Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 30, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2015 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
January 30, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43567
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 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), and the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and several other independent agencies.
President Obama’s FY2015 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
March 2014. Including adjustments, the request totaled $34.26 billion, compared with a total of
$34.13 billion appropriated for FY2014. The House approved the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for FY2015 by a vote of 253-170 on July 10, 2014 (H.R. 4923, H.Rept. 113486), with a funding total of $34.20 billion. The House adopted several amendments that did not
change the total funding level from the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee. The
Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and Water Development approved
its version of the bill on June 17, 2014, with a total of $34.21 billion, but the full committee did
not take it up.
Final FY2015 Energy and Water Development funding was included in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83). Energy and Water funding totaled $34.78
billion, $519 million above the request and $653 million above FY2014, including rescissions.
The consolidated appropriations measure passed the House December 11, 2014, and the Senate
December 13, 2014, and was signed by the President on December 16, 2014 (P.L. 113-235).
Major issues in the debate over the Energy and Water Development bill 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,
NV, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal);
proposed FY2015 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) programs (Title III) that were more than 20% higher in the
Administration’s request than the amount appropriated for FY2014;
DOE funding for a joint effort with the Departments of the Navy and Agriculture
for commercial-scale biorefineries that produce military-specification fuels;
cost, schedule, and management concerns for the international ITER project,
which seeks to design and build an experimental fusion reactor (Title III,
Science);
long-standing controversy over facilities for processing uranium and plutonium
components for nuclear weapons (Title III, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Stewardship); and
the Administration’s proposal, rejected in the enacted version, to suspend
construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), which is intended to
convert surplus nuclear weapons plutonium into civilian nuclear reactor fuel.
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Status ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2
The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development Appropriations for
FY2015 .................................................................................................................................. 2
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative ..................................................................... 2
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................... 4
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................... 4
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers ................................................................................... 6
Project Backlog and New Starts ......................................................................................... 6
Navigation Trust Funds ....................................................................................................... 6
Ecosystem Restoration Projects .......................................................................................... 9
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
Drought in California ........................................................................................................ 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 (OE) Program .............................................. 26
Nuclear Energy ................................................................................................................. 27
Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................ 31
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 34
Science .............................................................................................................................. 35
ARPA-E ............................................................................................................................ 42
Nuclear Waste Disposal .................................................................................................... 42
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 45
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship.......................................................................... 48
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs............................................................ 58
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Sites and Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research Sites ................................................................................................... 61
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 70
Title IV: Independent Agencies ..................................................................................................... 71
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies ............................................................................. 72
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................... 72
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2015 ................................. 2
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2015 .............................. 3
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 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............................................................................... 14
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy .......... 15
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 17
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................... 33
Table 11. Science ........................................................................................................................... 35
Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2013-FY2015 ....................................................... 48
Table 13. Weapons Activities: FY2015 Request and FY2016-FY2019 Plan ................................ 49
Table 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ....................................................... 58
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management ...................................... 67
Table 16. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies ......... 72
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 74
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 74
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President Obama’s FY2015 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
March 2014. The adjusted request totaled $34.26 billion, compared with a total of $34.13 billion
appropriated for FY2014.
Final FY2015 Energy and Water Development funding was included in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83). Energy and Water funding totaled $34.78
billion, $519 million above the request and $653 million above FY2014, including rescissions.
The consolidated appropriations measure passed the House December 11, 2014, and the Senate
December 13, 2014, and was signed by the President on December 16, 2014 (P.L. 113-235).
The House Appropriations Committee approved the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for FY2015 on June 20, 2014 (H.R. 4923, H.Rept. 113-486), with a total
spending level of $34.20 billion.1 The House passed the bill on July 10, 2014, by a vote of 253170. Several floor amendments were approved that did not change the total funding level,
including:
Three amendments to increase Corps of Engineers construction funding by a total
of $6.5 million (H.Amdt. 972, H.Amdt. 973, H.Amdt. 974);
Increasing the Corps construction account by $57.6 million and reducing nuclear
energy programs by $73.3 million (H.Amdt. 979);
Amendments to increase the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and Related
Resources account by $10 million and renewable energy and energy efficiency
by a net total of $2 million (H.Amdt. 986, H.Amdt. 995);
Increasing Department of Energy (DOE) non-defense environmental cleanup by
$4 million (H.Amdt. 999); and
Increasing DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) by
$20 million (H.Amdt. 1003).
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
approved its version of the FY2015 bill on June 17, 2014, with a total of $34.21 billion (including
budget scorekeeping adjustments).2 The subcommittee’s draft bill and report were released by the
Appropriations Committee on July 24, 2014.3 The subcommittee would increase funding for the
Army Corps of Engineers to $5.13 billion and for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation to $1.23 billion. Funding for the Department of Energy would total $28.36 billion,
including $205.9 million in rescissions. Full committee markup scheduled for June 19, 2014, was
postponed because of Administration objections to a planned amendment to block proposed
Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide regulations, according to media reports.4 No
further action on the Senate draft bill was taken.
1
H.Rept. 113-724, p. 11.
That total includes $34.986 billion minus $778 million in scorekeeping adjustments that are not shown in the
currently posted subcommittee draft report. See Senate Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of
Budget Authority, Energy and Water, July 16, 2014.
3
Senate Committee on Appropriations, “FY15 E&W Subcommittee Reported Bill and Draft Report,” news release,
July 24, 2014, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy-2015-ew-subcommittee-reported-bill-and-draft-report.
4
Hallerman, Tamar, “Grim Outlook for Spending Bills after Senate Suspends ‘Minibus’ Debate,” CQ Roll Call, June
19, 2014, http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4499341?0&srcpage=news&srcsec=cqn.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Status
Table 1 indicates the status of the FY2015 funding legislation.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2015
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
House
Report
6/10/14
6/17/14
6/20/14
Final Approval
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
7/10/14
None
None
None
12/11/14
12/13/14
12/16/14
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 FY2015
FY2015 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,
enforced by an automatic spending reduction process of sequestration. In December 2013
Congress passed H.J.Res. 59 (P.L. 113-67), which contained the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA),
establishing less stringent spending caps for FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA. For details, see
CRS Report R43411, The Budget Control Act of 2011: Legislative Changes to the Law and Their
Budgetary Effects, coordinated by (name redacted).
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
The Obama Administration added to its FY2015 budget a new government‐wide proposal
referred to as the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. It was a $56 billion fund that
would have been divided equally between defense and nondefense expenditures. The cost of the
initiative would have been offset largely with targeted spending cuts and closed tax loopholes.
The FY2015 House Appropriations Committee report did not mention the Administration
initiative, nor did the draft report released by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and it was
not included in the final FY2015 consolidated bill.
According to the Administration, the initiative would have provided an additional $1.6 billion for
the Department of Energy, including:
$355 million for “strengthening national resilience to climate change,” including
grants to states and increased weatherization programs, as well as distributed
energy generation;
$200 million for the proposed “Race to the Top” grants to states to implement
energy savings;
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
$484 million for other energy initiatives; and
$600 million for nuclear weapons programs, including Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities and Site Stewardship, and nuclear nonproliferation research
and development (R&D).5
Funding proposed through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative is not included in the
FY2015 funding levels in the tables that follow.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2008 to FY2015.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2015
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
30.9
40.5a
33.4
31.7
34.4b
36.0c
34.1
34.8
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a. Includes $7.5 billion for Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.
b. Includes $1.7 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
c. Includes $5.4 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
Title
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
Sen. Subc.
FY2015
Final
Title I: Corps of Engineers
10,068.2a
5,467.5
4,561.0
5,557
5,162.0
5,482.5
Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1,014.0
1,113.1
1,043.5
1,023
1,230.5
1,140.5
Title III: Department of
Energy
25,160.7
27,355.5
28,443.0
27,214
28,565.3
28,152.9
Title IV: Independent
Agencies
252.2
265.1
248.7
312
262.7
269.0
Scorekeeping Adjustmentsb
-525.5
-74.4
-35.1
96
-1,012.5
-264.6
35,969.6a
34,126.8
34,261.1
34,202
34,208.0
34,780.3
E&W Total
Source: FY2015 budget request, H.Rept. 113-486, Congressional Budget Office, Senate Appropriations
Committee.
a. Includes $5,350 billion in supplemental funding for the Corps of Engineers under the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
b. “Budget scorekeeping” refers to official determinations of spending amounts for congressional budget
enforcement purposes. These scorekeeping adjustments include offsetting revenues from various
sources.
5
http://www.slideshare.net/energy/fy-2015-budget-rollout-secretary-moniz-presentation-to-press-and-stakeholders.
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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
FY2013-FY2015. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the
major programs in the four titles.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers6
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. Corps appropriations are
generally authorized in water resources development acts. Most recently, Congress enacted a new
water resources development act in June of 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121). This bill authorized new Corps projects and studies and
altered numerous Corps policies and procedures.7
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps is below the agency’s enacted
appropriation. For FY2015, Congress appropriated $5.454 billion for the Corps in P.L. 113-235.
The President’s FY2015 budget request for the Corps was $4.561 billion. The House approved
$5.557 billion for the Corps, and the Senate appropriations subcommittee recommended $5.162
billion. For FY2014, Congress had provided $5.468 billion in the agency’s annual civil works
appropriations in P.L. 113-76.
For more on the evolution of Corps civil works funding in recent years, see CRS In Focus
IF00012, Army Corps Civil Works Funding: A Primer (In Focus), by (name redacted).
Additionally, in recent years riverine and coastal flooding resulted in the agency receiving
supplemental funds. For more on the recent history of Corps civil works supplemental
appropriations, see CRS Report R42841, Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent
History, Trends, and Policy Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) .
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, for decades
Congress annually identified during the discretionary appropriations process many additional
Corps projects to receive funding.8 In the 112th Congress, site-specific project line items added by
Congress (i.e., earmarks) became subject to House and Senate earmark moratorium policies. As a
result, Congress generally has not added funding at the project level since FY2010. In lieu of the
6
This section was prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
For more information, see CRS Report R43298, Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison
of Select Provisions, by (name redacted) et al.
8
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.
7
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
traditional project-based increases, Congress has included “additional funding” for select
categories of Corps projects (e.g., “ongoing navigation work”), and provided direction and
limitations on the use of these funds.9 Congress continued this practice in FY2015, providing
$974 million in “additional funding” for select categories of Corps projects in the Investigations,
Construction, O&M, and MR&T accounts. This was consistent with the approach of the Houseand Senate-passed bills for FY2015 appropriations.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
Program
FY2013
Final
FY2013
Supplem.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
Investigations and
Planning
118.5
50.0
125.0
80.0
115.0
125.0
122.0
1,586.6
3,461.0
1,656.0
1,125.0
1,711.0
1,421.0
1,639.5
Mississippi River &
Tributaries (MR&T)
238.0
0.0
307.0
245.0
260.0
305.0
302.0
Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
2,286.0
821.0
2,861.0
2,600.0
2,963.6
2,800.0
2,908.5
Regulatory
182.9
0.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
General Expenses
175.3
0.0
182.0
178.0
177.0
178.0
178.0
FUSRAPa
99.9
0.0
103.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.5
Flood Control &
Coastal Emergencies
(FC&CE)
25.6
1,008.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
Office of the Asst.
Secretary of the Army
4.6
10.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
4,718.3b
5,350.0c
5,467.5
4,533.0d
5,556.6
5,162.0
5,454.5e
Construction
Total Title I
Source: FY2013 Work Plan, P.L. 113-76, FY2015 budget request H.Rept. 113-486, Senate Appropriations
Committee, H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement.
a. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
b. FY2013 is the final allocation after sequestration and across-the-board rescission.
c. $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).
d. Includes $28 million rescission.
e. Includes $28 million rescission.
9
Congress provided additional funding and guidance for several broad categories of projects in the FY2015
consolidated appropriations Explanatory Statement. The FY2014 statement instructed the Corps to make additional
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 through FY2014 are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/
CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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
that have never received appropriations). The backlog raises policy questions, such as which
activities to fund among authorized activities.10
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, P.L. 113-76 allowed up to nine new study starts and four new construction starts. For
FY2015, the Administration requested funding for one new construction start and 10 new
studies.11 In its report, the House Appropriations Committee recommended that no new starts be
funded. The Senate Appropriations subcommittee recommended funding the same new start
studies and construction project requested by the Administration, and also recommended directing
the Administration to propose an additional 10 new study starts and five new construction starts
after enactment of the bill. The enacted measure provided for 10 new study starts and four new
construction starts during FY2015.
