Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 27, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2016 Appropriations
name redacted
Specialist in Energy Policy
January 27, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43966
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) civil works projects, 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. DOE typically accounts for about
80% of the bill’s total funding.
President Obama’s FY2016 budget request was released February 2, 2015. Including adjustments,
the request for Energy and Water Development agencies totaled $36.04 billion, compared with a
total of $34.78 billion appropriated for FY2015, an increase of 3.6%. The House approved its
version of the FY2016 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill on May 1, 2015 (H.R.
2028, H.Rept. 114-91), and the Senate Appropriations Committee followed on May 21, 2015
(H.R. 2028, S.Rept. 114-54); both bills provided total budget authority of about $35.4 billion.
After lengthy negotiations, Congress enacted an omnibus funding measure on December 18,
2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029, P.L. 114-113). The omnibus
measure provided a total of $37.3 billion for energy and water programs for FY2016, an increase
of 7.3% over FY2015.
Major Energy and Water Development funding highlights for FY2016 included
Waters of the United States. Language to block a controversial rulemaking to
define “waters of the United States” was considered but not adopted;
Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing and Vehicles. DOE’s energy efficient
manufacturing research would have more than doubled and research on energy
efficient vehicles would have risen 59% under the FY2016 budget request, but
smaller increases were approved;
Nuclear Waste Management. The House approved $175 million for the statutorily
authorized candidate disposal site at Yucca Mountain, NV, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee would have authorized and funded an interim storage
pilot facility, but none of those provisions were adopted;
ITER Fusion Reactor. Cost, schedule, and management concerns were raised
about the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER);
Nuclear Weapons Activities. Congress approved the Administration’s requested
10.7% increase for weapons activities and a proposal to combine and transfer two
counterterrorism programs within DOE’s National Nuclear Security
Administration;
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Recovery. Efforts to resume operations at the
WIPP defense transuranic waste repository in New Mexico are to continue in
FY2016 with decreased total funding; and
Surplus Plutonium Disposition. Level funding was approved, as requested, for a
multibillion-dollar plant to convert surplus nuclear weapons plutonium into
civilian nuclear reactor fuel.
For FY2015, appropriations for Energy and Water Development programs were included in the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83, Division D). For
details, see CRS Report R43567, Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations,
coordinated by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Contents
Introduction and Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
Funding Issues and Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 3
Waters of the United States ....................................................................................................... 3
Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing and Vehicles .................................................................... 4
Nuclear Waste Management ...................................................................................................... 4
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ................................................................. 4
Nuclear Weapons Activities ...................................................................................................... 5
Surplus Plutonium Disposition ................................................................................................. 5
Cleanup of DOE Nuclear Facilities ........................................................................................... 5
Energy-Water Nexus ................................................................................................................. 6
Bill Status and Recent Funding History .......................................................................................... 6
Description of Major Energy and Water Programs ......................................................................... 7
Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................................... 7
Bureau of Reclamation .............................................................................................................. 9
Department of Energy ............................................................................................................. 10
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy........................................................................ 12
Nuclear Energy ................................................................................................................. 14
Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................ 15
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 15
Science .............................................................................................................................. 16
ARPA-E ............................................................................................................................ 17
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 17
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship.......................................................................... 17
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................... 19
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Sites ...................................................................................... 19
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 21
Title IV: Independent Agencies ..................................................................................................... 21
Congressional Hearings ................................................................................................................. 22
House ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Senate ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. Major Components of Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill .................. 1
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2016 ................................. 6
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2016 .............................. 6
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ............................................... 7
Table 4. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................. 8
Table 5. Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................................................... 10
Table 6. Department of Energy....................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 7. Independent Agencies Funded by Energy and Water Development
Appropriations............................................................................................................................ 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 23
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 24
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Introduction and Overview
The Energy and Water Development appropriations 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).
President Obama’s FY2016 budget request, released February 2, 2015, would have provided
$36.04 billion for agencies in the Energy and Water Development bill—3.6% above the $34.78
billion appropriated for FY2015.1 The FY2016 request for DOE was up by 8.4%, led by a
proposed 13.0% increase in energy programs. The Corps would have been reduced by 13.2%, and
the Bureau of Reclamation would have received a 3.0% cut. Figure 1 compares the major
components of the Energy and Water Development bill.
Figure 1. Major Components of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill
Sources: Agency budget justifications, congressional appropriations explanatory statements, Congressional
Budget Office. Includes some rescissions and other adjustments.
The House approved its version of the FY2016 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill (H.R. 2028, H.Rept. 114-91) May 1, 2015, by a vote of 244-177. Total funding in the bill,
including rescissions, was $35.4 billion, 1.8% below the Administration’s request. The House
provided $5.64 billion for the Corps, 19.2% above the request, and $28.97 billion for DOE, 5.1%
below the request. The House total for the Bureau of Reclamation was nearly the same as the
request.
1
Bill totals include some rescissions and other adjustments.
Congressional Research Service
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 2028 (S.Rept. 114-54) on May
21, 2015. Total funding in the bill was $35.37 billion, including rescissions, slightly below the
House-passed level. Compared with the House level, the Senate committee bill increased DOE
funding by $333 million (1.2%) and decreased the Corps by $268 million (4.7%). The Senate
measure did not include the House amendments discussed below.
