# Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43121 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 25, 2014 - **Citation:** R43121 ## 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 yea [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43121. Public record. Not legal advice.