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 Waterways 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 Waterways 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.12 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
10
For more information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations,
Appropriations, and Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) .
11
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).
12
For more on congressional consideration of Corps trust fund authorization as part of broad Corps authorization
legislation, see CRS Report R43298, Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select
Provisions, by (name redacted) et al.
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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.13 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 HMT.
Some harbor channels are not being maintained at their authorized depth and width, which may in
some cases require ships with the deepest drafts to “light load” or wait for high tide. Harbors
primarily used by fishing vessels or recreational craft have also complained of insufficient
maintenance dredging. Since spending from the HMTF requires an appropriation from Congress,
spending more from the HMTF could reduce available funding for other Energy and Water
Development activities under congressional budget caps.
The Administration’s FY2015 budget requested $915 million from the HMTF, leaving an
estimated-end-of-year balance of more than $9.5 billion. The Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014, enacted in June 2014, included changes to the Harbor maintenance
activities that sought to increase HMTF spending to levels based on “targeted” percentages of
HMTF collections (but only if this funding does not come at the expense of available funding for
other Corps activities).14 While the exact amount of total HMTF funding provided in P.L. 113-235
was not delineated, the House Appropriations Committee Report noted a significant increase in its
recommended spending level compared to the Administration request, indicating that its funding
for HMTF activities was more than $1.1 billion.15 The Senate subcommittee indicated that the
“target” WRRDA level of $1.2 billion in FY2015 was not possible under its discretionary
allocations, and that recommended HMTF activities in FY2015 were funded at a similar level to
FY2014 (approximately $1.09 billion). For more information on harbor maintenance funding, see
CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by (name redacted)
Inland Waterways 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 Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF).16 IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax on
commercial vessels on designated waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.17 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), by limiting IWTF
expenditures to the amount available under current-year fuel tax revenues (FY2011-FY2013), or
by altering the IWTF cost-share requirements for individual projects (FY2014).
13
The exception was 2009, when collections declined along with import volume.
The changes, which were provided for in §2101 of P.L. 113-121, are described further in CRS Report R43298, Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions, by (name redacted) et al.
15
The House committee report stated that its recommendation for these activities was more than $1.1 billion. The
Senate subcommittee report included no such estimate.
16
Funding for operations and maintenance on inland waterways is provided for separately under the O&M account. For
more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted) .
17
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.
14
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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. In the 113th Congress, H.R. 1149 and S.
407 would have authorized this proposal and raised the fuel tax by $0.06 and $0.09, respectively.
Recent estimates by the Corps indicate that one project, Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio
River, is expected to use up the majority of IWTF revenues without significant changes to the
cost-sharing requirements for that project.18 At the same 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 construction projects is
expected to remain 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 FY2015, the Administration once again requested appropriations for IWTF projects that are
below projected fuel tax revenues.19 The FY2015 Administration budget requested approximately
$85 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 FY2015 requested IWTF funds ($80 million of the $85 million requested from the
IWTF) was for the Olmsted Project. This approach of limited funding devoted mostly to the
Olmsted Project was similar to the Administration’s requests for FY2011-FY2014.
Since the FY2015 budget request was released, the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) was enacted. WRRDA included some changes for inland waterways,
including a reduction in the IWTF cost share required for the Olmsted Project from 50% to 15%
(and a corresponding increase in the General Fund requirement, from 50% to 85%), and an
increase in the ceiling on rehabilitation projects that can be funded from the General Fund, from
$8 million to $20 million. With these changes enacted, the House recommended significant
funding from the IWTF for projects other than the Olmsted Project for the first time in several
years. The House recommended $169 million for construction work on the Olmsted Project (15%
from the IWTF) and $112 million for work on other projects (50% cost-shared with the IWTF),
for a total of $281 million on all inland waterways construction. The Senate subcommittee report
included no total funding estimates for IWTF projects, but the Senate noted that its
recommendation conformed to the alterations in WRRDA and included an additional $60 million
for unspecified IWTF projects (in addition to the requested funding for the Olmsted Project). P.L.
113-235 included $160 million for Olmsted and $112 million for other inland waterways
construction projects. For more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430,
Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) .
18
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.
19
Assuming annual fuel tax revenues of approximately $95 million, spending on inland waterways construction for
FY2015 would be approximately $190 million for each year (or approximately $60 million less than the average
funding provided from FY1992-FY2010).
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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.20 Previously, some in
Congress had criticized the fact that while the Corps had requested reductions for some
“traditional” water project activities in recent budgets, funding requests for Corps environmental
activities, which include ecosystem restoration projects, had largely remained steady. For
FY2014, the Administration requested $449 million (approximately 9% of the total FY2014
Corps request, spread among several accounts) for ecosystem restoration projects. For FY2015,
however, the Administration requested $336 million, representing 7% of the total request. No
breakdown for these projects was available in the House committee or Senate subcommittee
recommendations.
Continuing Authorities Program
Projects funded under the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program (CAPs) are typically smaller
projects that can be carried out without obtaining a project-specific study or construction
authorization or project-specific appropriations.21 CAPs are referred to by the section number in
the bill where the CAP was first authorized. The Administration’s FY2015 budget requested a
total of $10 million for four CAPs, or a significant decrease from the total of $53 million
provided for eight CAPs in FY2014 in the Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 113-76. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $56.8 million for eight CAP sections, or $46.8
million more than the Administration’s request. The Senate subcommittee recommended $50
million for these projects. P.L. 113-235 included $36.8 million spread over eight programs.
Title II: Department of the Interior22
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: the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA). For FY2014, P.L. 113-76 provided $1.104 billion for Title II.
For the purposes of Energy and Water appropriations, the FY2015 request for the Bureau of
Reclamation and CUPCA was $1.043 billion. In its budget request, the Administration typically
includes an “offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund. Counting this offset
of $56.9 million in its FY2015 request, “net” discretionary authority requested by the
Administration for these accounts was $986 million.23 As in previous years, additional funding is
expected to be available for FY2015 via “permanent and other” funds, but these funds are not
included in net discretionary totals and therefore not reflected below.
20
Along with the Department of the Interior, the Corps typically receives funding for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Program, or CERP. For more information regarding Everglades restoration funding, see CRS Report
R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation Progress, by (name redacted) .
21
Information on each CAP is provided in CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource
Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) .
22
This section was prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
23
Counting of this offset is consistent with prior year budgets.
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Requesta
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Subc.
Central Utah Water
Conservancy District
19.8
7.7
[6.3]
7.5
5.0
7.6
Mitigation and Conservation
Commission Activities
1.2
1.0
[1.0]
1.0
1.0
1.0
Expenses of the Secretary of
the Interior
—
—
—
1.3
1.3
1.3
21.0
8.7
[7.3]
9.9
7.3
9.9
Program
Total, Central Utah
Project
FY2015
Appro.
Source: FY2015 budget request, H.Rept. 113-486, Senate Appropriations Committee, H.R. 83 Explanatory
Statement.
Notes: Amounts shown in brackets are for comparison purposes only.
a. The FY2015 budget proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project Completion Account to the Bureau
of Reclamation. See Table 6 below for Administration recommendations for this account.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.a
FY2015
Requesta
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Subc.
FY2015
Appro.
Water and Related
Resources
848.2
954.1
760.7
856.4
1,069.7
978.1
Policy and Administration
56.9
60.0
59.5
53.8
59.5
58.5
CVP Restoration Fund
(CVPRF)
50.4
53.3
57.0
57.0
57.0
57.0
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
37.6
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
San Joaquin Restoration
Fundb
-
-
32.0
-
-
32.0
Indian Water Rights
Settlementb
-
-
90.0
-
-
90.0
Central Utah Project
Completiona
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
Gross Current
Reclamation Authority
993.0
1,104.4
1,043.5
1,004.2
1,223.2
1,130.0
Total, Title II Current
Authority (CUP and
Reclamation)
1,014.0
1,113.1
1,043.5
1,003.7
1,230.0
1,140.0
Program
Source: FY2015 budget request, H.Rept. 113-486, Senate Appropriations Committee, H.R. 83 Explanatory
Statement.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. As in recent previous requests, the Administration proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project
Completion Account to the Bureau of Reclamation and establish it as a Reclamation account.
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
b.
As in previous requests, the Administration’s request includes funding for these items, which have in
the past been funded within the Water and Related Resources Account, as new accounts. For FY2015,
the House and the Senate subcommittee again rejected the Administration’s proposal for these new
accounts.
Central Utah Project
The Administration requested $7.3 million for CUPCA in FY2015, or $1.4 million less than the
FY2014 enacted amount. In FY2015 the Administration once again proposed to make
Reclamation responsible for oversight and implementation of CUPCA and transition this account
to Reclamation’s purview. (These responsibilities are currently in a separate office in DOI.)
Similar to previous years’ requests, the House recommended maintaining CUPCA as a separate
account and recommended $9.9 million for the project. The Senate subcommittee agreed with the
Administration’s request, but similar to the House prohibited delegation of responsibility for
carrying out the act to the Bureau of Reclamation. P.L. 113-235 provided the same funding level
and account breakdown as the House, $9.9 million.
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 restricts congressional steering of money directly toward specific
Reclamation projects as had been 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. Reclamation also typically requests funds in a
number of smaller accounts, and has proposed additional accounts in recent years.24 For FY2015,
the Administration requested $1.04 billion for the Water and Related Resources account and other
Reclamation accounts. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.013 billion and
the Senate subcommittee recommended $1.23 billion for these programs. P.L. 113-235 provided
$1.13 billion for all Reclamation accounts, or $87 million more than the Administration’s FY2015
24
The Administration has previously requested that two accounts be created independently of the Water and Related
Resources account: Indian Water Rights Settlements and San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. In FY2015, the
enacted bill provided the funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements and San Joaquin River Restoration within the
Water and Related Resources account (rather than as independent accounts).
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
request. Previously, the FY2014 enacted bill provided $1.113 billion for Reclamation projects and
programs.
Drought in California
Drought conditions in California and other states throughout the West have received attention in
recent appropriations bills, including in FY2015. The enacted appropriations bill for FY2014
(P.L. 113-76) included multiple provisions related to Reclamation drought response and related
authorities. For example, it extended through FY2017 authority for Reclamation to provide loans
under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) for projects that
would mitigate losses associated with drought conditions. It also 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 (continuing certain provisions of the law that were set to expire at the end of FY2014).
In FY2015 appropriations, both the House and the Senate subcommittee have encouraged
Reclamation to use its available authorities to address the drought. The Administration also
requested, and the Senate subcommittee recommended, an extension of Reclamation’s authority
under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act (i.e., authorities other than the loan
authority that was extended in FY2014 enacted appropriations) from FY2012 to FY2017. The
House did not recommend this extension. The Senate draft report also proposed increasing the
total authorization of appropriations for that program from $90 million to $110 million. In
addition, the Senate subcommittee included language which would direct Reclamation to
“provide the maximum quantity of water supplies possible ... in accordance with existing law,”
available to certain agricultural and municipal irrigation contractors in California’s Central Valley.
This language is similar to authority proposed in S. 2198, another bill which aims to alleviate
drought effects in California.
Reclamation’s FY2015 request also proposed funding for individual projects and programs that
received added attention due to the drought. For instance, Reclamation proposed $1.5 million in
new funding within its WaterSMART program for a Drought Response Program (see
“WaterSMART Program,” below) that received added congressional attention due to the
drought’s ongoing effects. The House argued that the Administration had not adequately
explained the program, but provided it with $1.47 million in funding. The Senate subcommittee
recommended increasing funding for the program to $15 million, and the final enacted bill
included $50 million for “Western Drought Response.” Some legislation, such as S. 2198, has
also proposed increasing the scope and potential recipients of Reclamation WaterSMART funds
to incorporate drought-related concerns. However, no such language was included in FY2015
appropriations.
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
The San Joaquin River Restoration Fund was authorized by the enactment of Title X of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act. The Fund is to be used to implement fisheries restoration and water management
provisions of a stipulated settlement agreement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
v. Rodgers lawsuit.25 The Fund is supported through the combination of a reallocation of Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund receipts from the Friant Division water users and accelerated
payment of Friant water users’ capital repayment obligations, as well as other federal and nonfederal sources. The Settlement Act provided $88 million from the Restoration Fund to be
available without further appropriation. Reclamation reports that in FY2015, the balance of the
aforementioned mandatory appropriations is expected to be spent, and without further
congressional action, additional receipts will not be available until October 2019.
