76 provided $53 million for the CAPs.
Title II: Department of the Interior17
Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project
Title II of the Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for two sets of activities
within the Department of the Interior: it funds the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act (CUPCA). The total discretionary FY2014 Title II budget request was
$1.050 billion. The House-passed bill recommended $965 million for these programs, and the
Senate recommended approximately $1.099 billion. P.L. 113-76 provided $1.113 billion for Title
II.
Reclamation released an operating plan for FY2013 that accounts for sequestration’s effect on
FY2013 enacted level under the BCA and ATRA and allows for comparison to FY2014 proposed
spending levels.18 According to Reclamation, funding for Title II activities under the FY2013
operating plan was $1.014 billion (post sequestration, post rescission).19
The FY2014 request for the Bureau of Reclamation and CUPCA included an “offset” of $53.2
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 $996 million.20 As in previous years,
additional funding is estimated to be available for FY2014 via “permanent and other” funds, but
these funds are not included in net discretionary totals.
16
Information on the various CAPs is provided in CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource
Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
17
This section was prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
18
The operating plan is available at http://www.usbr.gov/budget/.
19
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to FY2013 amounts in this section are to FY2013 appropriated amounts
before taking into account the BCA and ATRA.
20
This offset is consistent with prior year appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Requesta
Housea
Senatea
P.L.
113-76
Central Utah Water
Conservancy District
26.7
19.8
—
7.7
—
6.4
Mitigation and Conservation
Commission Activities
2.0
1.2
—
1.0
—
1.0
Expenses of the Secretary of
the Interior
—
—
—
—
—
1.3
28.7
20.9
—
8.7
—
8.7
Program
Total, Central Utah
Project
Source: FY2013 Bureau of Reclamation Work Plan, FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47,
and P.L. 113-76.
Notes: : FY2013 enacted levels include sequestration and other related reductions. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
a.
The FY2014 budget proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project Completion Account to the Bureau of
Reclamation. See Table 6 below for Administration and Senate recommendations for this account.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Requesta
Housea
Senatea
P.L.
113-76
Water and Related
Resources
895.0
848.2
791.1
812.7
945.8
954.1
Policy and Administration
60.0
56.9
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
CVP Restoration Fund
(CVPRF)
53.1
50.4
53.3
53.3
53.3
53.3
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
39.7
37.6
37.0
30.0
37.0
37.0
San Joaquin Restoration
Fundb
—
—
26.0
—
—
—
Indian Water Rights
Settlementb
—
—
78.7
—
—
—
—
—
3.5
—
3.5
—
Gross Current
Reclamation Authority
1,047.7
993.0
1,049.6
956.0
1,099.6
1,104.4
Total, Title II Current
Authority (CUP and
Reclamation)
1,076.4
1,014.0
1,049.6
964.8
1,099.6
1,113.1
Program
Central Utah Project
Completiona
Source: FY2013 Bureau of Reclamation Work Plan, FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S. Rept. 113-47,
and P.L. 113-76.
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Notes: FY2013 enacted levels include sequestration and other related reductions. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
a.
The Administration proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project Completion Account to the Bureau of
Reclamation. To date, this proposal has not been enacted. See Table 5 above for House and enacted
amounts.
b.
As in previous requests, the Administration’s request includes funding for these items, which have in the
past been funded within Water and Related Resources, as new accounts.
Central Utah Project
The Administration requested $3.5 million for CUPCA in FY2014, or $17.4 million less than the
FY2013 enacted amount (post sequestration, post rescission). In FY2014 the Administration once
again proposed to make Reclamation responsible for oversight and implementation of CUPCA
(these responsibilities are currently in a separate office in DOI). The Senate Appropriations
Committee agreed with the President’s request, but in its bill the House retained CUPCA as a
separate account and provided $8.7 million for this project. Similar to the House bill, P.L. 113-76
retained CUPCA as a separate account and provided $8.7 million for the project, including $1.3
million for expenses of the Secretary of the Interior.
Bureau of Reclamation
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. 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 lines and relatively few “programs.” Also similar to the Corps, previously these
Reclamation projects have often been subject to earmark disclosure rules. The current
moratorium on earmarks affects Congress’s ability to steer money directly toward specific
Reclamation projects, as it has done in the past.
Reclamation’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency’s
traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, dam
safety, and ecosystem restoration, among others. The Obama Administration requested $791
million for the Water and Related Resources account for FY2014, a decrease of $57 million from
the FY2013 enacted amount (post sequestration, post rescission). Most of this decrease was due
to shifting of funds to new accounts for Indian water rights settlements and San Joaquin
restoration. The House-passed bill provided $812 million for Water and Related Resources, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $946 million for this account in its
recommendation. Neither the House nor the Senate included the Administration’s proposed new
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
accounts for Indian water rights funding (although some of this funding was provided within
Water and Related Resources).
P.L. 113-76 included multiple provisions related to Reclamation drought response and related
authorities. For example, it extended the authorization of Reclamation’s emergency drought relief
program through FY2017 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)), expanded the Secretary of the Interior’s authority
to participate in nonfederal groundwater banking in California, and waived certain reporting
provisions for transfer of irrigation water among selected federal water contractors, while also
directing Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service to expedite “programmatic
environmental compliance” to facilitate CVP water transfers. P.L. 113-76 also extended the
authorization of the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act (P.L. 108-351) through 2015, thus
continuing certain provisions of the law that were set to expire at the end of FY2014.
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations
The CVP in California is one of Reclamation’s largest and most complex water projects, and
limited deliveries to CVP contractors are often the subject of appropriations and authorization
debates. In recent years, 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), some of which restrict CVP operations because of
the project’s potential effects on certain fish species.21 Previous proposals to restrict
implementation of BiOps in the CVP, including amendments to appropriations bills, have not
been enacted. However, other measures to lessen the impact of these restrictions have been
enacted, and related legislation is currently under consideration.22
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.23 The Fund is supported through the combination of a reallocation of Central
21
The two BiOps in question have found that continued operation of the projects under a plan developed and
implemented in 2004 (known as the Operations Criteria and Plan, or 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. These and other restrictions have led to low water deliveries for certain water districts (e.g., those with
junior water rights).
22
For example, in February 2014 the House passed H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Emergency Water
Delivery Act, which is largely based on H.R. 1837 from the 112th Congress. H.R. 3964 would, among other things,
alter the current regime for water deliveries in the Central Valley of California and repeal the San Joaquin River
Restoration Act. For more information, see CRS Report R42375, H.R. 1837—The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley
Water Reliability Act, by (name redacted).
23
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
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 nonfederal sources. The Settlement Act provided $88 million from the Restoration Fund to be
available without further appropriation. In recent years, some have proposed repealing the
settlement outright.24
Reclamation reports that in FY2014, the balance of the aforementioned mandatory appropriations
is expected to be exhausted. Separately, Reclamation has also proposed an allocation of $26
million in discretionary funding for FY2014 within a new account for San Joaquin River
restoration activities. The House Appropriations Committee provided no funding for these
activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee disagreed with the Administration’s request of
funding for these activities in a separate account, but provided $26 million in funding for San
Joaquin River restoration as a line item under the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project in
the Water and Related Resources account. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76
followed the Senate’s approach by providing $26 million for the Friant Division in the Water and
Related Resources Account.
WaterSMART Program
In recent years Reclamation has combined funding for “bureau-wide” programs promoting water
conservation into a single program—the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s
Resources for Tomorrow) Program. The program is part of the Department of the Interior’s focus
on water conservation, re-use, and planning. The FY2014 WaterSMART request included five
components as shown in Table 7. The FY2014 request for all WaterSMART programs was $35.4
million. The House bill recommended eliminating funding for two components as shown in Table
7. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an increase of $8 million for
WaterSMART grants and otherwise agreed with the Administration’s request. The explanatory
statement accompanying P.L. 113-76 provided nearly $49 million for these activities.
Table 7. Reclamation WaterSMART Program
(selected programs, $ millions)
Program Name
WaterSMART Grants
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 11376
12.2
22.6
12.0
—
20.0
19.0
4.9
6.0
4.7
—
4.7
4.7
24.7
20.0
14.0
13.3
22.0
21.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.25
0.25
Basin Studies
Title XVI Projects
Cooperative Watershed
Management Program
(...continued)
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).
24
See footnote 22.
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Program Name
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 11376
5.0
6.2
3.4
3.01
3.4
3.4
47.1
52.0
35.4
16.5
50.39
48.92
Water Conservation
Field Services
Total
Source: FY2013 Bureau of Reclamation Work Plan, Bureau of Reclamation FY2014 Congressional Justifications,
H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47, and explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76.
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 energy efficiency, nuclear power, fossil energy R&D, the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, energy statistics, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear
weapons programs.
The FY2013 continuing resolution, P.L. 113-6, funded DOE programs at $25.1 billion, including
the sequestration requirements of the Budget Control Act that went into effect March 1, 2013. The
Administration’s request for DOE programs for FY2014 totaled $28.9 billion. H.R. 2609, as
passed by the House July 10, 2013, totaled $24.9 billion for DOE programs. S. 1245, as reported
out by the Senate Appropriations Committee June 27, would have funded DOE programs at $28.2
billion. The final appropriations bill, P.L. 113-76, appropriated $27.3 billion for DOE.
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
Senate
P.L.
113-76
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
1,719.4
2,775.7
958.0
2,281.0
1,901.7
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability
132.1
169.0
0.0b
149.0
147.3
Nuclear Energy
719.0
735.5
656.4
735.5
889.2
Race to the Top
0.0
200.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fossil Energy R&D
508.2
420.6
430.0
420.6
562.1
Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves
14.1
20.0
14.9
20.0
20.0
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
182.6
189.4
189.4
189.4
189.4
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
3.6
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Energy Information Administration
99.5
117.0
100.0
117.0
117.0
Non-Defense Environmental
223.4
213.0
213.0
233.0
231.8
Program
House
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Senate
P.L.