In lieu of additional mandatory funding for restoration until 2019, the Administration requested
discretionary funding of $32 million for San Joaquin restoration activities as a separate account in
FY2015. In its recommendation for FY2015, the House provided no funding for implementation
of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. The Senate subcommittee agreed with the
Administration’s request. P.L. 113-235 disagreed with the Administration’s proposed transfer of
this funding to a new account, but provided this funding within the Central Valley Project
appropriation 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 FY2015 WaterSMART numbers are shown
below in Table 7. The FY2015 request for all WaterSMART programs was $52 million. The
House approved approximately $51 million for these programs. The Senate subcommittee
recommended $115 million for these programs, or $63 million more than the Administration
request. P.L. 113-235 provided $51 million for these programs.
The WaterSMART Program request included two new components in FY2015: Drought
Response and Resilient Infrastructure. Both programs would attempt to respond to the effects of
climate change. The Resilient Infrastructure Program would attempt to identify and expand
opportunities and use information to adapt Reclamation facility operations to account for climate
change and reduce the potential effects of wildfire on Reclamation facilities. The Drought
Response Program would fund new “comprehensive” planning actions, as well as implementation
actions under existing authorities to address water shortages. The House agreed with the
requested funding, while the Senate subcommittee recommended $13.5 million more than the
Administration’s request for drought response and plans. P.L. 113-235 provided no funding for
drought response within the WaterSMART program, but instead provided $50 million for
“Western Drought Response” as a separate line item in the enacted bill.26
25
Construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s and subsequent diversion of San Joaquin River water to off-stream
agricultural uses blocked salmon migration and dewatered stretches of the San Joaquin, resulting in elimination of
spring-run Chinook into the upper reaches of the river. One goal of the settlement is to bring back the salmon run;
another is to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term contractors. For more
information on the settlement agreement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report R40125, Title X
of H.R. 146: San Joaquin River Restoration, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) .
26
Reclamation is to provide the appropriations committees its Work Plan for these funds, as well as other funds for
“ongoing work,” within 45 days of the bill’s enactment.
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 7. Reclamation WaterSMART Program
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Subc.
FY2015
Approp.
WaterSMART Grants
22.6
19.0
19.0
18.6
65.0
19.0
Basin Studies
6.0
4.7
3.9
3.8
4.5
3.9
Title XVI Projects
20.0
21.5
21.5
21.0
24.5
21.5
Drought Response
—
—
1.5
1.5
15.0
0.0a
Resilient Infrastructure
—
—
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Cooperative Watershed
Management Program
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Water Conservation
Field Services
6.2
3.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.5
52.0
48.9
52.1
51.0
115.3
$50.7
Program Name
Total
Source: FY2013 Bureau of Reclamation Operating Plan, Bureau of Reclamation FY2015 Congressional
Justifications, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47, H.Rept. 113-486, Senate Appropriations Committee, Explanatory
Statement accompanying P.L. 113-76, H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement.
a. P.L. 113-235 provided no funding for drought response within the WaterSMART program, but
provided $50 million for “Western Drought Response” as a separate line item.
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. The FY2014 bill, P.L. 113-76,
appropriated $27.3 billion for DOE. The Administration’s request for FY2015 was $28.4 billion.
The House approved $27.3 billion, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development recommended $28.4 billion. The enacted FY2015 measure
provided $27.9 billion for DOE.
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
Sen. Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
1,691.8
1,901.7
2,316.7
1,791.0
2,072.9
1,923.9
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability
129.2
147.3
180.0
160.0
174.0
147.3
Nuclear Energy
708.4
889.2
863.4
826.0
777.0
833.5
Fossil Energy R&D
498.7
562.1
475.5
593.0
475.5
571.0
Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves
14.1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
0.0
0.0
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
182.6
189.4
205.0
205.0
205.0
200.0
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
3.6
8.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
7.6
Energy Information Administration
99.5
117.0
122.5
120.0
117.0
117.0
Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup
223.5
231.8
226.2
245,0
246.0
246.0
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
448.2
598.8
531.0
586.0
594.0
625.0
4,681.2
5,071.0
5,111.2
5,071.0
5,086.0
5,071.0
250.6
280.0
325.0
300.0
280.0
280.0
Nuclear Waste Disposal
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.0
0.0
0.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
119.2
126.4
129.1
91.0
110.0
126.0
Office of Inspector General
39.8
42.1
39.9
42.1
39.9
40.5
Office of Indian Energy
0.0
0.0
16.0
0.0
16.0
0.0
Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan
5.7
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Sec. 1705 Loan Guarantee
0.0
20.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Rescission (Clean Coal Technology)
0.0
0.0
-6.6
-6.6
-6.6
-6.6
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
9,096.2
10,210.8
10,592.9
10,231.7
10,109.8
10,232.7
Weapons Activities
6,966.9
7,781.0
8,314.9
8,204.2
8,314.9
8,186.7
Nuclear Nonproliferation
2,237.4
1,954.0
1,555.2
1,555.2
1,978.0
1,616.6
Naval Reactors
994.1
1,095.0
1,377.1
1,215.3
1,208.0
1.234.0
Office of Administrator
377.5
377.0
410.8
386.9
390.0
370.0
10,575.8
11,207.0
11,658.0
11,361.6
11,890.9
11,407.3
4,627.1
5,000.0
4,864.5
4,801.3
5,565.0
5,000.0
Program
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Science
Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy (ARPA-E)
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
Total, NNSA
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
Sen. Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
Other Defense Activities
760.0
755.0
753.0
754.0
753.0
754.0
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
-0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15,962.1
16,962.0
17,738.5
16,916.9
18,208.9
17,624.3
Southeastern
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Southwestern
11.2
11.9
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
Western
90.9
95.9
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
Falcon & Amistad O&M
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
102.0
108.2
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
-74.5
-6.6
-39
-64.3
-236.1
27,281.0
28,436.5
27,214.0
28,359.4
27,916.8
Program
TOTAL, DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)
TOTAL, PMAs
Offsets
Total,Title III
25,160.7
Source: H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement, FY2015 budget request, H.Rept. 113-486, Congressional Budget Office,
Senate Appropriations Committee. Totals may not add due to rounding.
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)27
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 noted that “President Obama has set a
goal of once again doubling generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020.” But
Congress so far has not 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, the FY2013 request for $2.3 billion was cut to $1.7 billion, and the
FY2014 request for $2.8 billion was cut to $1.9 billion.
For FY2015, DOE requested $2.32 billion for the EERE programs. Compared with the FY2014
appropriation, the FY2015 request would have increased EERE funding by about $416 million, or
nearly 22%.
DOE requested an additional $180 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) programs (described in the next section). Table 9 gives the programmatic
breakdown for EERE and OE.
27
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
Sen. Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies
95.8
93.0
93.0
100.0
93.0
97.0
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
185.2
232.4
253.2
180.0
253.2
225.0
Solar Energy
269.1
257.2
282.3
178.0
248.0
233.0
Wind Energy
86.1
88.2
115.0
107.0
109.0
107.0
Geothermal Technology
35.0
45.8
61.5
46.0
61.5
55.0
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
54.7
58.6
62.5
38.5
69.0
61.0
Subtotal, Renewables and
Hydrogen
725.9
775.2
867.5
649.5
833.7
778.0
Vehicle Technologies
303.2
289.9
359.0
277.5
290.0
280.0
Building Technologies
204.6
178.0
211.7
165.0
178.0
172.0
Advanced Manufacturing
114.3
180.6
305.1
206.0
231.8
200.0
Federal Energy Management
28.3
28.3
36.2
20.0
29.0
27.0
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
650.3
676.7
912.0
668.5
728.8
679.0
Facilities and Infrastructure
24.9
46.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
Program Direction
160.5
162.0
160.0
150.0
160.0
160.0
Strategic Programs
23.6
23.6
21.8
12.0
22.0
21.0
R&D Subtotal
1,585.1
1,683.5
2,017.3
1,536.0
1,800.5
1,694.0
Tribal Energy Program
9.4
7.0
0.0a
0.0
0.0
0.0
Clean Energy Economic
Development Projects
0.0
0.0
14.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Subtotal, Demonstration
and Deployment
9.4
7.0
14.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Weatherization Grants
131.7
174.0
227.6
203.0
227.6
193.0
State Energy Grants
47.1
50.0
63.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Use of Prior Year Balances
-81.6
-2.4
-5.2
0.0
-5.2
0.0
Floor amendments
—
—
—
2.0
—
—
Rescission
—
—
—
-18.0
0.0
-13.1
1,691.8
1,901.7
2,316.7
1,773.0
2,072.9
1,923.9
129.2
147.2
180.0
160.0
174.0
147.3
Program
Total EERE Appropriationb
Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE)
Source: H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement, House and Senate appropriations reports, FY2015 budget request.
a. DOE requested that this funding line be moved from EERE to the Office of Tribal Energy.
b. The House Appropriations Committee had recommended $1,789.0 million and a rescission of $18.1
million. In floor action, $7 million was cut from “renewable energy construction” and $9 million was
added for EERE general use. The resulting effects of those changes on specific subprograms have not
yet been determined. For subprograms, the table shows the amounts identified in the committee
report.
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
EERE-wide Cross-Cutting Initiatives
The FY2015 request continued an emphasis on five broad initiatives that cut across multiple
EERE programs:
(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 Team28 to address electric
grid integration barriers and opportunities associated with variable, distributed renewable energy
generators, electric vehicle charging, and building efficiency and controls. Thus, EERE would
coordinate with DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE).
(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 relatively new EERE initiative aims to
dramatically improve U.S. competitiveness in the manufacture of clean energy products (such as
solar modules, LED lights, batteries, and wind blades) and to increase energy productivity as a
means to strengthen U.S. competitiveness across multiple manufacturing industries.
(5) Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Clean Energy Initiative. Wide bandgap semiconductor
technology was initially developed for military and solid-state lighting uses. DOE contends 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 than existing commercial technology. DOE
contends that this “revolutionary” technology could be a platform for the next generation of
electric vehicle 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 FY2014 level by $112.7 million
($527.7 million below the request). The committee report stressed a priority on “research that
only the government is likely to do” and “has commercialization possibilities only in the distant
future.” The committee identified several “major oversight initiatives,” including seven for EERE
and four under OE.
The committee cited a concern about the “proliferation of centers,” including Energy Innovation
Hubs and Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes (CEMIs). The committee report noted that many
centers have been funded repeatedly and “lack a concrete goal after which they would be
terminated.” The committee reiterated FY2014 direction to DOE to provide a comprehensive list
of all centers and details on program and technical goals. Further, the report called for ongoing
review and frequent updates—as well as greater transparency, evaluation, and prioritization.
28
DOE created the Grid Tech Team to develop a stronger and more extensive network of public-private partnerships to
ease the transition to a more modern grid. DOE, EDER, DOE Grid Tech Team, http://energy.gov/oe/services/doe-gridtech-team.
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
As an overarching focus, the committee encouraged DOE to assess the feasibility of
ultraconductive copper as a crosscutting technology area, including funding for prototype
development and manufacturing scale-up. Ultraconductive copper is a composite material that
includes less than 1% of carbon nanotubes suspended in more than 99% of copper. It has an
electrical conductivity, at room temperature, up to double that of pure copper. The European
Commission, the main administrative agency of the European Union (EU), launched an
“ultrawire” R&D initiative late in 2013.29
The committee report contained several management and program directives for FY2015. One
directive specified that no funding is to be provided for the Grid Integration Initiative under
Vehicles, Solar, and Buildings programs.30 The committee also adopted an amendment suggesting
that regulations which specify how to calculate the social cost of carbon “should not” be made
final until after incorporating public comment and findings from a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report. Other selected directives are noted below, in the context of specific program
areas.
Also, the committee sought a rescission of $18.1 million for EERE.31 In floor action, the
rescission was adopted along with four amendments that affect EERE funding for FY2015:
H.Amdt. 986 (Noem) reduced funding for renewable energy construction by $7 million, H.Amdt.
995 (Bonamici) increased EERE funding by $9 million, H.Amdt. 1020 (Burgess) prohibited
EERE spending to enforce lighting efficiency standards for BPAR and ER reflector lamps, and
H.Amdt. 1042 (Weber) prohibited the use of funds for the Cape Wind Energy Project.
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Action: Draft Report Recommendations
The draft committee report provided two areas of general guidance that would affect EERE
programs. First, the draft report noted that a recent Governmental Accountability Office (GAO)
report had raised concern about the “potential for overlap and duplication” among energy
efficiency programs at DOE, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thus, the committee would direct DOE to lead
production of a report on the topic (including actions to eliminate or consolidate such programs),
establish a coordinating council mechanism, and report on the fulfillment of that coordinating
mechanism. Second, the draft committee report encouraged DOE to form partnerships with nonprofit groups to provide “grid technology testing and technical assistance to the electric industry
to address the variability of renewable power generation.”
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. The fuel cell program targets a cost below $40 per kilowatt (kw) and a durability of
5,000 hours (equivalent to 150,000 miles) by 2020. For hydrogen produced from renewable
resources, the target is to bring the cost (dispensed and untaxed) below $4.00 per gasoline gallonequivalent (gge) by 2020. DOE requested $93 million—virtually the same as the FY2014
29
Ultra Conductive Copper-Carbon Nanotube Wire, http://ultrawire.eu/.
See report p. 96, 97, and 101.
31
See report p. 208.
30
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
appropriation. In addition to R&D, the funding would address barriers to commercialization by
supporting early market fuel cell demonstrations and by developing equipment codes and
standards. The House committee recommended a $7 million (8%) increase above the FY2014
level. The draft Senate report recommended the same amount as the FY2014 enacted level. Also,
it recommended that DOE take actions to “transform” the size, cost, scalability, and
interoperability of new retail hydrogen stations. The final appropriation was $4 million higher
than the FY2014 level.
Bioenergy (Biomass and Biorefinery) Program
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 farms and forests. While
biofuels and industrial bioproducts (plastics, solvents, and alcohols) may soon be pricecompetitive, swings in oil prices pose an ongoing challenge to achieving cost-competitiveness.
The program is intended to overcome a feedstock collection barrier by focusing on converting
raw biomass to solid pellets or to “green crude” bio-oil that would be easy to transport at large
scale.
Recent goals expand the program scope to include the development of biofuels that would
contribute to production targets of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These “drop-in” liquid
fuels are largely compatible with existing infrastructure that 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 reach a wholesale finished-fuel cost under $3 per gge by 2017 and $3/gge for algal
biomass productivity by 2020.
DOE requested $253 million in FY2015 for Bioenergy (Biomass and Biorefinery) programs, a
$21 million increase over the FY2014 appropriation. The largest requested subprogram increase
would support a joint effort with the Departments of the Navy and Agriculture for commercialscale biorefineries that produce military-specification fuels. The increase would be partially offset
by a $16 million cut for feedstocks, due to greater reliance on feedstock activities at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The House committee bill proposed a $52 million cut (23%) below
FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended a $21 million (9%) increase over FY2014. The
draft Senate report expressed “concern” that DOE is interpreting biomass too narrowly and is
failing to consider “promising noncellulosic forms” of biomass projects. The final appropriation
cut $7 million from the FY2014 level.
Also, the House committee report specified that no funding was to be provided for the joint
“drop-in biofuels” initiative with the Navy and the Department of Agriculture to develop
commercial biodiesel and jet biofuels production capacity for defense purposes.32 In direct
contrast, the draft Senate report expressed support for the drop-in biofuels collaboration and
recommended the full requested amount of $60 million. The final agreement provided “up to”
$45 million for this collaborative project.
Solar Energy
For the Solar Program, DOE requested $282 million, an increase of $25 million over the FY2014
appropriation. The funding would support the SunShot Initiative goal to achieve a cost of solar
32
See report p. 96.
Congressional Research Service
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
power of 6 cents/kwh to make solar power cost-competitive without subsidies by 2020. This
includes solar photovoltaic R&D; activities that enable a 50% reduction in non-hardware “soft
costs”; and development and demonstration of innovative solar energy manufacturing
technologies to increase U.S. competitiveness, in support of DOE’s Clean Energy Manufacturing
Initiative. FY2015 funding would also support development of advanced thermal storage and
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles so that concentrated solar power could achieve
baseload grid parity. The House committee bill proposed a $79 million (31%) cut below FY2014,
while the draft Senate report recommended a cut of $9 million (4%). The final appropriation cut
funding by $24 million below the FY2014 level.
Wind Energy
There are three key goals for the Wind Program. First, for land-based windfarms, there is a goal
for the energy cost of utility-scale turbines to reach 5.7 cents/kilowatt-hour (kwh) by 2020 and
4.2 cents/kwh by 2030. Second, for offshore settings, the goal is to cut energy cost from 21
cents/kwh in 2010 to 17 cents/kwh (unsubsidized) by 2020. Third, there is an overall goal to
increase installed windfarm capacity from 60 billion watts (gigawatts, gw) in 2012 to 125 gw by
2020 and 300 gw by 2030.
DOE requested a $27 million increase over the FY2014 appropriation, to $115 million. The main
share of that increase—$22 million for Technology Validation and Market Transformation—was
focused on support for three advanced offshore wind demonstration projects planned for
operation by 2017. The remaining increase would support an Atmosphere to Electrons initiative,
to optimize wind farms with improved performance and lower the cost of wind energy. FY2015
funding would also enable pursuit of new designs, materials, and manufacturing processes for
longer blades to capture greater wind resource and to address transportation barriers, in support of
DOE’s Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative and of achieving full market cost competition for
wind energy. The House approved a $19 million (21%) cut below FY2014. The draft Senate
report recommended an increase of $21 million (24%) over FY2014. Also, in House floor action,
H.Amdt. 1042 (Weber) was adopted, which would have prohibited the use of funds for the Cape
Wind Energy Project. The final appropriation increased funding by $19 million over the FY2014
level.
Geothermal Technologies
This program aims to lower the risk of resource exploration and cut power production costs to 6
cents/kwh for hydrothermal power by 2020 and for newly developed technologies by 2030. DOE
requested $62 million, an increase of $16 million over the FY2014 appropriation. The funding
would continue site characterization of the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal
Energy (FORGE). FORGE is a dedicated site that enables testing of novel technologies and
techniques, with a central focus on optimization and validation of enhanced geothermal systems.
FY2015 funding would also accelerate “play fairway” analyses that provide assessments of
exploration risk and the probability of finding new resources on a regional scale, resulting in
maps and studies that reduce the industry’s drilling and development risks. The House committee
bill proposed nearly the same amount as FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended $16
million (34%) more than in FY2014. The final appropriation increased funding by $9 million
over the FY2014 level.
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 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 $63 million, an increase of $4 million over the FY2014
appropriation. The funding would support the launch of HydroNEXT, a new EERE initiative that
focuses on conducting R&D that would allow for increased hydropower opportunities at nonpowered dams, water conveyance systems, and new stream reach development. It would also
support development of new low-cost modular hydropower systems that minimize civil works
and environmental impacts. Further, FY2015 funding would support marine and hydrokinetic
activities to develop and validate open-source design tools and support testing of wave and tidal
energy systems, to enable industry to develop robust next generation systems. The House
committee bill proposed a $20 million (34%) cut below FY2014.The draft Senate report
recommended a $10 million (18%) increase over FY2014. The final appropriation increased
funding by $2 million over the FY2014 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. 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 from baseline levels by
2015. Also, the program participates in the Grid Integration Initiative.
To help achieve those goals and support the EV Everywhere initiative, DOE requested $359
million, an increase of $69 million—the second-largest program increase for FY2015. There are
four main parts to the $69 million increase. First, funding for batteries and electric drives would
increase by $27 million, focused on reducing weight and costs, developing motors and magnets
without rare earths, and improving wide bandgap semiconductors for power electronics. Second,
funding for outreach and deployment would rise by $19 million to initiate Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Community Partner projects. Third, funding for materials technology would increase by
$16 million, emphasizing carbon fiber and other composites, lightweight materials compatible
with manufacturing infrastructure, and high temperature materials for valves and turbochargers.
Fourth, funding for fuels and lubricants would rise by $11 million, mainly to expand work on
drop-in biofuel compatibility with components and infrastructure—to replace conventional
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The House committee bill proposed a $12 million (4%) cut below
FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended nearly the same amount as FY2014. The report
expressed committee support for grid integration activities. The final appropriation cut funding by
$10 million below the FY2014 level.
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),
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
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 $212 million for FY2015, an increase of $34 million over the FY2014
appropriation. The funding emphasizes emerging technologies, to accelerate the development of
lighting, heating and cooling, and other energy efficiency solutions for the nation’s buildings that
offer savings of 50% or more; and supports the equipment and appliance standards programs to
establish minimum energy efficiency requirements pursuant to federal statutes. FY2015 funding
also would help home builders achieve high efficiency levels, improve access for homeowners to
home improvement services, and improve the information, tools, and resources available to the
commercial sector, with a goal of achieving 20% energy savings by 2020.
Two major increases were proposed. First, funding for emerging technologies would increase by
$23 million, focused on R&D on sensors, controls, and grid integration, and on new air
conditioning technologies. Second, a $13 million increase would aim to accelerate equipment
efficiency standards and building codes.
The House committee bill proposed a $13 million (7%) cut below FY2014. The draft Senate
report recommended the same funding as in FY2014. The final appropriation was a cut of $6
million below the FY2014 level.
Some constraints on FY2015 funding for building technologies were adopted by the House
during committee and floor action. Two amendments adopted in committee markup would affect
DOE energy efficiency standards programs operated under the Buildings office.33 One
amendment directed DOE to work with stakeholders to allow for the continued manufacture and
use of grid-enabled water heaters.34 That technology would otherwise be non-compliant with
DOE energy efficiency standards for residential water heaters that are scheduled to take effect in
April 2015. The other amendment (new Section 315) would prohibit DOE from using funds from
the bill to “finalize, implement, or enforce” a rulemaking that would establish energy efficiency
standards for ceiling fans.35 Further, in House floor action, H.Amdt. 1020 (Burgess) was adopted,
which prohibits EERE spending to enforce lighting efficiency standards for BPAR and ER
reflector lamps.36 The provisions for grid-enabled water heaters and ceiling fans were not
included in the final agreement, but the prohibition on DOE enforcement of efficiency standards
for certain reflector lamps was enacted as Section 313 of Division D.
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
33
The list of adopted House amendments is at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hmkp-113-ap0020140618-sd005.pdf.
34
This provision appears on p. 101 of the report. A related provision appeared as a proposed amendment to the
Shaheen-Portman bill, S. 2262. For more information, see CRS Report R43524, S. 2262, Shaheen-Portman Bill 2014:
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, by (name redacted)
.
35
More background on the DOE rulemaking process for ceiling fans is at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/65.
36
BPAR is the acronym for bulged parabolic (shaped) aluminized reflector light bulb. ER is the acronym for the
elliptical reflector type of light bulb. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/
productid/58.
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
by 50% over 10 years. More specific objectives include (1) 50% energy savings through
advanced materials and industrial processes, (2) helping leading companies cut energy intensity
by 25% over 10 years, and (3) facilitating installation of 40 gigawatts (gw, million kilowatts) of
combined heat and power equipment by 2020.37
To meet these goals and objectives, DOE requested $305 million, a net increase of $125 million
over the FY2014 appropriation—the largest EERE program increase requested for FY2015. Most
of the requested increase—about $109 million—would be directed to the subprogram on
Advanced Manufacturing R&D Facilities. Also, a $9 million increase would be provided for
Advanced Manufacturing R&D Projects, mainly for the Advanced Incubator.
The proposed $109 million increase for Advanced R&D Facilities includes up to $70 million to
create at least one new Clean Energy Manufacturing Institute (CEMI) and provide support for
two existing institutes. The new institute would address any one of several topics: nanomaterials
for energy, next generation electric machines, bio-manufacturing, smart manufacturing, or other
topics. The two existing institutes are the Next Generation Power Electronics Manufacturing
Innovation Institute (MII, North Carolina) and the Advanced Composites MII (announced in
March 2014).
The CEMIs form part of a larger proposed interagency network aimed at bringing together
universities, industry, and the government to jointly invest in solving industry-relevant problems.
This activity aims to improve U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, in support of DOE’s Clean
Energy Manufacturing Initiative and the President’s initiative for a multi-agency National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).38 A key goal is for each institute to become
financially sustainable within five to seven years after it is established.