113-76
545.0
554.9
598.8
5,152.8
4,653.0
5,152.8
5,071.0
250.6
379.0
70.0
379.0
280.0
Nuclear Waste Disposal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
119.2
118.4
13.0
126.4
126.4
Office of Inspector General
39.8
42.1
42.0
42.1
42.1
Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan
5.7
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Sec. 1705 Loan Guarantee
0.0
26.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
9,086.5
11,101.2
7,898.7
10,434.5
10,210.8
Weapons Activities
6,970.8
7,868.4
7,675.0
7,868.4
7,781.0
Nuclear Nonproliferation
2,243.1
2,140.1
2,100.0
2,180.1
1,954.0
Naval Reactors
994.1
1,246.1
1,109.0
1,312.1
1,095.0
Office of Administrator
377.5
397.8
373.0
397.8
377.0
10,585.5
11,652.5
11,257.0
11,758.5
11,207.0
4,619.2
5,316.9
4,773.0
5,146.5
5,000.0
755.9
749.1
830.0
762.1
755.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15,959.7
17,718.5
16,860.0
17,667.1
16,962.0
Southeastern
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Southwestern
11.2
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
Western
90.9
95.9
95.9
95.9
95.9
Falcon & Amistad O&M
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
TOTAL, PMAs
102.0
108.2
108.2
108.2
108.2
Total,Title III
25,148.7
28,927.9
24,866.9
28,209.9
27,281.0
Program
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
448.2
554.8
4,621.1
House
Cleanup
Uranium D&D Fund
Science
Energy Transformation Acceleration
Fund (ARPA-E)
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
Total, NNSA
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Other Defense Activities
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
TOTAL, DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)
Source: FY2014 budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47, P.L. 113-76 Joint Explanatory Statement.
a.
Source: DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013,
sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
b.
The House bill would have merged EDER programs with EERE. H.Rept. 112-135 did not specify a particular
funding level for EDER.
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 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 8.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)25
President Obama has declared energy efficiency and renewable energy to be a high priority,
stressing their importance to jobs, economic growth, and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
For example, the 2013 Economic Report of the President notes that “President Obama has set a
goal of once again doubling generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020.” But
Congress so far hasn’t supported his efforts to boost spending for these programs. His proposed
FY2011 budget for EERE of $2.4 billion was reduced to $1.8 billion, the FY2012 request for $3.2
billion was cut to $1.8 billion, and the FY2013 request for $2.3 billion was cut to $1.7 billion.
For FY2014, DOE requested $2.78 billion for the EERE programs. Compared with the FY2013
appropriation, the FY2014 request would have increased EERE funding by about $1.06 billion, or
about 62%.
DOE requested an additional $169 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(EDER) programs. Table 9 gives the programmatic breakdown for EERE and EDER.
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
Houseb
Senate
P.L. 11376
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies
98.0
100.0
65.0
100.0
93.0
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
188.4
282.0
120.0
245.0
232.4
Solar Energyc
273.2
356.5
50.3
310.0
257.2
—Concentrating Solar Power
(CSP)
—-
90.1
—-
—-
—-
—Photovoltaic (PV) Power
—-
79.1
—-
—-
—-
Wind Energy
88.2
144.0
24.0
110.0
88.2
Geothermal Technology
35.8
60.0
12.0
60.0
45.8
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
55.6
55.0
24.0
59.0
58.6
Subtotal, Renewable and
Hydrogen
739.2
997.5
310.3
884.0
775.2
Vehicle Technologies
310.9
575.0
205.0
415.0
289.9
Building Technologies
207.3
300.0
65.3
230.0
178.0
Advanced Manufacturing
109.3
365.0
120.0
216.0
180.6
Program
25
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
Houseb
Senate
P.L. 11376
Federal Energy Management
28.3
36.0
0.0
30.0
28.3
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
655.8
1,276.0
390.3
891.0
678.8
Facilities and Infrastructure
24.9
46.0
31.0
46.0
46.0
Program Direction
155.5
185.0
—-
185.0
162.0
Strategic Programs
23.6
36.0
2.0
28.0
23.6
R&D Subtotal
1,599.0
2,540.5
810.5
2,034.0
1,683.5
Renewables Deployment
9.4
7.0
3.0
10.0
7.0
Subtotal, Demonstration
and Deployment
9.4
7.0
3.0
10.0
7.0
Weatherization Grants
64.1
184.0
77.1
184.0
174.0
State Energy Grants
47.1
57.0
12.0
53.0
50.0
Use of Prior Year Balances
0.0
-12.8
0.0
0.0
-2.4
Rescission
—-
—-
—-
—-
-10.4
House Floor Actiond
—-
—-
-9.5
—-
—-
Total EERE Appropriation
1,719.4
2,775.7
958.0
2,281.0
1,901.7
Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (EDER)
132.1
169.0
—-
149.0
147.3
Program
Sources: FY2015 statistical table; FY2014 budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47, P.L. 113-76.
a.
Estimates of the FY2013 enacted levels are taken from DOE, FY2015 Statistical Table by Appropriation, Dec. 6,
2013. Those amounts do reflect the 251A sequester. Also included is the House report recommendation
for $157 million in rescissions of prior-year unobligated balances.
b.
The House recommended eliminating EDER as a separate entity but also proposed $80 million to fund
those programs under EERE.
c.
In floor action on H.R. 2609, H.Amdt. 248 cut Solar Energy Programs by $15 million, from $65.3 million to
$50.3 million.
d.
In floor action on H.R. 2609, H.Amdt. 249 instituted a $9.5 million across-the-board cut for EERE.
EERE Active Project Management
The request emphasized that fiscal and budget constraints made it important that EERE use funds
as efficiently and carefully as possible. Thus, starting in FY2014, EERE stated that it will fully
and uniformly implement a regimen of Active Project Management. Under this regimen, every
competitive project awarded will take the form of a cooperative agreement, not a grant. This, said
DOE, would enable greater EERE oversight. Also, each project would be subject to aggressive,
annual go/no-go milestones, rigorous quarterly reviews, and early termination in the event of
insufficient technical performance. DOE said that this approach would ensure that EERE had the
correct tools and project oversight to maximize the taxpayer’s return on investment.
EERE-wide Cross-Cutting Initiatives
The request emphasized five broad initiatives that cut across multiple EERE programs:
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
(1) Grid Integration Initiative. Under this initiative, launched in 2012, EERE’s vehicles, solar, and
buildings programs would work in coordination with DOE’s Grid Tech Team26 to address electric
grid integration barriers and opportunities associated with variable, distributed renewable energy
generators, electric vehicle charging, and building efficiency and controls. EERE would
coordinate with DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER). EERE
would issue an $80 million project announcement, jointly funded by three programs: Solar ($30
million), Vehicles ($20 million), and Buildings ($30 million).
(2) EV Everywhere Grand Challenge. This DOE-wide initiative aims to make technology
breakthroughs that would enable the United States, by 2022, to become the first country in the
world to invent and produce plug-in electric vehicles that are as affordable and convenient as
gasoline-powered vehicles.
(3) SunShot Grand Challenge. This DOE-wide initiative seeks to achieve directly costcompetitive solar power by 2020.
(4) Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative. This new EERE initiative would aim to dramatically
improve U.S. competitiveness in the manufacture of clean energy products (like solar modules,
LEDs, batteries, and wind blades) and to strengthen U.S. competitiveness across multiple
manufacturing industries through increased energy productivity.
(5) Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Clean Energy Initiative. Wide bandgap semiconductor
technology was initially developed for military and solid-state lighting uses. DOE believes it is a
key next-generation platform for semiconductor devices with the potential for developing highpower-conversion electronics that are much more compact, more energy efficient, and able to
operate at much higher temperatures and voltages. DOE contends that this “revolutionary”
technology could be a platform for the next generation of electric drivetrains, solar inverters,
high-efficiency motors, solid-state transformers for the grid, and many other critical, clean energy
applications.
House Action
Expressing concern about controlling budget expenses—and citing a need to focus EERE
programs on efforts to curb gasoline and electricity prices—the House Appropriations Committee
recommended cutting overall EERE funding relative to the FY2013 level by half. Further, the
committee report (H.Rept. 113-135) on H.R. 2609 proposed to merge EERE with the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER). So, the $80 million recommended for EDER
programs was included in the EERE total. The report also contained several management and
program directives, which are noted below, in the context of specific program areas.
In floor action on H.R. 2609, two adopted amendments cut the EERE appropriation from $982.6
million to $958 million: H.Amdt. 248 cut EERE by $9.5 million (without reference to any
particular programs) and H.Amdt. 249 cut the Solar Program by $15 million.
26
DOE created the Grid Tech Team to develop a stronger and more extensive network of effective public-private
partnerships needed to ease the transition to a more modern grid. DOE, EDER, DOE Grid Tech Team,
http://energy.gov/oe/services/doe-grid-tech-team.
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Also, H.Amdt. 285 (Burgess) to H.R. 2609 was adopted, to extend a previous prohibition on the
use of funds to enforce certain light bulb efficiency standards set by section 321 of the Energy
Independence Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140). Language to extend the previous prohibition
was enacted in section 322 of P.L. 113-76.