CEMI is a relatively new EERE cross-cutting activity that would be anchored by AMO and
would incorporate activities under many of EERE’s other programs.39 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 small- and 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
the four CEMI institutes, the House committee bill included $56 million and the draft Senate
report recommended $98 million. In the event that DOE seeks funds in the future for additional
CEMIs, the House report directed that the request include “a specific research topic” associated
with each newly proposed CEMI. The draft Senate report specified that, for the third and each
subsequent CEMI there shall be a competitive process, committee notification, development of
performance measures, and demonstration of progress toward funding self-sufficiency with prior
CEMIs. The final agreement adopted those House and Senate directives, and required an EERE
report that provides performance measures to assess the effectiveness of existing CEMIs.
37
DOE, EERE-Advanced Manufacturing Office, FY14 Budget At-a-Glance, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
pdfs/budget/manufacturing_ataglance_2014.pdf.
38
For the NNMI, there are currently four institutes in place and five additional institutes scheduled to be established in
2014, and there is a goal to establish a total of 45 institutes over 10 years.
39
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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Another R&D facility, the Critical Materials Hub (led by Ames National Laboratory), 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.40 Examples include wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, electric vehicles, and
energy-efficient lighting. DOE requested $25 million—level funding—to extend the Hub’s
operation for a fourth year. Both the House committee bill and the draft Senate report would
provide the full $25 million for the Critical Materials Hub. The final appropriation included $25
million for this Hub.
Also, DOE requested $10 million of further support for the Manufacturing Demonstration
Facility (MDF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Both the House committee bill and the draft
Senate report would provide the full $10 million for the MDF.
Overall, the House committee bill proposed a $25 million (14%) increase over FY2014, while the
draft Senate report recommended a $51 million (28%) increase over FY2014. The final
appropriation provided a $19 million increase over the FY2014 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 FY2014 appropriation. The increase would support
expanded marketing and outreach and the development and implementation of tools to streamline
energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), expanding the General Services Administration’s
(GSA’s) schedule for equipment replacements, and devising a new protocol for measurement and
verification of ESPCs. The House committee bill proposed an $8 million (29%) cut below
FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended a small increase over FY2014. The final
appropriation cut funding by about $1 million below the FY2014 level.
Program Direction
This administrative program funds federal employees, contract support, and operational costs.
DOE requested $185 million, about a $20 million increase over the FY2014 DOE-estimated
level. (The House committee bill combined EERE with OE management—there is no separate
FY2014 estimate for EERE.) The increase would cover 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 committee bill proposed a
$12 million (7%) cut below FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended the full amount of the
request, which would be a $2 million cut from FY2014. The final appropriation cut funding by $2
million below the FY2014 level.
Strategic Programs
The Office of Strategic Programs (formerly Program Support) is a crosscutting EERE office
focused on accelerating development, commercialization, and adoption of energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies. Strategic EERE planning and partnerships support the transition
of EERE technologies to market, communications and engagement with energy stakeholders,
development of international markets for U.S. clean energy companies, and policy analysis for
40
The Hub also supports materials needs for defense and other strategic industries.
Congressional Research Service
25
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
decision making and management of the EERE portfolio. For this program, DOE requested a
decrease of about $2 million relative to the FY2014 appropriation. The House committee bill
proposed a $12 million (49%) cut from FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended slightly
more than the full request. The final appropriation adopted a cut of nearly $3 million relative to
the FY2014 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 has noted that many states have expended leftover
Recovery Act funds and now need new funds to avoid cutting core programs and services.41 DOE
requested a $54 million increase over the FY2014 appropriation, solely to increase the number of
households served in the FY2015 cycle. The House committee bill proposed a $29 million cut
(17%) below FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended the full amount of the request. The
final appropriation provided $19 million more than the FY2014 level.
State Energy Grant Program
This program supports both administrative and program activities at many state energy offices.
DOE requested an increase of $13 million over the FY2014 appropriation. The proposed increase
would help support a new, $10 million program of Clean Energy and Economic Development
Partnerships to assist regional shale gas growth zones in creating “sustainable” economic
development roadmaps. Rapid local growth associated with shale gas development challenges
infrastructure and services. Thus, the proposed program would focus on economic diversification
and the long term, to reduce the potential for a boom-bust cycle. Also, $4 million in state grant
funding would be used to establish a new Local Technical Assistance Program, which would
support scale-up and adoption of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies. The House
committee bill proposed the same amount as FY2014, as did the draft Senate report. The final
appropriation kept funding at the FY2014 level.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) Program42
This office supports electric grid modernization and resiliency through R&D, demonstration,
partnerships, facilitation, modeling and analytics, and emergency preparedness and response. It is
the federal government’s lead entity for energy sector-specific responses to energy security
emergencies—whether caused by physical infrastructure problems or by cybersecurity issues.
DOE requested an increase of $33 million over the FY2014 appropriation, which includes a $15
million increase for the Infrastructure Security subprogram and a $10 million increase for the
Smart Grid R&D subprogram. The House approved a $13 million increase over FY2014, while
the draft Senate report recommended a $27 million increase. The final appropriation provided flat
funding at the FY2014 level. The Explanatory Statement for the final agreement did not provide
detailed figures for the following OE subprograms.
41
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)
.
42
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
26
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
For R&D programs, the House provided a $4 million increase over the FY2014 level of nearly
$106 million, while the draft Senate report recommended a $12 million increase over FY2014.
The Smart Grid R&D subprogram aims to modernize the electricity distribution system, which
includes improved reliability, operational efficiency, resiliency, and disaster recovery. The
requested increase would expand R&D on microgrids—localized power grids that can disconnect
from the traditional grid to operate autonomously. Microgrids can help mitigate grid disturbances
and strengthen grid resilience. The increase would also support an evolution towards higher
performance smart grids, or “Smart Grid 2.0.” The House provided level funding at nearly $15
million, while the draft Senate report recommended an increase of nearly $10 million over
FY2014.
For the Cybersecurity R&D subprogram, the House approved a nearly $4 million increase over
the FY2014 level of about $43 million, while the draft Senate report recommended a cut of nearly
$2 million below FY2014.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration subprogram helps secure U.S. energy
infrastructure against all types of hazards, respond to and reduce the impact of disruptive events,
and assist in quickly restoring energy when events occur. The requested increase would support
the development of advanced mitigation solutions for hardening infrastructure against all hazards,
including geomagnetic disturbances, physical threats, and devastating weather events. The House
approved $16 million, an $8 million increase over FY2014. The draft Senate report recommended
$23 million, a $15 million increase over FY2014.
The House committee report called for up to $1 million to be used for a study on the future
resilience and reliability of the nation’s power grid. The committee also directed DOE to prepare
a report on the “physical and cyber security of the electricity grid.” The draft Senate report
stressed the importance of integrating distributed and intermittent renewable energy power
generation into existing power grid infrastructure. Also, the draft Senate report encouraged DOE
to expand partnerships for the development of microgrids in diverse regions.
Nuclear Energy43
The consolidated appropriations act provided $913.5 million for nuclear energy programs, offset
by $80.0 million in rescissions for a net appropriation of $833.5 million. Including the
rescissions, net funding for nuclear energy is $29.9 million below the Obama Administration’s
FY2015 funding request of $863.4 million, and $55.7 million below the FY2014 level. Not
including the rescission, the total spending level is higher than the request and the FY2014
amount. DOE’s FY2015 nuclear R&D budget justification described the following major goals
for the program:
Improve the safety, reliability, and economics of nuclear power plants;
Implement a “consent based” strategy for developing nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities;
Develop improved waste management and fuel cycle technologies; and
Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy is to lead a major initiative announced in the FY2015 budget
request to commercialize the Brayton cycle for commercial power plants. Called Supercritical
43
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
27
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Transformational Electric Power Generation (STEP), the initiative is to be a joint effort by DOE’s
nuclear energy, fossil energy, and renewable energy programs. The Brayton cycle uses
supercritical gas to drive electric generators rather than the steam cycle that dominates the
industry today. DOE’s budget justification predicted that Brayton-cycle power plants could reach
efficiencies of up to 50%, compared with 33% for steam-cycle plants. The STEP program is to
reach a 50-50 cost sharing agreement with the private sector in FY2015 to develop a 10 megawatt
(electric) Brayton cycle pilot plant. The funding request for the STEP initiative, provided within
the nuclear energy budget, totaled $27.5 million for FY2015.
The House Appropriations committee had recommended $899.0 million for nuclear energy, $35.6
million above the Administration request. However, an amendment on the House floor (H.Amdt.
979) reduced the nuclear total by $73.3 million to provide more funding for the Corps of
Engineers. The amendment did not specify how the reduction would be allocated among Nuclear
Energy programs.
The Senate subcommittee draft report recommended $777.0 million for nuclear energy programs,
$86.4 million below the request. The draft rejected the Administration’s $97 million request for
small modular reactor licensing support and cut the $100.5 million request for reactor concepts
R&D by 45%.
The House Appropriations committee report agreed with the Administration’s $27.5 million
request for the STEP initiative and authorized DOE to “modify” the 50% cost-sharing goal for
qualifying pilot plants. The draft Senate report also recommended the full STEP request but
cautioned that the program should “be limited in scope, schedule, and cost.” The consolidated
appropriations act included $5.0 million for STEP under Nuclear R&D, focusing on preparing a
solicitation for a cost-shared demonstration program with the private sector. An additional $10.0
million for STEP was included under Coal R&D.
Reactor Concepts
The Reactor Concepts program area includes research on advanced reactors, including advanced
small modular reactors, and research to enhance the “sustainability” of existing commercial light
water reactors. The consolidated appropriations act provided $133.0 million for Reactor
Concepts, $32.5 million above the request and $20.0 million above the FY2014 level.
Much of this program had previously focused on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The reactor was 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.
Under EPACT05, the Secretary of Energy was to decide by the end of FY2011 whether to
proceed toward construction of a demonstration plant. Then-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. Potential obstacles facing
NGNP include low prices for natural gas, the major competing fuel, and private-sector
unwillingness to pay half the project’s costs.44 Congress accepted the Administration’s proposal
for FY2014 to shift remaining NGNP research activities to the Advanced Reactor Concepts
subprogram.
44
Section 988(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) requires a 50% industry cost share for DOE
demonstration and commercial application activities, although the Energy Secretary may reduce that share “as
necessary and appropriate, taking into consideration any technological risk relating to the activity.”
Congressional Research Service
28
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
DOE proposed to combine the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) R&D and Advanced Reactor
Concepts subprograms into the Advanced Reactor Technologies subprogram in FY2015. The
funding request for the combined subprogram was $70.2 million, a reduction of $12.6 million
from the combined subprograms in FY2014. Reactor concepts being developed by the Advanced
Reactor Technology 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. Nuclear technology development under this program focuses on “fast
reactors,” using high-energy neutrons, fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactors, and high
temperature gas-cooled reactors. International research collaboration in this area would continue
under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF).
The House Appropriations committee recommended $138.0 million for Reactor Concepts, $37.5
million more than the request and $25.0 million above FY2014. The committee agreed with the
proposal to consolidate Advanced SMR research with Advanced Reactor Concepts. The House
panel voted to boost funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram to $101.0 million,
adding funding for high temperature gas reactor research. As noted above, the House approved an
amendment to reduce the committee’s recommended total nuclear funding level without
specifying cuts in individual nuclear programs.
DOE’s FY2015 request for the Light Water Reactor Sustainability subprogram was $30.3 million,
$350,000 above the FY2014 appropriation. The House panel recommended $35.0 million. 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 (NRC). The program, which is cost-shared with the nuclear industry, studies the
aging of reactor materials and analyzes safety margins of aging plants. This subprogram is also
conducting research to understand the Fukushima disaster and to develop prevention and
mitigation measures, according to the DOE justification.
The draft Senate bill and report would have cut reactor concepts to $55.0 million, consisting of
$49.2 million for the combined Advanced Reactor Technologies subprogram and $5.8 million for
Light Water Reactor Sustainability. The draft report directed DOE to focus the Light Water
Reactor Sustainability subprogram on “understanding of accident scenarios, such as those
exhibited in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.”
The consolidated appropriations act specified that $33.0 million of Reactor Concepts funding be
used for graphite fuel research previously conducted under the NGNP program. The consolidated
measure agreed to combine SMR research into Reactor Concepts.
Small Modular Reactor Licensing Support
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, which typically exceed 1,000 megawatts.
Several modular reactors would be installed together to make up a power block with a single
control room, under most concepts. Current SMR proposals would use a variety of technologies,
including high-temperature gas technology and the light water (LWR) technology used by today’s
commercial reactors.