Senate Action
Urging EERE to apply more funding to near-term commercialization efforts in partnership with
the private sector, the Senate Appropriation Committee recommended (S. 1245, S.Rept. 113-47)
FY2014 funding at a level slightly higher than the request. S. 1245 did not reach the Senate floor.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Program
This program aims to reduce petroleum use, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria air pollutants,
while contributing to a more diverse and efficient energy infrastructure. The program supports
applied research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, as well as efforts to overcome economic and institutional barriers to commercial
deployment. DOE requested $100 million—about $2 million above the FY2013 final
appropriation—seeking to increase hydrogen R&D and manufacturing R&D slightly, while
reducing fuel cell R&D slightly. The House bill proposed a one-third cut below FY2013 to $65
million, while the Senate bill would have provided the full requested amount of $100 million. The
final appropriation was $5 million less than the FY2013 level.
Biomass and Biorefinery Program Initiatives
This program aims to foster a domestic bioenergy industry that produces renewable biofuels,
bioproducts, and biopower. The goals are to curb oil dependence, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and stimulate economic and job development—especially in the farms and forests of
rural areas. While biofuels and industrial bioproducts (plastics, solvents, alcohols) may soon be
price-competitive, swings in oil prices pose an ongoing challenge to achieve costcompetitiveness. The program strategy addresses a feedstock collection barrier by focusing on
converting raw biomass to solid pellets or to “green crude” bio-oil that is easy to transport at large
scale.
Recent goals expand the program scope to include the development of biofuels that will
contribute to production targets of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These “drop-in” liquid
fuels are largely compatible with existing infrastructure to deliver, blend, and dispense fuels.
Examples include biomass-based hydrocarbon fuels (renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel),
hydrocarbons from algae, and biobutanol. The program aims to help the non-food “drop-in”
biofuels (renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) reach a wholesale finished-fuel cost under $3
per gasoline gallon-equivalent (gge) by 2017.
DOE requested $282 million in FY2014 for Bioenergy (Biomass and Biorefinery) programs, a
$94 million increase over the $188 million appropriation for FY2013. The largest requested
subprogram increase would go to conversion technologies. That increase would include $20
million for the low cost carbon fiber initiative. Another large increase would go to the integrated
biorefineries subprogram. The increase would include $45 million (justified under the Defense
Production Act) to support commercial demonstration-scale, military-grade fuel production from
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
biomass through DOE collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This
would be partially offset by a $14 million cut for algae and advanced feedstocks.
The House bill recommended about 8% more than the FY2013 appropriation, while the Senate
proposed about 30% more than FY2013. The final appropriation provided $44 million more than
the FY2013 level.
Solar Energy
For the Solar Program, DOE requested $356 million, an increase of $83 million over the FY2013
appropriation. The concentrating solar power (CSP) subprogram would have increased, mainly
for work on thermal storage to improve grid integration. The balance of systems subprogram
would grow to enable work with state and local governments to reduce permitting,
interconnection, inspection, and other soft costs. Funding for the systems integration subprogram
would have risen as well, with a focus mainly on power electronics and other means to improve
integration of solar power with the grid. Those increases would be partially offset by a cut to the
innovations in manufacturing competitiveness subprogram. Overall, the House bill recommended
a cut of $118 million (43%) from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of
$37 million (14%) over FY2013. The final appropriation was $16 million less than the FY2013
level.
Wind Energy
For the Wind Program, DOE requested a $56 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation.
Nearly half of that increase would have gone to the technology development and testing
subprogram, mainly for wind power plant optimization modeling. The increase would have
supported analysis of new technology, advanced manufacturing, and a technology incubator.
Funding for offshore wind would have grown by more than $10 million. Also, the technology
application subprogram would have increased by nearly $20 million. That increase would cover
resource characterization to better assess wind plant capacity factor performance, activities to
optimize grid integration, and analysis of market barriers arising from impacts on radar and birds
and from environmental impacts of the first installed offshore projects. Overall, the House bill
recommended a cut of $18 million (21%) from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed
an increase of $22 million (25%) over FY2013. The final appropriation was unchanged from the
FY2013 level.
Geothermal Technologies
The program aims to lower the risk of resource exploration and cut power production costs to six
cents/per kilowatt-hour (kwh) for hydrothermal power by 2020 and for newly developed
technologies by 2030. For the Geothermal Program, DOE requested $60 million, an increase of
$24 million over the FY2013 appropriation. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) would have
increased more than $25 million to establish a field lab and to support strategic R&D. This
increase would be partially offset by about a $3 million cut for activities involving low
temperature co-produced resources. Overall, the House bill recommended a $6 million (16%) cut
from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $24 million (68%) over
FY2013. The final appropriation was $10 million higher than the FY2013 level.
Congressional Research Service
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Water Power
Water power technologies employ marine and hydrokinetic (wave, tidal, current, and ocean
thermal) resources—and conventional hydropower resources—to generate electricity.
Hydropower technology is well established, but the fledgling industry for marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK) power facilities is still looking to develop a clear technology theme. For the
Water Power Program, DOE requested $55 million, a cut of $1 million below the FY2013
appropriation. The budget request would have added several million dollars for MHK RD&D,
demonstration infrastructure development, and light-weight materials in manufacturing.
Hydropower funding would have been cut by nearly $10 million. The House bill recommended a
$11 million (19%) cut from the FY2013 amount, while the Senate bill proposed to maintain the
FY2013 level. The final appropriation provided $3 million more than the FY2013 level.
Vehicle Technologies
This program is driven by the 10-year EV-Everywhere Challenge (launched in 2012), which aims
to achieve parity for plug-in electric vehicle (EV) affordability and convenience by 2022. The EV
Challenge focuses on advanced battery technology, power electronics, and advanced charging
technology—with the goal of assuring U.S. leadership in the global market for next generation
electric vehicle technology. A key supporting technology goal is to cut 2008 battery production
cost 70% by 2015 (and 88% by 2022). Further, the program seeks to achieve (1) a cut of 1.8
million barrels per day (16%) in the national oil use trend by 2020, (2) a fuel economy of 62
miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2025, and (3) a 50% increase in heavy duty truck fuel
economy by 2015. Also, the program participates in the Grid Integration Initiative.
To help achieve those goals and support the EV Everywhere initiative, DOE sought the largest
EERE FY2014 program increase—$264 million over the appropriation for FY2013. The
subprogram on batteries and electric drives would have increased by more than $120 million,
including about $70 million more for battery cost reduction through innovative manufacturing
R&D, scale-up of advanced battery component materials, and next-generation “beyond lithium”
research. An increase of nearly $40 million would have gone to advanced power electronics R&D
(on wide bandgap semiconductors) to support higher performance electric drive systems. Under
the materials subprogram, R&D on lightweight materials (carbon fiber composites, aluminum
parts, magnesium alloys) would have grown by more than $20 million to support the EV
Everywhere initiative.
The deployment subprogram would have increased $90 million for a new initiative to establish
“Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner Projects.” Competitive (and cost-shared) awards
(up to 9 awards of $10 million each) would have been made for state and local community-based
projects that would last three to four years. The objective would be the creation of replicable
“model communities” that develop policies, procedures, and infrastructure to successfully
displace on-road vehicle petroleum use with alternatives such as natural gas, electricity (e.g.,
plug-in EVs), or biofuels.
Overall, the House bill recommended a $24 million (8%) increase over the FY2013 level, while
the Senate bill proposed an increase of $104 million (34%) over FY2013. The final appropriation
was $21 million less than the FY2013 level.
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Building Technologies
This program develops energy efficiency measures to curb building-related energy costs, with a
goal of reducing energy use 50% by 2030. The program strategy is designed with three linked
paths: improve building components (envelope/windows, HVAC, lighting, and sensors/controls),
strengthen market pull (through cooperation with private industry), and raise energy efficiency
levels for new equipment (via standards) and new buildings (via model codes).
DOE requested $300 million for FY2014, an increase of $93 million over the FY2013
appropriation. Most of the requested increase, more than $70 million, would have gone to the
emerging technologies subprogram. From that amount, about $40 million would have supported
competitive (and cost-shared) demonstration projects to accelerate commercialization of
technologies that are within three years or less of market-readiness. Specific areas include
advanced building controls and “next generation” air conditioning technologies. Also, about $30
million requested for the Grid Integration Initiative would have addressed R&D on how building
energy control systems transact (provide status, availability, identity) with each other and with the
electric grid. Projects would likely cover predictive data analytics, sensors, and energy control
systems.
The request also sought $24 million for another year of funding for the Building Energy
Efficiency Innovation Hub. Additionally, about $15 million of the increase would have supported
EERE efforts to accelerate the development of energy efficiency equipment standards and
building codes.
The House bill recommended a $82 million (40%) cut from the FY2013 level, while the Senate
bill proposed an increase of $23 million (11%) over FY2013. The final appropriation was $29
million less than the FY2013 level.
Advanced Manufacturing
Domestic manufacturers face increasing challenges in the global marketplace. The Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) was designed to focus on national interests—especially concerns
about jobs, critical materials, and international competitiveness. The general goal for AMO
programs is to reduce the energy use of manufactured goods across targeted product life-cycles
by 50% over 10 years. More specific objectives include (1) 50% energy savings through
advanced materials and industrial processes, (2) help leading companies cut energy intensity by
25% over 10 years, and (3) facilitate installation of 40 GW (million kilowatts) of combined heat
and power equipment by 2020.27
To meet these goals and objectives DOE requested $365 million, a net increase of $256 million
over the FY2013 appropriation. Most of the requested increase (more than $180 million) was
directed to the subprogram on Advanced Manufacturing R&D Facilities, with the remainder split
between Next Generation Manufacturing R&D Projects (about $60 million) and Industrial
Technical Assistance (about $10 million).
27
DOE, EERE-Advanced Manufacturing Office, FY14 Budget At-a-Glance, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
pdfs/budget/manufacturing_ataglance_2014.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
The proposed $180 million plus increase for Advanced R&D Facilities included about $177
million more for clean energy manufacturing R&D facilities. That additional funding would have
allowed the program to support the creation of at least three new Clean Energy Manufacturing
Innovation (CEMI) Institutes, consistent with the President’s vision for a larger, multi-agency
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).28
CEMI is a new cross-cutting activity that would be anchored by AMO and would incorporate
activities under many of EERE’s other programs.29 The main goal is to improve U.S.
competitiveness in the manufacturing of clean energy products, such as solar photovoltaic
modules, LEDs, batteries, and wind turbine blades. The CEMI institutes would provide smalland medium-sized enterprises affordable access to cutting-edge physical and virtual
manufacturing capabilities (e.g., 3-D printing equipment) and facilitate technology use in the U.S.
manufacturing sector to bolster its global competitiveness. DOE plans to invest $70 million-$120
million into each CEMI institute, to be used over a five- to seven-year period. For each institute,
DOE plans to provide up-front funding to the greatest extent possible.
Another R&D facility, the Critical Materials Hub, was created in FY2012 to focus on
technologies that enable manufacturers to make better use of critical materials (e.g., rare earth
elements) and to eliminate the need for materials that are vulnerable to supply disruptions. Many
rare earth elements are essential to technologies of the clean energy industry.30 Examples include
wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient lighting. DOE
requested $25 million to extend the Hub’s operation for a third year.
Under the Next Generation Manufacturing Projects subprogram, advanced R&D projects focus
on technology areas with the greatest potential impact on clean energy manufacturing and energy
productivity-related competitiveness. DOE requested an increase of about $60 million over
FY2013. The increase would have supported at least three new project competitions—in specific
technology areas—of about $20 million to $40 million each. Previously identified and approved
technology areas include additive manufacturing (3-D printing), wide bandgap semiconductors
(efficient power conversion), low-cost carbon fiber (lightweight) materials, and other
technologies that would benefit multiple clean energy sectors. Also, one of the three competitions
would have been established as an “incubator activity” project. It would have gotten up to $20
million in support for a new technology area that might not be included among the abovereferenced list of approved technology areas.
For Industrial Technical Assistance, the requested increase of about $10 million would have
expanded combined heat & power (CHP) partnerships to provide greater technical assistance and
market development for critical infrastructure facilities (e.g., hospitals, military bases, wastewater
treatment facilities) and to support other applications.
28
The NNMI model was designed to induce collaboration and spread risk, complement university research, and focus
national manufacturing policy. For more about NNMI, see http://manufacturing.gov/nnmi.html and
http://www.manufacturing.gov/docs/nnmi_prelim_design.pdf.
29
Going forward, DOE expects to establish CEMIs as an alternative to the concept of “manufacturing demonstration
facilities” (MDFs), which it implemented in FY2012 with the establishment of the Critical Materials Hub (discussed in
the next paragraph). DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the home for AMO’s first MDF focused on additive
manufacturing and low-cost carbon fiber. For more on MDFs, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/rd/m/
mdf.html.
30
The Hub also supports materials needs for defense and other strategic industries.
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Overall, the House bill recommended a $41 million (37%) increase over the FY2013 level, while
the Senate bill proposed an increase of $107 million (98%) over FY2013. The final appropriation
provided $71 million more than the FY2013 level.
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
FEMP provides expertise, training, and other services to help federal agencies achieve
congressionally mandated energy efficiency and renewable energy goals. DOE requested $36
million, about $8 million more than the FY2013 appropriation. A new subprogram, the Federal
Energy Efficiency Fund, would have gotten about $10 million to provide leverage for cost sharing
of capital improvement projects at federal agencies. The House bill recommended $18 million, a
cut of $10 million. The Senate bill proposed $30 million, an increase of $2 million over FY2013.
The final appropriation was unchanged, relative to the FY2013 level.
Program Direction
This administrative program funds federal employees, contract support, and operational costs.
DOE requested $185 million, about a $30 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation. The
increase would have covered an EERE reorganization that would consolidate information
technology and establish an active project management (APM) system to oversee competitive
grants and cooperative agreements. The House bill recommended a $41 million (26%) cut from
the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $30 million (19%) over FY2013.
The final appropriation was $23 million less than the FY2013 level.
Strategic Programs
For this program (formerly Program Support), DOE sought $36 million, an increase of $12
million over the FY2013 appropriation. Of that amount, about $7 million would have gone to a
new effort to increase the rate of clean energy technology commercialization from the national
labs. Another $4 million of the increase would have expanded efforts to evaluate EERE’s impacts
and returns on investment. The House bill recommended a $14 million (58%) cut from the
FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $4 million (19%) over FY2013. The
final appropriation was $12 million less than the FY2013 level.
Weatherization Grant Program
This program addresses regulatory, financial, and planning barriers faced by state and local
governments. The goal is to foster technologies, practices, and policies that support state and
local governments in providing home energy services to low-income families that help them
reduce energy costs and save money. DOE requested $184 million, a $120 million increase over
the FY2013 appropriation. DOE stated that many states have expended leftover Recovery Act
funds and now need new funds to avoid cutting core programs and services.31 The House bill
recommended a $10 million (15%) cut below the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an
31
Also, in FY2014, collection and analysis of data from ARRA projects would enable updated estimates of program
energy savings, cost savings, leveraged funds, and other impacts. For more details about the program see CRS Report
R42147, DOE Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies, by (name
redacted).
Congressional Research Service
24
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
increase of $120 million (187%) over FY2013. The final appropriation was $110 million higher
than the FY2013 level.
State Energy Grant Program
This program supports both administrative and program activities at many state energy offices.
DOE requested $57 million, a $10 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation. The increase
would have supported competitive projects that address barriers to an effort that aims to cut state
energy use by 1% annually. The House bill recommended a $22 million (47%) cut from the
FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed a small increase of $6 million (13%) over FY2013.
The final appropriation provided $3 million more than the FY2013 level.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER) Program32
DOE requested $169 million—a net increase of $37 million over the FY2013 DOE estimate—
which included $20 million for a new Electricity Systems Hub. The Hub would address the
growing need for the grid to accommodate renewables, the impact of electric vehicles and
distributed generation, and the advent of smart grid equipment. The Hub funding would be mostly
offset by cuts to other programs. Also, notable increases were sought for three subprograms:
infrastructure security (about $10 million), cybersecurity (about $9 million), and clean energy
transmission (about $7 million). Offsetting reductions would come from two subprograms: smart
grid (a cut of about $9 million) and energy storage (a cut of about $4 million). The House bill
recommended a cut of $9 million (7%), while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $17 million
(13%) over FY2013. The final appropriation was $15 million higher than the FY2013 level.
Nuclear Energy33
The FY2014 appropriation for nuclear energy research and development is $889.2 million, 21%
above the Obama Administration’s $735.5 million request. Including advanced reactors, fuel
cycle technology, infrastructure support, and safeguards and security, the total nuclear energy
appropriation is $131.7 million (17%) above the FY2013 funding level. Funding for safeguards
and security at DOE’s Idaho facilities in FY2013 was provided under a separate appropriations
account, Other Defense Activities, but it is included under the Nuclear Energy account in the
FY2014 request and final appropriation. In contrast, funding for space and defense infrastructure,
totaling $64.1 million in the FY2013 nuclear energy appropriation, would have been shifted to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by the Administration’s request.
The Administration request proposed reductions of 4.5% for Reactor Concepts, 12.6% for
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, and 8.8% for Fuel Cycle R&D—cuts that were mostly
rejected by the final appropriation. A 4.5% increase was requested for Small Modular Reactor
Licensing Technical Support, which was increased by an additional $40 million by the final
appropriation.
The House-passed bill would have provided $656.4 million for nuclear energy. That total
excluded the Administration’s proposed shift of $94.0 million for Idaho safeguards and security
32
33
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
25
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
from Other Defense Activities and included the space and defense funding transfer to NASA. For
the programs that were to remain in nuclear energy, therefore, the House bill would have provided
an increase of $14.9 million from the Administration request and a decrease of $37 million from
FY2013. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended the same total as the
Administration request, including the proposed funding transfers.
The Administration’s FY2014 nuclear R&D budget request was consistent with DOE’s Nuclear
Energy Research and Development Roadmap issued in April 2010.34 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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee directed DOE to update the Roadmap within 180 days
after enactment to reflect lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident, advances in small
modular reactors, and the Administration’s new nuclear waste strategy.
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 FY2014 appropriation for this program is $113 million, nearly the same
as the FY2013 level and $40.5 million above the Administration request. The House had voted to
provide $86.5 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved the
Administration’s funding level.
Most of the Administration’s proposed reduction in Reactor Concepts had targeted NGNP, a hightemperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). 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 did not request any funding specifically for the NGNP project in
FY2014. 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 on October 17, 2011, that DOE would not proceed with a demonstration plant
design “at this time” but would continue research on the technology.35 Potential obstacles facing
NGNP include low prices for natural gas, the major competing fuel, and private-sector
34
Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, Washington, DC,
April 2010, http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf.
35
Idaho National Laboratory, NGNP Project 2011 Status and Path Forward, INL/EXT-11-23907, December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
26
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
unwillingness to share the project’s costs as required by EPACT05.36 According to the DOE
budget justification, some research activities now conducted under the NGNP program will be
shifted to the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram in FY2014.
Funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram was increased to $60.0 million in the
final appropriation—up from $31.0 million sought by the Administration and $21.7 million in
FY2012. The increase would cover research on high-temperature gas reactors previously
conducted under the NGNP Program. Reactor concepts being developed by the Advanced Reactor
Concepts subprogram are generally classified as “Generation IV” reactors, as opposed to the
existing fleet of commercial light water reactors, which are generally classified as generations II
and III. Such advanced reactors “could dramatically improve nuclear power performance
including sustainability, economics, and safety and proliferation resistance,” according to the
FY2014 justification. 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). The
House bill would have boosted Advanced Reactor Concepts funding to $45 million, with the
increase focused on high-temperature gas reactor fuel development formerly conducted under the
NGNP program.