The consolidated appropriations act provided $54.5 million for technical support for licensing
small modular reactors, $42.5 million below the request and $55.5 million below the FY2014
level. Under the program, DOE is to pay up to half the costs associated with NRC design
certification and licensing of selected SMRs, as well as for economic studies and other analyses
Congressional Research Service
29
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
that would support SMR deployment in general. The program has focused on LWR designs
because they are believed most likely to be deployed in the near term, according to DOE. The
FY2015 budget justification says the SMR licensing and technical support program will continue
through FY2017 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.
A consortium led by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) was announced by DOE in November 2012 as
the first award recipient under the program. 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 of B&W’s 180
megawatt mPower SMR. The mPower demonstration plant would potentially be constructed at
the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Clinch River site near Oak Ridge, TN, by 2022, according to the
DOE justification. However, B&W announced April 14, 2014, that it would reduce its spending
on the project to $15 million per year and delay the mPower’s design certification application to
NRC indefinitely, citing a lack of investors and customer contracts for the design.45 Because of
the project’s slowdown, DOE reportedly stopped paying matching funds to B&W after the first
quarter of 2014.46
DOE selected a second SMR to receive assistance under the program in December 2013. The
NuScale Power SMR has a generating capacity of only 45 megawatts. Under the company’s
current concept, up to 12 reactors would be housed in a single pool of water, which would
provide emergency cooling. The NuScale SMR is intended to be ready for commercial operation
by around 2025, according to DOE.47 The DOE budget justification contends that reduced
funding for the SMR program will be sufficient for both the B&W and NuScale projects in
FY2015.
Because of the uncertainty about the B&W SMR project, the House Appropriations Committee
cut the SMR program to $54.5 million, with all of the remaining funding directed to the NuScale
project. However, the committee said that it “will consider additional funding according to
developments.” The Senate draft report recommended no new funding for SMR licensing
support, citing the availability of $85.0 million in prior-year funds that could be reprogrammed
for the NuScale project. The consolidated appropriations measure adopted the House position.
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 and
more effective safety systems. In addition, although modular plants might have similar or higher
costs per kilowatt-hour than conventional large reactors, their ability to be constructed in smaller
increments could reduce electric utilities’ financial commitment and risk.
45
Babcock & Wilcox Company, “B&W Announces Restructuring of Small Modular Reactor Program,” news release,
April 14, 2014, http://www.babcock.com/news-room/Pages/BW-Announces-Restructuring-of-Small-Modular-ReactorProgram.aspx.
46
McAuliffe, Michael, “B&W Says DOE Stops Matching Funds after SMR Program Slowdown,” Nucleonics Week,
August 14, 2014, p. 3.
47
DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors,” http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactortechnologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors.
Congressional Research Service
30
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Fuel Cycle Research and Development
The Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program conducts “long-term, science-based”
research on a wide variety of technologies for improving the management of spent nuclear fuel,
according to the DOE budget justification. In general, the program is investigating ways to
separate radioactive constituents of spent fuel for re-use or to be bonded into stable waste forms.
The FY2015 consolidated appropriations act provided $197.0 million for this program, a slight
increase from the $189.1 million request and $186.5 million appropriated for FY2014.
The Administration requested a nearly one-third increase for the Used Nuclear Fuel R&D
subprogram, from $60.0 million in FY2014 to $79.0 million in FY2015. This subprogram focuses
on establishing a new spent fuel management system, consistent with the Administration’s moves
to terminate the previously authorized waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, NV. DOE
released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste in January 2013 that calls for a “consent-based siting process” for nuclear
storage and disposal facilities. The Used Fuel subprogram would also conduct waste
transportation analyses and research on potential waste repositories, including salt caverns and
deep boreholes, according to the DOE justification. DOE also proposed that Congress provide
mandatory appropriations for the spent fuel management program beginning in FY2018 to
supplement discretionary appropriations. (See the “Nuclear Waste Disposal” section for more
details.)
Other major research areas in the Fuel Cycle R&D Program include the development of accidenttolerant 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 House Appropriations Committee recommended $182.0 million for Fuel Cycle R&D, $7.1
million below the request and $4.5 million below FY2014. The committee provided $60.1 million
for accident-tolerant fuels research, $55.0 million for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, and $55.0
million for used-fuel disposition R&D, such as long-term dry cask storage.
The Senate draft report recommended $230.0 million for Fuel Cycle R&D, including $119.0
million for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition. Within Used Fuel Disposition, $89.0 million was to be
provided for developing a consolidated spent fuel storage facility through a consent-based siting
process. Such a storage facility could hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants until a permanent
underground repository could be developed. The draft report also recommended $60.1 million for
accident-tolerant fuels.
Of the funding provided by the consolidated appropriations act, $60.1 million was specified for
accident-tolerant fuels, $49.0 million for used nuclear fuel disposition R&D, and $22.5 million to
develop the Administration’s proposed waste management system, including $3.0 million to
“design, procure, and test” rail casks. No funding was provided for a consolidated spent fuel
storage facility, as authorized by the Senate draft bill.
Fossil Energy Research and Development48
For FY2015, the Obama Administration requested $475.5 million for the Fossil Energy Research
and Development program (FE R&D) with the provision that it remain available until expended
48
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
31
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
and that $114.2 million remain available until September 30, 2016, for program direction. The
request represented a 15% decrease from the FY2014 appropriation of $562.1 million.
Congress provided $571.0 million for FY2015 in P.L. 113-235 for FE R&D, $95.5 million above
the President’s request (+20%), and $8.9 million above the FY2014 amount (+1.6%). Some
activities received increases in funding, and some received decreases, compared to the FY2014
enacted amounts (see Table 10). The main activities are listed below, showing the change of the
enacted amount for FY2015 compared with the FY2014 appropriation.
A Carbon Capture sub-program focuses on separating CO2 in both precombustion and post-combustion systems (-$4 million).
The Carbon Storage sub-program focuses on long-term geologic storage of CO2,
including small- and large-scale CO2 injection tests. The Regional Sequestration
Partnerships would be renamed Storage Infrastructure. No funding was requested
for beneficial use/reuse of CO2 (-$8.9 million).
An Advanced Energy Systems sub-program focuses on improving availability
and efficiency of fossil energy systems integrated with CO2 capture. The
Advanced Energy Systems sub-program focuses on gasification, oxycombustion, advanced turbines, and other energy systems (+$3.5 million).
The Cross-Cutting Research activity serves as a bridge between basic and applied
research by fostering development and deployment of innovative systems (+$7.1
million).
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal R&D supports in-house
research activities. Congress noted that it would provide $15 million above the
President’s request to continue support for extracting rare-earth elements from
coal and coal byproduct streams (no change from FY2014).
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Program, a
new program in FY2015 not included in the President’s request under NE R&D
(+$10.0 million).
Other FE R&D activities in the budget proposal outside of the coal program include:
Natural Gas Technologies with a focus on ongoing methane hydrates research
and on collaborative research regarding hydraulic fracturing (+$4.3 million).
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies from Petroleum activities (-$10.4
million).
Program Direction provides funding for DOE headquarters, field offices, and
contractor support (-$1.0 million).
The new program funded by Congress under coal, the Supercritical Transformational Electric
Power (STEP) Generation Program, would be a joint initiative with the Office of Nuclear Energy
and the Solar Energy Program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The
STEP program is intended to promote the development of large-scale supercritical carbon dioxide
power conversion; instead of water and steam, CO2 would be used to transform heat energy in
turbine systems. (For more on STEP, see “Nuclear Energy.”)
Under Natural Gas Technologies (total $25.1 million for FY2015), Congress provided $15
million for methane hydrates research, and $10.1 million for collaborative research and
development regarding hydraulic fracturing. Congress further specified that funding for hydraulic
fracturing is for research that aims to improve both the economics and recoverability of reserves
Congressional Research Service
32
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
and to address the health, safety, and environmental risks of shale gas extraction. The
Administration did not request any funding for this activity in FY2015.
With its $571.0 million appropriation, Congress directed DOE to submit a comprehensive
program plan and research and development roadmap no more than 180 days after enactment of
P.L. 113-235.
Table 10 shows proposed funding and changes compared with FY2014 and FY2013 for FE R&D
activities.
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development
($ millions)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
Sen. Sub.
Conf.FY20
15
Approp.
Natural Gas CCS
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
Carbon Capture
63.7
92.0
77.0
90.0
77.0
88.0
Carbon Storage
106.7
108.9
80.1
100.0
80.1
100.0
Advanced Energy Systems
92.4
99.5
51.0
107.0
46.0
103.0
Cross Cutting Research
45.6
41.9
35.3
50.0
30.3
49.0
NETL Coal R&D
33.3
50.0
34.0
50.0
34.0
50.0
Coal
STEP (Supercritical CO2)
15.0
10.0
Coal Subtotal
341.9
392.3
302.4
412.0
292.4
400.0
Natural Gas Technologies
13.9
20.6
35.0
22.6
40.0
25.1
Unconventional Fossil
Energy
4.6
15.0
0.0
13.0
5.0
4.6
Program Direction
114.2
120.0
114.2
120.0
114.2
119.0
Plant and Capital
Equipment
16.0
16.0
15.3
16.8
15.3
15.7
FE Environmental
Restoration
7.5
5.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
5.9
Special Recruitment
Program
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
498.7
570.5
475.5
593.0
475.5
571.0
0.0
-8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
498.7
562.1
475.5
593.0
475.5
571.0
Subtotal
Use of Prior Year
Balance
Total
Source: H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement.
Notes: Coal was formerly Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration. Totals may not sum exactly due
to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
33
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Strategic Petroleum Reserve49
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.50 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.
In the summer of 2011, the President ordered an SPR sale in coordination with an International
Energy Administration sale under treaty obligation because of Libya’s curtailment. The U.S. sale
of 30.6 million barrels reduced the SPR inventory to 695.9 million barrels.
In March 2014, DOE’s Office of Petroleum Reserves conducted a test sale to evaluate the ability
to sell, draw down, and distribute crude oil given the significant changes in domestic crude oil
production, increased imports of Canadian crude oil, and changes to crude oil distribution
infrastructure upon which the SPR relies. The SPR Test Sale delivered 4,998,146 barrels of crude
oil over a 47-day period that netted $468.6 million in cash receipts to the U.S. government (SPR
Petroleum Account). The SPR Petroleum Account current balance is $250.8 million.
The FY2015 House Appropriations Committee report noted that DOE in May 2014 had
announced the establishment of the first regional gasoline reserve, to be stored at various
locations in the Northeast, with receipts from the SPR test sale. The committee found that the
gasoline reserve “may have merit and deserves further consideration” but criticized “the timing of
these announcements, the use of receipts from the test sale rather than appropriated funds, and the
lack of prior consultation with the Congress.”
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.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-76) prohibited the waiver of the
navigation and vessel-inspection requirements 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 U.S. flag vessels.
For FY2015, the Administration requested $205.0 million to operate the SPR, an 8.3% increase
over the FY2014 appropriation of $189.4 million. The funding increase above FY2014 is
primarily for a major maintenance program to address aging infrastructure and the deferred
maintenance backlog. The House and the Senate subcommittee approved the $205.0 million
request to operate the SPR. However, the final appropriations measure cut the funding to $200.0
million.
49
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
For details on the SPR see CRS Report R41687, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Refined Product Reserves:
Authorization and Drawdown Policy, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
50
Congressional Research Service
34
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Science51
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: advanced scientific
computing research, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy
sciences, high-energy physics, and nuclear physics. Through (primarily) these programs, DOE
was the third-largest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in
the physical sciences in FY2014.52 Table 11 includes FY2013 and FY2014 current plan funding;
as well as the budget request, House and Senate recommendations, and final action for FY2015.53
Table 11. Science
($ millions)
FY2013
Currenta
FY2014
Currentb
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015 S.
Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
405.0
463.5
541.0
541.0
557.0
541.0
Basic Energy
Sciences (BES)
1,551.3
1,662.7
1,806.5
1,702.0
1,806.5
1,733.2
Biological and
Environmental
Research (BER)
560.7
593.6
628.0
540.0
627.5
592.0
Fusion Energy
Sciences (FES)
377.8
495.9
416.0
540.0
341.0
467.5
High Energy Physics
(HEP)
727.5
774.9
744.0
775.0
774.5
766.0
Nuclear Physics
(NP)
507.2
554.8
593.6
600.0
601.6
595.5
Workforce
Development for
Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS)
17.5
26.5
19.5
n/s
29.5
19.5
Science Laboratories
Infrastructure (SLI)
105.7
97.8
79.2
n/s
66.7
79.6
Safeguards and
Security (S&S)
77.5
87.0
94.0
n/s
94.0
93.0
Program Direction
(PD)
174.9
185.0
189.4
180.0
187.7
183.7
SBIR/STTR (Office
of Science)c
116.1
128.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4,261.1
5,070.2
5,111.2
5,071.0
5,086.0
5,071.0
Program
Advanced Scientific
Computing Research
(ASCR)
Subtotal
51
This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez.