The Light Water Reactor Sustainability subprogram received $30.0 million, substantially higher
than the $21.5 million requested by the Administration and the $24.8 million appropriated in
FY2012. 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 radioactive leakage from nuclear fuel
and increasing its accident tolerance, along with other “post-Fukushima lessons learned,”
according to the budget justification. The House had approved the Administration funding level,
as had the Senate committee.
Small Modular 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 300 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 the high-temperature gas
technology described above and the light water (LWR) technology used by today’s commercial
reactors.
The FY2014 appropriation for DOE technical support for licensing small modular reactors is
$110 million, 36% above the Administration request, which was about $3 million above the
36
Yanmei Xie, “Cheap Natural Gas, Cost-Share Disagreement Jeopardize NGNP,” Nucleonics Week, April 28, 2011,
p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
27
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 funding level. The final funding level was the House-approved amount, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee had endorsed the Administration request. This program has focused on
LWR designs because they are believed most likely to be deployed in the near term, according to
DOE. The FY2014 budget justification states that the SMR licensing and technical support
program will last six years and cost DOE a total of $452 million. The program is similar to
DOE’s support for larger commercial reactor designs under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program,
which ended in FY2010. DOE will provide support for design certification, standards, and
licensing. As with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, at least half the costs of the SMR design and
licensing program are to be covered by industry partners, according to DOE.
A consortium led by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) was announced by DOE in November 2012 as
the first award recipient under the program.37 DOE and the B&W consortium signed a
cooperative agreement in April 2013 to implement the award, allowing for federal payments of
around $226 million over five years to design and license a commercial demonstration plant that
could open by 2022.38 A second cooperative agreement, for an innovative SMR design that could
begin commercial operation around 2025, was awarded in December 2013 to NuScale Power for
a 45 megawatt reactor.39 The FY2014 appropriation reserved $85 million for the B&W project,
leaving $25 million for NuScale, which is still negotiating with DOE on the details of its
cooperative agreement.
An additional $23.0 million for FY2014 was appropriated to the Reactor Concepts program
(described in the section above) for SMR advanced concepts R&D—$1.5 million below the
FY2012 funding level and $3.0 million above the Administration request. Unlike the SMR
licensing support program, which focuses on near-term technology, the SMR advanced concepts
program would conduct research on technologies that might be deployed in the longer term,
according to the budget justification. The House had approved the Administration funding level,
as had the Senate panel.
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, with minimal on-site fabrication, 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 the financial commitment and risk of building them.
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,
37
DOE, “Energy Department Announces New Investment in U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design and
Commercialization,” news release, November 20, 2012, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-newinvestment-us-small-modular-reactor-design-and.
38
B&W, “B&W, DOE Sign Cooperative Agreement for Small Modular Reactor Funding,” news release, April 15,
2013, http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2013/20130415a.html.
39
DOE, “Energy Department Announces New Investment in Innovative Small Modular Reactor,” December 12, 2013,
http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investment-innovative-small-modular-reactor.
Congressional Research Service
28
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
according to the DOE budget justification. The total FY2014 appropriation for this program is
$186.5 million, $21.4 million above the Administration request and $11.3 million above the
FY2013 appropriation. The House bill would have provided $91.1 million, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $175.1 million.
The range of fuel cycle technologies being studied by the program includes direct disposal of
spent fuel (the “once through” cycle) and partial and full recycling, according to the FY2014
budget justification. The Fuel Cycle R&D 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 budget justification says.
Much of the Administration’s planned research on spent fuel management options would address
the near-term recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,
which issued its final report on January 26, 2012.40 The commission was chartered to develop
alternatives to the planned Yucca Mountain, NV, spent fuel repository, which President Obama
wants to terminate. DOE released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in January 2013 in response to the Blue Ribbon
Commission report. Funding to begin implementing the strategy is included in the Used Nuclear
Fuel Disposition subprogram, with a request of $60.0 million, $2.1 million above the FY2012
funding level. Activities in that area include developing plans for a “consent-based siting process”
for nuclear storage and disposal facilities, waste transportation analyses, and research on potential
waste repositories, including salt caverns and deep boreholes. (See the “Nuclear Waste Disposal”
section, below, for more details.)
Other major research areas in the Fuel Cycle R&D Program include the development of advanced
fuels, including accident-tolerant fuels for existing commercial reactors, evaluation of fuel cycle
options, development of improved technologies to prevent diversion of nuclear materials for
weapons, and technology to increase nuclear fuel resources, such as uranium extraction from
seawater. The final appropriation includes $60.0 million for accident-tolerant fuels, including
$3.0 million for promising and innovative research. The Administration had requested $37.1
million for the Advanced Fuels subprogram.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
The Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program “is designed to conduct research
and development (R&D) in crosscutting technologies that directly support and enable the
development of new and advanced reactor designs and fuel cycle technologies,” according to the
FY2014 DOE budget justification. The final appropriation for this program is $71.1 million, $8.8
million above the Administration request and $2.8 million below FY2013 level. The House bill
had included $66.7 million for the program, while the Senate Appropriations Committee had
approved the level sought by the Administration.
The Joint Explanatory Statement for P.L. 113-76 does not specify funding levels for the functions
in the NEET program. These include Crosscutting Technology Development, for which $13.9
million was requested, Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, which had a request
40
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
Issues Final Report to Secretary of Energy,” press release, January 26, 2012, http://brc.gov/index.php?q=
announcement/brc-releases-their-final-report.
Congressional Research Service
29
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
of $9.5 million and a final appropriation of $13.4 million, and the Energy Innovation Hub for
Modeling and Simulation (separate from the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation
subprogram), with an appropriation of $24.3 million, the same as the request. 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 budget justification.
The FY2014 appropriation included $19.6 million for the National Scientific User Facility, $5.0
million above the request and $500,000 above the FY2012 appropriation. This Idaho National
Laboratory activity supports partnerships by universities and other research organizations to
conduct experiments “at facilities not normally accessible to these organizations,” according to
the justification. In addition to previously awarded projects, one new long-term project is
expected to be fully funded in FY2014, under the budget request.
Fossil Energy Research and Development41
For FY2014, the Obama Administration requested $420.6 million for the Fossil Energy Research
and Development Program with the provision that it remain available until expended and that
$115.753 million remain available until September 30, 2015, for program direction. The request
represents a 17% decrease from the FY2013 Appropriation (Table 10). The final appropriation
(P.L. 113-76) provided $562.1 million, 25% more than the Administration request, and almost
10% more than the FY2013 appropriation.
The Obama Administration proposed a new budget structure for the FY2012 Fossil Energy
Research and Development (FE R&D) program that emphasized coal with a focus on carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The FY2012 appropriations bill adopted the new
structure. 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
separating CO2 in both pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-combustion systems, as well
as direct carbon capture. 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 subprogram 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.
For FY2014, the final version appropriates more than both the Senate and the House bills would
have provided for FE R&D. The act directs DOE to use $8.5 million in prior-year balances,
slightly less than proposed in the budget request. The omnibus act breaks out:
•
41
$392.3 million for Coal with $92.0 million applied to Carbon Capture (under
which no funding shall be applied to a Natural Gas Capture Prize) and $108.9
million applied to Carbon Storage (to include $10.0 million for additional support
of Enhanced Oil Recovery). Carbon Storage also includes $57 million for the
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
30
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
•
$99.5 million for Advanced Energy Systems, with not less than $25.0 million
applied to solid oxide fuel cell systems, $5.0 million to coal-biomass to liquids
activities, and $8.0 million to continue activities improving advanced air
separation technologies.
•
$41.9 million for Cross Cutting Research, with $5.0 million applied to Advanced
Ultra Super Critical Program.
•
$50.0 million for NETL Coal Research and Development with $15 million
applied to research in recovering rare earth elements from coal.
•
$120.0 million for Program Direction.
•
$20.6 million for Natural Gas Technologies, with $8.0 million for research into
the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, $12.6 million
applied to collaborative research and development regarding hydraulic fracturing,
of which $2.2 million is for continuing the Risk Based Data Management
System. Of the $12.6 million for hydraulic fracturing research and development,
not more than $6 million would be made available for the joint research effort
with the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey until the
Department submits a finalized interagency research plan to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
•
$15 million for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies, of which $10
million would be available for improving the economic viability, safety, and
environmental responsibility for offshore exploration and production, for
exploration and production from unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
resources, and production by small producers.
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
Senate
P.L. 11376
Carbon Capture
65.6
112.0
68.9
112.0
92.0
Carbon Storage
109.9
61.1
79.3
61.1
108.9
Advanced Energy Systems
95.2
48.0
91.7
40.0
99.5
Cross Cutting Research
46.8
20.5
30.9
20.5
41.9
National Energy Tech. Lab
Coal R&D
33.3
35.0
45.0
35.0
50.0
Coal Subtotal
350.8
276.6
315.8
268.6
392.3
Natural Gas Technologies
14.3
17.0
7.2
20.0
20.6
Unconventional Fossil
Energy
4.8
5.0
15.0
Program Direction
114.0
115.8
115.8
115.8
120.0
Plant and Capital
Equipment
16.0
13.3
13.3
13.3
16.0
House
Coal
Congressional Research Service
31
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013
Approp.a
FY2014
Request
F E Environmental
Restoration
7.5
5.9
Special Recruitment
Program
0.7
508.1
Subtotal
Use of Prior Year
Balance
Total
508.1
Senate
P.L. 11376
5.9
5.9
5.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
429.3
458.7
429.3
570.6
-8.7
-8.7
-8.7
-8.5
420.6
450.0
420.6
562.1
House
Source: FY2014 Budget Request; H.Rept.113-135; S.Rept.113-47; Joint Explanatory Statement for P.L. 113-76.
Notes: Coal was formerly Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration. Total may not sum exactly due
to rounding.
a.
Source: DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013,
sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve42
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 SPR provides strategic and economic security against foreign and
domestic disruptions in U.S. oil supplies via an emergency stockpile of crude oil. The program
fulfills U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program, which avails the United States of
International Energy Agency (IEA) assistance through its coordinated energy emergency response
plans, and provides a deterrent against energy supply disruptions.
By early 2010, the SPR’s maximum capacity reached 727 million barrels.43 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. In September 2009, the Secretary
of the Interior announced a transitional phasing out of the RIK Program.44
In the summer of 2011, the President ordered an SPR sale in coordination with an International
Energy Administration sale under treaty obligation. The U.S. sale of 30.6 million barrels reduced
the SPR inventory to 695.9 million barrels.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) rescinded all available funds in the “SPR
Petroleum Account,” and permanently repealed the federal government’s authority to accept oil
through royalty-in-kind.
42
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
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).
44
Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation and Enforcement. http://www.mrm.boemre.gov/AssetManagement/
default.htm.
43
Congressional Research Service
32
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-76) prohibited the waiver of the
navigation and vessel-inspection under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. 501(b)) for transporting crude oil
distributed from the SPR until the Secretary of Homeland Security takes adequate measures to
ensure the use of United States flag vessels.
For FY2014, the Administration requested $189.4 million to operate the SPR, a decrease from the
$192.7 million enacted in for FY2012. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 makes
$189.4 million available until expended.
Science45
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: advanced scientific
computing research, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy
sciences, high-energy physics, and nuclear physics. Through these programs, DOE is the thirdlargest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.46 Table 11 includes the FY2013 current plan, FY2014 request, House and Senate
appropriations committee recommendations, and enacted FY2014 funding for Office of Science
accounts.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) provides $5.071 billion to the Office of
Science in FY2014. This amount represents an increase of 8.3% ($390 million) over the FY2013
current plan amount of $4.681 billion.47 The Obama Administration initially sought $5.153 billion
for the Office of Science in FY2014. The Senate Committee on Appropriations would have
provided the requested amount.48 As passed by the House in July 2013, H.R. 2609 (Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would have provided
$4.653 billion to the Office of Science. A Joint Explanatory Statement (JES)—published in the
January 15, 2014, Congressional Record—accompanied P.L. 113-76. Unless otherwise noted
therein, the JES adopts DOE provisions from both House and Senate appropriations committee
reports.
H.Rept. 113-135, which accompanied H.R. 2609, raised general concerns about the percentage of
Office of Science funding that is committed to ongoing projects each year.49 The House report50
45
This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez.
Based on preliminary FY2012 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009-11, NSF 13-326
(July 2013).
47
FY2013 current plan funding levels reflect the effects of sequestration, applicable rescissions, and a congressionally
approved reprogramming; as well as the reallocation of SBIR/STTR funding from within the Office of Science and
from other DOE programs. For more information about the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, see CRS Report 96-402, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Program, by (name redacted).
48
See S. 1245 (Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) and S.Rept. 113-47,
which accompanied S. 1245 when it was reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This section refers to
S.Rept. 113-47 as the “Senate report.”
49
On page 10, H.Rept. 113-135, the House Committee on Appropriations states, “Most of its [Office of Science] new
multi-year awards continue to be mortgaged against out-year funding. Most of the new awards are small and should be
fully funded. In fiscal year 2013, more than 70 percent of Science’s multi-year awards were valued at less than
$1,500,000. In a nearly $5,000,000,000 account, this practice of carrying mortgages for smaller awards is avoidable
and should be terminated.” The House Committee on Appropriations raised similar concerns about various Department
of Energy accounts in FY2013 (see H.Rept. 112-462) and FY2012 (see H.Rept. 112-118).
46
Congressional Research Service
33
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
and bill included language designed to limit this practice. P.L. 113-76 includes a provision stating
that no FY2014 Office of Science funding may
be used for a multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction
Agreement of $1,000,000 or less unless the contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other
Transaction Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time
of award.51
Table 11. Science
($ millions)
FY2013
Current
Plana
FY2014
Request
405.0
465.6
1,551.3
Biological and Environmental Research
Senate
P.L. 11376
432.4
493.8
478.6
1,862.4
1,583.1
1,805.2
1,712.8
560.7
625.3
494.1
625.3
610.2
Fusion Energy Sciences
377.8
458.3
506.1
458.3
505.7
High Energy Physics
727.5
776.5
772.5
806.6
797.5
Nuclear Physics
507.2
569.9
551.9
569.9
569.9
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
17.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
26.5
Science Laboratories Infrastructure
105.7
97.8
46.6
97.8
97.8
Safeguards and Security
77.5
87.0
85.0
87.0
87.0
Science Program Direction
174.9
193.3
174.9
192.3
185.0
Use of Prior Year Funds
0.0
0.0
-10.0
0.0
0.0
SBIR/STTR (Office of Science)b
116.1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
SBIR/STTR (DOE transfer)b
60.1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
4,681.2
5,152.8
4,653.0
5,152.8
5,071.0
Program
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Basic Energy Sciences
Total
House
Source: FY2014 DOE budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47; and Department of Energy, Office of
Science, “FY2012-2014 Appropriations Summary,” January 30, 2014, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/
pdf/sc-congressional-appropriations/fy-2014/FY-2012_FY_2014_Request_Science_Stat_Table.pdf.
a.
Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds, applicable rescissions, and a congressionally approved
reprogramming; as well as the reallocation of SBIR/STTR funding from within the Office of Science and from
other DOE programs.
b.
For more information about the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs, see CRS Report 96-402, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, by
(name redacted).
Since FY2006, overall increases in the Office of Science budget have been at least partially
driven by the “doubling path” policy. Under this policy, Congress and successive Administrations
sought to double the combined funding for the Office of Science, the National Science
(...continued)
50
This section refers to H.Rept. 113-135 as the “House report.”
51
P.L. 113-76, Division D, Title V, Section 310.
Congressional Research Service
34
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core laboratory and
construction accounts (collectively “the targeted accounts”).52 However, actual funding for the
targeted accounts has not typically reached annual authorized levels. The current authorization
ended in FY2013. It is unclear whether policymakers will continue the doubling path policy in
FY2014.
Basic Energy Sciences
FY2014 funding for the largest Office of Science program, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is
$1.713 billion. This amount is $162 million (10.4%) more than the FY2013 current plan funding
level of $1.551 million. The Administration initially sought $1.862 billion for BES in FY2014.
Most of the requested BES increase would have funded scientific user facilities (59%) and
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC)/Energy Innovation Hubs (32%). The request for
scientific user facilities included, among other things, increased operations funding for
Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources, High-Flux Neutron Sources, and Nanoscale Science
Research Centers. As requested, construction funding for the LINAC Coherent Light Source-II
(LCLS-II) would have increased by $65 million,53 and funding for the National Synchrotron
Light Source-II (NSLS-II) would have decreased by $125 million (compared to FY2012 funding
levels). DOE indicated that it would issue a solicitation for new and existing EFRCs in FY2014.
The House would have provided $1.583 billion for BES in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $1.805 billion. Both House and Senate appropriations committees
recommended the requested level ($24 million each) for the Fuels from Sunlight and Battery and
Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hubs. The committees differed on funding for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)—which the Senate
committee would have funded ($20 million) and the House committee would have not—and on
funding for EFRCs. The Senate report recommended $100 million for EFRCs in FY2014. The
House would have provided $60 million. Neither committee appeared to provide requested onetime funds for EFRCs.54 The House report cautioned the department against assuming BES
budget growth in future years and provided funding for certain BES activities, including the
NSLS-II Experimental Tools ($25 million) as well as an unspecified amount for the first year of
funding for the LCLS-II two-tunnel upgrade.
The JES provides the requested amount ($24 million) for the Fuels from Sunlight and Battery and
Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hubs, $10 million for EPSCoR, and up to $100 million for
EFRCs. It also provides $45 million for major items of equipment, $20 for the Advanced Photon
Source Upgrade, and $25 million for NSLS-II Experimental Tools. For facilities, the JES contains
$779 million in funding for Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources, High-Flux Neutron Sources,
and Nanoscale Science Research Centers, including $56 million for NSLS-II early operations and
$10 million for LCLS-II. The JES also includes $76 million for LCLS-II construction funding,
and expressly provides no direction regarding a novel free-electron laser array light source.
52
For further analysis of the doubling effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal
Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
53
DOE’s FY2012 budget included $30 million in Major Items of Equipment funding for the LCLS-II.
54
H.Rept. 113-135 specifically states that the recommendation does not include $68.7 million in one-time funding.
S.Rept. 113-47 does not specifically exclude one-time funding, but the amount provided ($100.0 million) is $68.7
million less than the total FY2014 request for $168.7 million, which includes $68.7 million in one-time funding.
Congressional Research Service
35
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Fusion Energy Sciences
In percentage terms, the largest increase in the FY2014 Office of Science budget request was for
the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program. The FY2014 request was for $458 million. Most of
the requested increase would have funded facilities (as opposed to scientific research). The
requested increase for FES facilities was driven by the request for the U.S. contribution to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). ITER is a fusion research facility
currently under construction in France. The FY2014 request for the U.S. contribution to ITER
was $225 million, an increase of $120 million over the FY2012 level.55 Funding for domestic
fusion activities would have decreased under the request; including funding for the Alcator CMod tokamak, a fusion reactor that the Administration sought to shut down in FY2013.
Policymakers and fusion researchers have long been concerned about the impact of ITER’s
funding needs on the availability of resources for the domestic fusion program.