Based on preliminary FY2014 data from Tables 7 and 22 of National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2012-14, NSF 14-316
(September 2014).
53
The Senate Committee on Appropriations published a draft subcommittee bill and an accompanying subcommittee
report (also draft), on its website on July 24, 2014. Copies available upon request.
52
Congressional Research Service
35
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Program
SBIR/STTR (DOEwide transfer)c
Total
FY2013
Currenta
FY2014
Currentb
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015 S.
Sub.
FY2015
Approp.
60.1
64.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4,681.2
5,131.0d
5,111.2
5,065.7e
5,079.0f
5,067.7g
Source: Data in the “FY2013 Current,” “FY2014 Current,” and “FY2015 Request” columns are from the
December 3, 2014, Office of Science, “FY2013-FY2015 Appropriation Summary,” available at
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/pdf/sc-congressional-appropriations/fy-2015/FY_20132015_SC_Funding_Summary.pdf. Data in the column titled “House” are from H.Rept. 113-486 and H.R. 4923
(Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015) as passed by the House. Data
in the column titled “Senate Subc.” are from the draft subcommittee report and bill as published on the Senate
Committee on Appropriations website on July 24, 2014. Data in the column titled “FY2015 Approp.” are from
P.L. 113-235 (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015) and pp. H9710-H9711 of the
Explanatory Statement printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record.
a. Funding levels in this column reflect the enacted appropriation, plus the reallocation of funding within the
Office of Science for a congressionally approved reprogramming request, the reallocation of SBIR/STTR
funding within the Office of Science to the SBIR/STTR (Office of Science) line, and the transfer of
SBIR/STTR funding from other DOE programs into the SBIR/STTR (DOE-wide transfer) line.
b. Funding levels in this column reflect the enacted appropriation, plus the reallocation of funding within the
Office of Science for a congressionally approved reprogramming request, the reallocation of SBIR/STTR
funding within the Office of Science to the SBIR/STTR (Office of Science) line, and the transfer of
SBIR/STTR funding from other DOE programs into the SBIR/STTR (DOE-wide transfer) line. Also includes
use of prior-year funds in the amount of $3.8 million transferred to SBIR.
c. For more information about the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs, see CRS Report R43695, Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer Programs, by (name redacted) Details for FY2014 and FY2015 are not yet available.
d. Includes a $3.8 million reduction for use of prior-year balances.
e. Includes a $5.3 million rescission of prior-year balances.
f.
Includes a $7.0 million rescission of prior-year balances.
g. P.L. 113-235, Division D, Title V, Section 309 rescinds $3.3 million in unobligated balances from prior years
from the Science account.
P.L. 113-235 provides $5.068 billion to the Office of Science in FY2015.54 This amount is
roughly equivalent to the FY2014 current level of $5.066 billion.55 The Obama Administration
requested $5.111 billion for the Office of Science in FY2015, the House recommended $5.066
billion,56 and the draft Senate bill would have provided $5.079 billion.57 Overall, the Explanatory
Statement, which accompanied P.L. 113-235, adopts the recommendations in the House report
(H.Rept. 113-486) unless otherwise specifically noted in the statement.58
54
This funding level includes $5.071 billion in enacted FY2015 funding for Science plus a $3 million rescission of
unobligated balances from prior years as per P.L. 113-235, Division D, Title V, Sec. 309.
55
This funding level includes $5.070 billion in current FY2014 funding for Science plus a $4 million reduction for use
of prior year balances.
56
This funding level includes $5.071 billion in proposed FY2015 funding for Science plus a $5 million rescission of
unobligated balances from prior years as per H.R. 4923, Sec. 309.
57
This funding level includes $5.086 billion in proposed FY2015 funding for Science plus a $7 million rescission of
unobligated balances from prior years as per the draft Senate bill, Sec. 313.
58
See “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 83,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 160, no. 151—Book II (December 11, 2014), beginning on p. H9307; referred to herein as the
“Explanatory Statement.”
Congressional Research Service
36
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
By program, the largest increase in the FY2015 appropriations law goes to ASCR, which receives
$78 million (17%) more than its FY2014 current funding level. The largest decrease is to FES,
which receives $28 million (-6%) less than it did in FY2014. Compared with the FY2014 funding
level, the largest recommended increase in the House report would have accrued to ASCR ($78
million, or 17%), while the only decrease would have accrued to BER ($54 million, or -9%). The
draft Senate report also recommended a substantial increase for ASCR ($94 million, or 20%); its
only decrease would have accrued to FES ($155 million, -31%). Most of the proposed FES
reduction would have come from termination of U.S. involvement in the ITER project. (See
“Fusion Energy Sciences (FES)” for more information about this draft recommendation.)
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
ASCR receives a total of $541 million in FY2015. This amount is $78 million (17%) over the
FY2014 funding level and is equal to both the Administration’s request and the House report
recommendation. The draft Senate report would have provided $557 million to ASCR in FY2015.
Most of the Administration’s requested increase was for exascale computing activities. According
to the ASCR budget request, “Capable exascale computing, with a hundred to thousand fold
improvement in true application performance over today’s systems, is the next frontier of
development in High Performance Computing (HPC), extending capability significantly beyond
today’s petascale computers to address the next generation of scientific, engineering, and largedata problems.”59 Given its perceived importance to national security and economic
competitiveness, exascale computing is a DOE priority. DOE leadership asserts that the
department is on a path to have a capable machine by the early 2020s.60
The House and draft Senate reports both recommended the requested level for ASCR-funded
Exascale Computing ($91 million) in FY2015. In addition, the House and draft Senate reports
both recommended the requested levels for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF,
$80 million) and Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (ORLCF, $104 million). The two
committee recommendations diverged from each other on the question of funding for the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSCC) at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. The House report recommended the requested level of $69 million, while
the draft Senate report recommended $85 million. The final agreement, as described in the
Explanatory Statement, provided $91 million for ASCR-funded Exascale Computing, $104
million for ORLCF, $80 million for ALCF, and $76 million for NERSCC. The Explanatory
Statement also provided $3 million for the Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship
program.61
Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
FY2015 funding for BES is $1.733 billion. This amount is $70 million (4%) more than the
FY2014 funding level of $1.663 billion. The FY2015 request for BES, the largest Office of
59
FY2015 DOE budget request, volume 4 (Science), p. 17.
Testimony of Office of Science Acting Director Patricia Dehmer, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Budget Hearing—Department of Energy, Science,
hearings, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 2014, at http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?
EventID=373120.
61
Also included in the Explanatory Statement are DOE-wide provisions limiting funding for educational activities to
those expressly included in the budget justification or appropriations documents. See Explanatory Statement, p. H9698.
60
Congressional Research Service
37
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Science program, was $1.807 billion. The House report recommended $1.702 billion; the draft
Senate report recommended the request.
Most of the requested BES increase was for scientific user facilities ($34 million) or construction
($37 million). For facilities, DOE plans to cease National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS)
operations—and transition the NSLS-II from a construction project to operations—in FY2015.
Construction increases would provide $63 million for research and development activities, longlead procurements, and prototyping for the Linac Coherent Light Source-II (LCLS-II). The
Administration also requested $24 million for the (new) Computational Materials Science activity
in FY2015.
The House report recommended $128 million for BES construction in FY2015, which is below
the $139 million request for the LCLS-II. (The LCLS-II is the only project with a request for BES
construction funding in FY2015.) The House report further recommended $105 million for
NSLS-II operations, $100 million for Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), $10 million for
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), and $8 million for
Computational Materials Sciences; as well as $24 million for the Batteries and Energy Storage
Innovation Hub and no funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub.62
The draft Senate report also recommended $100 million for EFRCs and $24 million for the
Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub. However, the draft Senate report differed from the
House report in its recommendations for EPSCoR ($15 million); Computational Materials
Sciences ($18 million); and the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub, which the draft Senate
report would have funded at $24 million (if the Office of Science completes an internal and peer
review of the Hub). The draft Senate report also recommended the requested level ($139 million)
for LCLS-II construction.
As described in the Explanatory Statement, the final agreement includes $100 million for EFRCs,
$24 million for the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub, $10 million for EPSCoR, $8
million for Computational Materials Sciences, $15 million for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation
Hub; and $139 million for LCLS-II construction.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
The Explanatory Statement provides $592 million for BER in FY2015, close to the FY2014
funding level. The Administration requested $628 million, which the draft Senate report would
have provided. The House report recommended $540 million.
Within BER, the Administration sought to reduce funding for Biological Systems Science by $12
million. Of this amount, $10 million would have come from a 66% decrease in funding for
Radiological Sciences. The request indicated that the reduction in funding for Radiological
Sciences represented a shift in focus from nuclear medicine research to bioenergy and
environmental research within the Biological Systems Science portfolio.63 The Administration’s
request for the other major BER activity, Climate and Environmental Sciences, would have
increased funding by $30 million in FY2015. Most of this increase would have provided for a
62
According to the House report, the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub received its final year of funding within a
five-year term in FY2014. (H.Rept. 113-486, p. 119.)
63
U.S. Department of Energy, FY2015 Congressional Budget Request, Science and Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy, vol. 4, March 2014, p. 103.
Congressional Research Service
38
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
new activity, Climate Model Development and Validation ($29 million), which sought to improve
existing models’ representation of extreme events, as well as their quantification of uncertainty.64
The House report would have provided $75 million for the three Bioenergy Research Centers
(same as the request) and recommended no funding for the proposed Climate Model
Development and Validation activity. The draft Senate report recommended $29 million (just
under the requested level) for the Climate Model Development and Validation activity, as well as
$46 million for the operation of the Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.
The Explanatory Statement provides $75 million for the three Bioenergy Research Centers, $46
million for the Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, and no funding for the Climate Model Development and Validation activity.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES)
FY2015 funding for FES is $468 million, which is $28 million (-6%) less than the FY2014
current level. The Administration requested $416 million for FES in FY2015. The House report
recommended $540 million; the draft Senate report recommended $341 million. Most of the
differences between these various funding levels derived from the way each recommendation
provided for U.S. contributions to the ITER project.
ITER is a multi-national effort to design and build an experimental fusion reactor, which is
currently under construction in France.65 According to DOE, ITER “aims to generate fusion
power 30 times the levels produced to date and to exceed the external power applied … by at
least a factor of ten.”66 However, many U.S. analysts have expressed concern about ITER’s cost,
schedule, and management.67 Some policy makers and U.S. fusion researchers also express
concern about the impact of ITER’s funding on the availability of DOE resources for the
domestic fusion program.
The Administration’s FY2015 budget request, the House bill and report, and the draft Senate bill
and report each sought to address these concerns, albeit differently. The FY2015 budget request
for the U.S. contribution to ITER was $150.0 million, or $50 million less than the FY2014
64
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science Acting Director Patricia Dehmer, “FY2015 Budget Request to
Congress for DOE’s Office of Science,” PowerPoint presentation, March 4, 2014.
65
According to the ITER agreement, the U.S. contribution to ITER is 9.09% of construction costs. However, more than
80% of U.S. ITER project funding is spent at universities and businesses within the United States. (For example, the
United States is designing, engineering, and procuring ITER’s cooling water system as part of the U.S. contribution.)
Other contributors include China, India, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation, and the European Union. In
exchange for its contribution, the United States gains 100% access to ITER’s research output. More information about
the U.S. ITER program is available at https://www.usiter.org/index.shtml.
66
U.S. Department of Energy, FY2015 Congressional Budget Request, Science and Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy, vol. 4, March 2014, p. 137, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/Volume_4.pdf.
67
In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion. Schedule
delays, design and scope changes, and other factors have placed upward pressure on ITER costs. According to the
FY2015 DOE budget request, the “present U.S. assessment of the project is that it cannot, under current conditions,
meet the most recent schedule” (DOE, FY2015 budget request, volume 4, p. 137) and that the “best estimate” of the
current total cost range is between $4.0 and $6.5 billion (Ibid., p. 146). A June 2014 Government Accountability Office
review of DOE’s cost and schedule estimates for the U.S. ITER project concluded, among other things, that the
unreliability of the overall international project schedule limited DOE’s ability to produce a reliable cost and schedule
estimate for the U.S. project. (See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Fusion Energy: Actions Needed to Finalize
Cost and Schedule Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor (GAO-14-499), June
2014, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-499.)