Enacted funding for FES in FY2014 is $506 million. This amount is $128 million (33.9%) more
than the FY2013 current plan funding level of $378 million and equal to the House-passed
funding level. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $458 million, the
requested level, for FES in FY2014. The House sought to include $22 million for the Alcator CMod; the Senate report specifically excluded funding for this project. The Senate report
recommended $75 million for the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, $77 million for the DIIID fusion reactor, $15 million for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas, and $12 million for
the Fusion Simulation program. With respect to ITER, both the House and Senate appropriations
committee reports included language seeking an updated project baseline and cost schedule for
ITER. The Senate report further stated that funds would not be available for the U.S. contribution
to ITER until the DOE submits these materials. The House would have provided $218 million for
ITER in FY2014; the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $184 million. Both
appropriations committees directed DOE to submit a 10-year plan for the FES program.
The JES provides $306 million for the domestic fusion program, including $63 million for the
National Spherical Torus experiment, $75 million for DIII-D, and $22 million for the Alcator CMod. The agreement also provides smaller amounts for various other FES activities, including
$8.5 million for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. The JES does not specify a funding
level for a Fusion Simulation program; rather, it directs DOE to submit a plan with research goals
and resource needs for a Fusion Simulation program. The JES includes $200 million for ITER.
However, provisions in P.L. 113-76 limit U.S. cash contributions to ITER to $23 million until the
project’s governing board adopts the recommendations of the Third Biennial International
Organizations Management Assessment Report.
High Energy Physics
P.L. 113-76 includes $798 million—or $70 million (9.6%) more than the FY2013 current plan
level—in funding for the Office of Science’s High Energy Physics (HEP) program in FY2014.
The Administration initially sought $777 million for this program. DOE restructured the HEP
55
In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion. Schedule
delays, design and scope changes, and other factors have placed upward pressure of ITER costs and delayed formal
approval of a revised cost estimate. Pending a new official estimate, DOE asserts that funding of $225 million per year
will allow it to meet international obligations—up to the achievement of ITR’s “first plasma” milestone—for a total
cost of $2.4 billion.
Congressional Research Service
36
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
budget request in FY2014.56 According to the request, in FY2014 HEP sought to shift funding
from research categories to support full operations of existing facilities and experiments, the
planned construction funding profile of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e),
and fabrication of an experiment to measure the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Funding
was also requested to support the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope camera—a joint activity with
the National Science Foundation—and U.S. contributions to the upgrade of the Belle detector in
Japan.
The House would have provided $773 million for HEP in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $807 million. Both committees recommended $35 million for
Mu2e. The House would have included $8 million for Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment
(LBNE) project engineering and design, but would have excluded funding for long-lead
procurement and construction. The Senate report recommended $20 million for LBNE project
engineering and design as well as $10 million for research and development.
The JES provides $15 million to support sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South
Dakota, $10 million for Accelerators Stewardship, and $26 million for the LBNE (including
research and development, as well as project engineering and design). The JES expressly
provides no funds for long-lead procurements or construction activities for the LBNE project.
Biological and Environmental Research
FY2014 funding for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) is $610 million—or $50
million (8.8%) more than the FY2013 current plan funding level of $561 million. The
Administration initially sought $625 million for BER in FY2014. About two-thirds of the
Administration’s requested increase for BER would have gone to Foundational Genomics
Research (40%), Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (15%), and the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement Climate Research Facility (10%). The FY2014 budget request sought to reduce
funding in Radiological Sciences and to establish a new Mesoscale to Molecules program. Other
Biological Systems Science programs were generally near FY2012 levels. The Administration
sought a 7% reduction from the FY2012 level for the Environmental Molecular Science
Laboratory funding. Most other Climate and Environmental Sciences programs were near
FY2012 levels.
The House would have reduced BER funding (compared to the FY2013 current plan) by $67
million in FY2014. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the requested level.
The House report expressed support for biomass research and recommended the requested level
($75 million) for BioEnergy Research Centers. Among other things, the Senate report
recommended the requested levels of $321 million and $304 million, respectively, for Biological
Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences. The JES provides $75 million for
BioEnergy Research Centers, $5 million for nuclear medicine research with human applications,
and $500,000 for the DOE to engage universities more directly in climate analysis.
56
For more information about these changes, see U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer,
FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 4, April 2013, p. SC-210. The Office of Science FY2014 budget request
states that the HEP budget restructuring is consistent with the long-range plan published in U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Science, and National Science Foundation, Particle Physics Prioritization Panel, U.S. Particle Physics:
Scientific Opportunities for the Next Ten Years, May 29, 2008, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/
p5_report_06022008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
37
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Nuclear Physics
Nuclear Physics (NP) is funded at $570 million in FY2014. This amount is $63 million (12.4%)
more than the FY2013 current plan funding level and equal to the Administration’s request. The
request directed most of the increase in Nuclear Physics program funding to Medium Energy
Nuclear Physics (MENP) operations and the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State
University (FRIB). The FY2014 budget request for MENP included funding for, among other
things, initiation of beam development and commissioning activities at the Continuous Electron
Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF). The request indicated that these increases in CEBAF
operations funding were at least partially offset by planned construction funding decreases for the
12GeV CEBAF Upgrade. Funding increases for the FRIB were to support the continuation of
planned construction activities and major procurements.
The House would have provided $552 million to NP in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended the requested level. Both committee reports recommended $55
million for FRIB construction, $26 million in construction funds for the 12 GeV CEBAF
Upgrade, and $165 million to support approximately 22 weeks of operations for the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). (These amounts were equal to requested levels for these activities.)
Additionally, the Senate report recommended $17 million for the Argonne Tandem Linac
Accelerator System. The JES provides $165 million for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
operations, for a 22-week run time, and provides $55 million in funding for FIRB.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
FY2014 funding for Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) is $479 million, an
increase of $74 million (18.2%) over the FY2013 current plan funding level of $405 million. The
Administration’s FY2014 ASCR request was $466 million. The Administration sought increased
funding for most ASCR programs. Two ASCR programs—Leadership Computing Facilities and
High Performance Network Facilities and Testbeds (ESNet)—would have received decreases.
The House would have provided $432 million to ASCR in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $494 million. Almost half of the increase over requested levels
($12.5 million) in the Senate report was driven by increased funding for exascale computing. The
Senate report recommended a total of $150 million, $81 million of which would have come from
the ACSR account, for exascale computing in FY2014. The House would have provided $69
million in ACSR funding for exascale computing (the requested level) in FY2014. For Leadership
Computing Facilities the House would have provided $149 million (slightly more than the
request) while the Senate report recommended $160 million, or $13 million more than the
request. The Senate report recommended $66 million, equal to the request, for High Performance
Production Computing. The House would have provided $62 million. The House would also have
provided the requested level ($33 million) for ESNet. The Senate report recommended $6 million
for the Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF), which the Administration had
Congressional Research Service
38
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
proposed terminating and funding through the National Science Foundation instead.57 The House
implicitly accepted the termination of the CSGF program.58
The JES provides $93 million for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, $67 million for
the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, $66 million for the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, $33 for the Energy
Sciences Network, and not less than $76 million for the exascale initiative. The JES funds the
CSGF under the Office of Science’s Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
program.
ARPA-E59
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. 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 FY2014 request for ARPA-E was $379
million, an increase of $128 million over the FY2013 current plan funding level.60 As in FY2013,
the FY2014 ARPA-E request included two research thrust areas: Transportation Systems ($197
million requested) and Stationary Power Systems ($148 million requested).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) provided $280 million to ARPA-E in
FY2014. This amount is $29 million (11.7%) more that the FY2013 current plan funding level.
As amended on the floor of the House, H.R. 2609 (Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would have provided $70 million to ARPA-E in FY2014. As
reported by the Senate Appropriations committee, S. 1245 (Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would have provided $379 million to the energy
research program. S.Rept. 113-47 directed ARPA-E to evaluate the success of the first set of
projects and report to the Appropriations Committee on the findings of the evaluation.
Nuclear Waste Disposal61
The final FY2014 appropriation includes 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. Funding for OCWRM
57
The Obama Administration seeks to reorganize and consolidate federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education programs in FY2014. As part of this effort, the Administration proposed the transfer
and consolidation of certain federal fellowships (including the CSGF) within the National Science Foundation’s
Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRF).
58
H.Rept. 113-135 contains general provisions that prohibit the department from funding fellowships and scholarships
unless those programs are specifically provided for in either the department’s budget justification or H.Rept. 113-135.
Neither document provided funding for the CSGF in FY2014.
59
This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez.
60
FY2013 current plan funding levels reflect the effects of sequestration and applicable rescissions.
61
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
39
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
ended after FY2010, so the office has been closed and activities at the Yucca Mountain site
halted. No funding was requested for FY2014.
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. To develop alternative waste management
strategies, the Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future, which issued its final report to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012.62 The Blue
Ribbon Commission recommended that future efforts to develop nuclear waste facilities follow a
“consent based” approach and be carried out by a new organization, rather than DOE. The
commission said the new nuclear waste entity 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, those funds cannot be spent without congressional appropriations.
DOE released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste in January 2013 in response to the Blue Ribbon Commission report. The
strategy calls for a pilot interim storage facility for spent fuel from closed nuclear reactors to open
by 2021 and a larger storage facility, possibly at the same site, to open by 2025. A site for a
permanent underground waste repository would be selected by 2026, and the repository would
open by 2048. Storage and disposal sites would be selected by a new waste management
organization through a consent-based process, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon
Commission.63
With the dismantlement of OCRWM, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) was given the
responsibility to “lead all future waste management activities,” according to the FY2011 budget
justification. NE’s Fuel Cycle R&D Program (discussed in the Nuclear Energy section above)
includes funding under the Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition subprogram to begin implementing the
DOE waste management strategy. DOE requested $60.0 million for the Used Fuel subprogram in
FY2014, $2.1 million above the FY2012 funding level. The final appropriation increased the Fuel
Cycle R&D program by $21.4 million over the request but did not specify an amount for the Used
Fuel subprogram.
The House Appropriations Committee had excoriated the Obama Administration’s termination of
the Yucca Mountain project as “blatant political maneuverings.” The House bill would have
eliminated DOE’s $60 million request to implement its new nuclear waste policy and added $25
million for Yucca Mountain. It would also have authorized funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund
to be transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Yucca Mountain licensing.
The Senate Appropriations Committee had approved the Administration’s proposed funding level
for Used Fuel without mentioning Yucca Mountain. The committee had included a provision from
its FY2013 Energy and Water bill that would have authorized DOE to conduct a pilot program to
develop one or more high level radioactive waste storage facilities, with the consent of state,
local, and tribal governments. However, that provision was not included in the final FY2014 bill.
62
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.
63
DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%20Fuel%20and%20High
%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
The FY2014 budget request included a proposal to change the nuclear waste funding system
along the lines proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission. Discretionary funding (annual
appropriations by Congress) would continue to pay for “regular and recurring” expenses of the
nuclear waste program. In the past, discretionary appropriations for the program have come from
both the Nuclear Waste Fund, to pay for disposal of commercial reactor waste, and from the
General Fund, to pay for defense waste disposal. Beginning in FY2017, under the Administration
proposal, the discretionary appropriations would be supplemented by mandatory appropriations,
first from incoming nuclear waste fee revenues and eventually from past fees and interest that
have accumulated in the Waste Fund. If Congress enacted such mandatory appropriations, the
specified funding would be automatically provided to the waste program without the need for
annual congressional approval. None of the House, Senate, or final bills included the proposed
change.
DOE had filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 but filed a motion to withdraw the application
on March 3, 2010. An NRC licensing panel rejected DOE’s withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, on
the grounds that NWPA requires full consideration of the license application by NRC. The full
NRC Commission 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.”64 No funding was provided in FY2012 or FY2013 or requested for
FY2014 to continue Yucca Mountain licensing activities. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue work on the
Yucca Mountain license application as long as funding is available. The Court determined that
NRC has at least $11.1 million in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.65
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 exceed $20 billion if DOE were to begin
removing waste from reactor sites by 2020, the previous target for opening Yucca Mountain.66
(For more information, see CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by (name red
acted); CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted); and CRS Report
R40996, Contract Liability Arising from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, by (name
redacted).)
64
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),”
CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/201107cli.pdf.
65
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
66
Ibid., p. 80.
Congressional Research Service
41
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans67
DOE’s Loan Programs Office provides loan guarantees for projects that deploy specified energy
technologies, as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 10958), and direct loans for advanced vehicle manufacturing technologies. No funding for additional
loans and loan guarantees was requested or provided for FY2014. However, $42 million was
appropriated for loan guarantee administrative expenses, $6 million below the Administration
request, to be offset by $22 million in fees. An additional $6 million, with no offsets, was
appropriated to the vehicle manufacturing loan program, the same as requested.
Two major loan guarantee programs are currently administered 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 existing commercial technologies, 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 below-market interest rates. DOE currently has two conditional loan
guarantee commitments pending under Section 1703, totaling $10.33 billion for nuclear power
and nuclear fuel projects. Under Section 1705, final loan guarantees have been issued for 24
projects, totaling about $14.4 billion.68
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.69 Solyndra’s DOE loan guarantee totaled $535 million, and the company’s
67
This section was prepared by (name redacted). For more details on loan guarantees, see CRS Report R42152,
Loan
Guarantees for Clean Energy Technologies: Goals, Concerns, and Policy Options, by (name redacted).
68
U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/. For a critique of the loan guarantee process, see U.S. Government Accountability
Office, DOE Loan Guarantees: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve Tracking and Review of Applications, GAO12-157, March 2012, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-157.
69
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 Research Service
42
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
bankruptcy placed most or all of that amount at risk. (For details, see CRS Report R42058,
Market Dynamics That May Have Contributed to Solyndra’s Bankruptcy, by (name redacted).)
Subsidy Costs
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.70
As a result, appropriations bills that provide loan guarantee authorizations include an adjustment
totaling 1% of the loan guarantee ceiling.
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 were not required from project sponsors under that program. However, $2
billion of the 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 was obligated by the end of
FY2011.71
Authorized Loan Guarantee Amounts
Under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), federal loan guarantees cannot be provided
without an authorized level in an appropriations act or an appropriation for the subsidy costs.
Pursuant to FCRA, the FY2007 continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) established an initial cap of $4
billion on loan guarantees under the Section 1703 program, without allocating that amount among
the various eligible technologies. Additional loan guarantee authority was subsequently provided
for specific technologies and then further modified as described below.
Unobligated appropriations for subsidy cost payments under the Section 1705 loan guarantee
program were no longer available after 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.
70
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; and CBO, Fair-Value Accounting for Federal
Credit Programs, Issue Brief, March 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43027.
71
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.
Congressional Research Service
43
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
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,
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
$14 billion in loan guarantees with final commitments under Section 1705, for
which the deadline was September 30, 2011.72 Therefore, the remainder is not
currently available to the program.
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans
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).73 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.74
72
DOE Loan Programs Office, “Our Projects,” http://lpo.energy.gov/our-projects.
For more details, see CRS Report R42064, The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan
Program: Status and Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
74
U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
73
Congressional Research Service
44
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship75
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160). The goal of the program, as amended by the FY2010 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84, §3111), is to ensure “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 12 presents Weapons Activities funding. NNSA manages two programs
outside of that account: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and
Naval Reactors.
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 12. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2013-FY2014
($ millions)
FY2013
Enacted
FY2014
Request
FY2014
House
FY2014
Senate
P.L. 11376
DSW
1,946.6
2428.5
2718.4
2258.5
2442.0
Campaigns
1,556.7
1710.9
1626.1
1847.4
1658.3
RTBFa
1,972.6
0
1909.7
0
2067.4
Program
Nuclear Programs
0.0
744.5
0
688.0
0
Site Stewardship
72.8
1706.0
154.8
0
87.3
Site Ops & Maint
0.0
0
0
1535.9
0
Otherb
1,422.1
1,278.5
1266.1
1538.7
1525.9
Total
6,970.8
7,868.4
7,675.0
7,868.4
7781.0
Source: FY2013 enacted: provided by National Nuclear Security Administration, December 17, 2013, per P.L.
113-6. FY2014 Budget Request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47; Explanatory Statement on P.L. 113-76,
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2014.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF: Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities.
a.
75
For FY2014, NNSA proposed to eliminate RTBF and split its functions between Nuclear Programs (a new
program) and Site Stewardship. P.L. 113-76 retained RTBF and Site Stewardship. Also for FY2014, NNSA
proposed to shift Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and National Security Applications from
Weapons Activities to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. P.L. 113-76 retained Nuclear Counterterrorism
This section was prepared by Jonathan Medalia.
Congressional Research Service
45
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
Incident Response in Weapons Activities and made no mention of National Security Applications. P.L. 11376 also moved Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and Demonstration into Weapons
Activities from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a separate account. See text for details.
b.
For FY2013, “other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response,
NNSA CIO Activities, Defense Nuclear Security, Legacy Contractor Pensions, and National Security
Applications. For FY2014, in P.L. 113-76, “other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response, Defense Nuclear Security, Information Technology and Cyber
Security, Legacy Contractor Pensions, Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and
Demonstration, and a rescission.
Table 13. Weapons Activities: FY2014 Request and FY2015-FY2018 Plan
($ millions, except bottom row: $ billions)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
DSW
2,428.5
2,539.7
2,586.3
2,732.4
3.045.5
Campaigns
1,710.9
1,918.6
1,948.6
1,911,3
1,924.1
Nuclear Programs
744.5
994.1
1,191.6
1,208.5
1,333.2
Site Stewardship
1,706.0
1,745.4
1,729.2
1,775.7
1,705.6
Othera
1,278.5
1,351.9
1,329.7
1,304.8
1,284.4
Total
7,868.4
8,549.7
8,785.4
8,932.8
9,292.9
8.4
8.7
8.9
8.9-9.0
9.2-9.3
Nov. 2010 “1251
report” projection
Source: FY2014 NNSA Budget Request for rows through Total; bottom row, U.S. White House. “November
2010 Update to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2010 Section 1251 Report: New START Treaty
Framework and Nuclear Force Structure Plans,” p. 9, http://www.lasg.org/CMRR/
Sect1251_update_17Nov2010.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work.
a.
“Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, NNSA CIO
Activities, and Legacy Contractor Pensions. For FY2014, Other also includes use of prior year balances.
NNSA proposed many changes to the budget structure for FY2014. It would create an Office of
Infrastructure and Operations to be the landlord of the nuclear weapons complex sites, with
program offices as tenants. As a result, NNSA proposed to eliminate Readiness in Technical Base
and Facilities (RTBF) and split its functions between a greatly increased Site Stewardship
program and a new Nuclear Programs, as described below. P.L. 113-76 retained RTBF, kept Site
Stewardship at a level close to that of FY2013, and did not fund Nuclear Programs. NNSA also
proposed moving Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and National Security
Applications to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an appropriations account separate from
Weapons Activities. P.L. 113-76 retained the former in Weapons Activities and made no mention
of the latter. P.L. 113-76 also moved Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and
Demonstration from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to Weapons Activities.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration
Although the nuclear weapons complex currently consists of eight sites, it was much larger
during the Cold War in terms of number of sites 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, greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and
Congressional Research Service
46
Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations
the like. After numerous exchanges between DOE and the appropriating and authorizing
committees,
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.