Congressional Research Service
39
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
current plan funding level of $200 million and $75 million less than the $225 million annual cap
on ITER funding that DOE proposed in 2012.68 The Administration’s request noted that the
present U.S. assessment of the international ITER project is that it cannot meet the most recent
proposed schedule. The FY2015 request further stated that the request “will ensure that U.S. inkind contributions maintain [the] U.S. commitment to FY2015 project needs.”69
The House, on the other hand, recommended $225 million for the U.S. contribution to ITER—
$200 million for in-kind hardware contributions and $25 million for cash contributions. Both the
House-passed bill (H.R. 4923) and House report specified that U.S. cash contributions to the
international ITER project would be contingent upon the ITER governing council’s
implementation of recommendations from a 2013 management assessment report.70
Unlike both the Administration and the House, which sought to continue funding the ITER
project, the draft Senate report recommended that the United States withdraw from ITER
altogether. It provided $75 million to FES to complete existing contracts and fund the U.S. ITER
office in FY2015. (The draft Senate bill contained similar provisions.) Citing a June 2014
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the ITER project, the draft Senate report
stated
The Committee cannot support a project with no specified price tag or date of
completion, especially when the project is the most complicated engineering construction
project in the world with significant, unresolved project management problems. 71
The FY2015 agreement, as described in the Explanatory Statement and in the text of P.L. 113235, funds ITER at the requested level of $150 million, with the proviso that U.S. cash
contributions must be withheld until the governing council implements the recommendations of
the 2013 management assessment report. P.L. 113-235 further provides that this prohibition may
be waived if the Secretary of Energy determines that the governing council is making satisfactory
progress towards implementing the recommendations.
In addition to the ITER project, the FY2015 FES budget request noted DOE’s intention to shutter
the Alcator C-Mod facility at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in late FY201672
and proposed a 61% ($11 million) reduction in funding for High Energy Density Laboratory
Plasmas science. The House report recommended specific funding levels for a number of FES
activities, including $315 million for domestic fusion research (above both the FY2015 request
and FY2014 current level), as well as $22 million for research and facilities operations at the
Alcator C-Mod and $18 million for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. Among other
things, the draft Senate report recommended $17 million for High Energy Density Laboratory
Plasmas, similar to the FY2014 current plan funding level.
68
According to the FY2015 budget request, “In the spring of 2012… DOE and its oversight organizations agreed to
support an annual funding level of no more than $225,000,000 per year beginning in FY2014.” U.S. Department of
Energy, FY2015 Congressional Budget Request, Science and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, vol. 4,
March 2014, p. 137, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/Volume_4.pdf.
69
Ibid.
70
Excerpts of this report were published in the online New Yorker. See Raffi Khatchadourian, “How to Fix ITER,” The
New Yorker, February 28, 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-to-fix-iter.
71
Draft Senate report, p. 102.
72
The Obama Administration sought to eliminate funding for the Alcator C-Mod facility in FY2014. However,
congressional appropriators included funding for the facility in the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). See “Joint Explanatory Statement,” Congressional Record,
January 15, 2014, pp. H881-H893.
Congressional Research Service
40
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Among other items, the Explanatory Statement provided $22 million for Alcator C-Mod, noting
that FY2016 will be the final year of funding for the MIT tokamak and directing DOE to plan for
an orderly shutdown. The Explanatory Statement also directed the Office of Science to seek
community engagement on its forthcoming FES strategic planning and priorities report. High
Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas received $18 million in FY2015. The Explanatory Statement
provided $318 million for the FES research line item.
High Energy Physics (HEP)
The Explanatory Statement provided $766 million to HEP in FY2015, $9 million (-1%) less than
the FY2014 current funding level. The Administration requested a reduction for HEP in FY2015
(to $744 million). Both the House committee and draft Senate reports recommended maintaining
HEP at close to FY2014 funding levels in FY2015.
The HEP request sought overall reductions in Energy Frontier Experimental Physics, Intensity
Frontier Experimental Physics, Theoretical and Computational Physics, Advanced Technology
R&D, and Construction, as well as overall increases in Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics
and Accelerator Stewardship. The FY2015 HEP request did not include funding for the Long
Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE), which received funding for design activities in FY2014.
The request indicated that HEP intends to further develop LBNE program plans in FY2015.73
The House and draft Senate reports would have provided increases over requested levels for
Energy Frontier Experimental Physics, Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics, Theoretical and
Computational Physics, and Advanced Technology R&D. The House report also recommended an
increase over the request for Intensity Frontier Experimental Physics; the draft Senate report
recommended about $6 million less ($245 million compared to $251 million). The two reports
differed on, among other things, funding for Accelerator Stewardship. The House report
recommended $3 million while the draft Senate report recommended the requested level of $19
million. The House report also recommended $22 million for LBNE R&D, as well as engineering
and design activities. However, the House report recommended no funding for long-lead
procurements or construction activities associated with the LBNE project. The draft Senate report
recommended $22 million for LBNE engineering and design.
The Explanatory Statement provides $22 million for the LBNE, including $10 million for R&D
and $12 million for engineering and design, but provides no funding for long-lead procurements
or construction activities. Accelerator Stewardship receives $10 million (about the same as
FY2014). The agreement further provides higher-than-requested funding levels for Intensity
Frontier Experimental Physics, Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics, Theoretical and
Computational Physics, and Advanced Technology R&D.
73
The LBNE was initially conceptualized as an experiment that would beam certain particles (underground) from
Fermilab in Batavia, IL, to the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD. The project was determined to be
too expensive as initially proposed. Scientists are considering whether to modify the experiment to an above-ground
option that may make it less expensive (but perhaps less scientifically useful) or seek international partners to assist
with the cost of the underground option. See Pallab Ghosh, “UK Backs Huge Neutrino Plan,” BBC News, February 14,
2104, at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26017957; and Adam Hurlburt, “Feds Support Underground
Neutrino Experiment,” Black Hills Pioneer, January 23, 2014, at http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/
article_bdc8b8c8-8452-11e3-84f7-....bb2963f4.html .
Congressional Research Service
41
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
Nuclear Physics (NP)
Nuclear Physics receives $596 million in FY2015. This amount is $41 million (7%) more than the
FY2014 funding level. The FY2015 request for NP was $594 million. The House report
recommended $600 million; the draft Senate report recommended $602 million.
The largest change in the FY2015 NP request was a $35 million increase in construction funding
for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) at Michigan State University. This increase would
be partially offset by a $9 million reduction in funding for the 12GeV CEBAF (Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility) Upgrade project, which is reaching completion. Funding
increases for the FRIB would support the continuation of planned construction activities and final
technical design. Both the House and draft Senate reports recommended the requested level for
FRIB. The Explanatory Statement, by reference to the House report, provided the requested level
for FRIB.
ARPA-E74
The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was authorized by the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to support transformational energy technology research projects.
DOE budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk
technological barriers to the development of energy technologies. FY2015 funding for ARPA-E is
$280 million, the same as FY2014 enacted funding. The Administration sought $325 million for
ARPA-E in FY2015. As in FY2013 and FY2014, the FY2015 ARPA-E request included two
research thrust areas: Transportation Systems ($148 million requested) and Stationary Power
Systems ($148 million requested). The House would have provided $300 million for ARPA-E in
FY2015; the draft Senate bill recommended $280 million.
Nuclear Waste Disposal75
Current funding for DOE’s civilian nuclear waste disposal activities is included under the Office
of Nuclear Energy’s Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program, in the Used Nuclear Fuel
Disposition subprogram. As noted in the Nuclear Energy section of this report, the Administration
requested $79 million for the Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition subprogram for FY2015, an increase
of $19 million from FY2014.
Through the Used Nuclear Fuel subprogram, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy is carrying out
activities formerly conducted by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
(OCRWM), which was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, 42 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.) to dispose of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense
facilities. OCRWM had been developing a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, NV, as specified by an NWPA amendment in 1987. Funding for OCWRM ended after
FY2010, so the office has been closed and activities at the Yucca Mountain site halted. No
funding for Yucca Mountain was requested for FY2015. In line with the request, the final FY2015
appropriations act did not include any new funding for Yucca Mountain and it reduced the request
for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition—not involving Yucca Mountain—by $7.5 million.
The Obama Administration “has determined that developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not
a workable option and the Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal,”
74
75
This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez.
This section was prepared by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
42
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
according to the DOE FY2011 budget justification. To develop alternative waste management
strategies, the Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future, which issued its final report to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012.76 The Blue
Ribbon Commission recommended that future efforts to develop nuclear waste facilities follow a
“consent based” approach and be carried out by a new organization, rather than DOE. The
commission said the new nuclear waste entity should have “assured access” to the Nuclear Waste
Fund, which holds fees collected from nuclear power plant operators to pay for waste disposal.
Under NWPA, those funds cannot be spent without appropriation by Congress.
DOE released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste in January 2013 in response to the Blue Ribbon Commission report. The
strategy called for a pilot interim storage facility for spent fuel from closed nuclear reactors to
open by 2021 and a larger storage facility, possibly at the same site, to open by 2025. A site for a
permanent underground waste repository would be selected by 2026, and the repository would
open by 2048. Storage and disposal sites would be selected by a new waste management
organization through a consent-based process, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon
Commission.77
Under the category of Nuclear Waste Disposal, the House approved $150.0 million in FY2015 for
DOE to restart its supporting activities for the Yucca Mountain licensing process at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). As it has in previous years, the House Appropriations Committee
noted that Yucca Mountain is by law the only candidate site for a national repository for highly
radioactive waste. The panel rejected the Administration’s attempts to “unilaterally” develop and
implement a new nuclear waste policy.
Much of the Administration’s nearly one-third funding boost for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition
in FY2015, under the Nuclear Energy category, would go for R&D on long-term storage of highburnup fuels—nuclear fuel rods that have been irradiated much longer than was typical in the
past. The higher funding request would also pay for deep borehole demonstration tests, as well as
continuing evaluations of crystalline rock, clay/shale, and salt as potential media for a permanent
underground repository, according to the DOE budget justification.
The FY2015 request for the Used Nuclear Fuel subprogram proposed $30 million for an
integrated waste management system to develop preliminary processes for storage, transportation,
disposal, and consent-based siting—of which $24.0 million would come from the Nuclear Waste
Fund. The FY2015 draft Senate bill would have authorized DOE to conduct a voluntary siting
process for consolidated spent fuel storage (Section 308) and provide $89.0 million under Used
Fuel Disposition for the project, including $24.0 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The final
FY2015 appropriations measure did not include the House-passed funding for Yucca Mountain or
the waste storage facility proposed by the Senate panel, but it provided $22.5 million for the
Administration’s proposed integrated waste management system, although not from the Nuclear
Waste Fund as requested.
The FY2015 budget request included a proposal to change the nuclear waste funding system
along the lines proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission. Discretionary funding (annual
76
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012,
http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf.
77
DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%20Fuel%20and%20High
%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
43
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations
appropriations by Congress) would continue to pay for “regular and recurring” expenses of the
nuclear waste program. In the past, discretionary appropriations for the program have come from
both the Nuclear Waste Fund, to pay for disposal of commercial reactor waste, and from the
General Fund, to pay for defense waste disposal.
Beginning in FY2018, under the Administration proposal, the discretionary appropriations for
spent nuclear fuel management would be supplemented by mandatory appropriations, first from
incoming nuclear waste fee revenues and eventually from past fees and interest that have
accumulated in the Waste Fund. If Congress enacted such mandatory appropriations, the specified
funding would be automatically provided to the waste program without the need for annual
congressional approval. A similar proposal in FY2014 was not approved by Congress, and it was
not included in the House-passed or draft Senate bills for FY2015, nor in the final measure.
DOE’s proposal to pay for nuclear waste activities with annual waste fee collections has also been
jeopardized by a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that
DOE must stop collecting the fees. NWPA requires the Secretary of Energy to adjust the fees as
necessary to cover the waste program’s anticipated costs, but the Court ruled that DOE’s current
waste plans are too vague to allow a reasonable estimate to be calculated.78 In response to the
court ruling, DOE reportedly stopped collecting the waste fee on May 16, 2014, eliminating about
$750 million in revenues collected each year from the nuclear power
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.