Congress enacted an omnibus funding measure for the entire federal government on December
18, 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113). The omnibus measure
provided a total of $37.3 billion for energy and water programs for FY2016, an increase of 7.3%
over FY2015. Funding in the omnibus measure included $29.7 billion for DOE (up 5.7%), $6.0
billion for the Corps (up 9.8%), $1.3 billion for Reclamation (up 11.8%), and $342 million for
independent agencies (up 27.0%).2
President Obama strongly opposed the House Appropriations Committee bill in an April 28,
2015, Statement of Administration Policy. The Administration particularly criticized the bill’s
reductions in the President’s budget request for energy efficiency and renewable energy and
strongly objected to a prohibition on the Corps rulemaking on the definition of “waters of the
United States.” According to the Administration statement, the President’s senior advisors would
have recommended a veto of the House Committee bill.3
Several amendments generated substantial debate and were adopted by the House after recorded
votes:
Prohibiting DOE from using funds in the bill to enforce light bulb efficiency
standards. Offered by Representative Michael C. Burgess; adopted 232-189. This
prohibition was included in Division D, Sec. 312 of P.L. 114-113.
Prohibiting DOE from using a report on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions when
making determinations on liquefied natural gas exports. Offered by
Representative Keith J. Rothfus; adopted 232-172. It was not included in P.L.
110-114.
Prohibiting funds in the bill from being used for DOE’s Climate Model
Development and Validation program. Offered by Representative Paul A. Gosar;
adopted 224-184. It was not included in P.L. 110-114.
Prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to purchase water to meet stream
flow requirements in California. Offered by Representative Tom McClintock;
adopted 228-183. It was not included in P.L. 110-114.
Prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to limit Clean Water Act exemptions
for certain agricultural activities. Offered by Representative Doug LaMalfa;
adopted 239-174. Similar language was included in Division D, Sec. 110 of P.L.
114-113.
2
For details, see the Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division D, Congressional
Record, December 17, 2015, Book II, p. H10056, https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/12/17/CREC-2015-12-17bk2.pdf. The grand total in the Explanatory Statement includes $26.9 million in rescissions but excludes $111.1 million
in additional scorekeeping adjustments that would reduce the grand total to $37.2 billion, the subcommittee allocation
shown in S.Rept. 114-197. See Senate Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority
FY2016, January 12, 2016, p. 11.
3
Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2018—Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, April 28, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/114/
legislative_sap_date_2015.
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to deliver water to the Trinity River
above minimum requirements or to supplement flows in the Klamath River.
Offered by Representative Doug LaMalfa; adopted 228-183. It was not included
in P.L. 110-114.
Congressional consideration of the annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bill is
affected by certain procedural and statutory budget enforcement measures. The procedural budget
enforcement is primarily through limits associated with the budget resolution on total
discretionary spending and spending under the jurisdiction of each appropriations subcommittee.
Statutory budget enforcement is derived from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 11225).
The BCA established limits on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. These limits are
in effect for each of the fiscal years between FY2012 and FY2021, and are primarily enforced by
an automatic spending reduction process called sequestration. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013
(P.L. 113-67) established higher levels for the FY2014 and FY2015 spending limits than what
would have otherwise been in effect. The original BCA process to calculate the limits would have
again become effective starting in FY2016, but higher limits were enacted by the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74).
(For more information on discretionary spending limits, see CRS Report CRS Report R44062,
Congressional Action on FY2016 Appropriations Measures, by (name redacted) .)
For FY2015, appropriations for Energy and Water Development programs were included in the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83). Energy and Water
funding totaled $519 million above the request and $653 million above FY2014, including
rescissions. The consolidated appropriations measure passed the House on December 11, 2014,
and the Senate on December 13, 2014, and was signed by the President on December 16, 2014
(P.L. 113-235). For details, see CRS Report CRS Report R43567, Energy and Water
Development: FY2015 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
Funding Issues and Initiatives
The Administration’s FY2016 Energy and Water Development appropriations request and
subsequent congressional action have highlighted several significant areas of debate. The issues
described in this section—listed approximately in the order they appear in the Energy and Water
Development bill—were selected based on the total funding involved and the percentage of
increases or decreases, the amount of congressional attention, and their impact on broader public
policy considerations.
Waters of the United States
The Corps requested but did not receive a $5 million increase for Clean Water Act (CWA)
rulemaking activities, including developing a final rule to define “waters of the United States
(WOTUS)” jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While FY2016 funding was
being considered in Congress, the Corps and EPA promulgated the final rule on June 29, 2015.4
Waters under CWA jurisdiction are subject to CWA regulatory requirements; for example, they
cannot be dredged or filled without a Corps permit. H.R. 2028, as approved by the House, would
have barred the Corps from developing, adopting, implementing, or enforcing any change to rules
4
Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, 80 Federal Register 37054, June 29, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
or guidance pertaining to the CWA definition of “waters of the United States,” but the restriction
was not included in the Senate bill or the final omnibus act. Similar provisions were included in
proposed FY2015 appropriations bill language during the 113th Congress, but were not enacted.
For more information, see CRS Report R43943, EPA and the Army Corps’ “Waters of the United
States” Rule: Congressional Response and Options, by (name redacted) .
Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing and Vehicles
DOE’s energy efficient manufacturing research funding would have more than doubled under the
Administration request, with most of the increase going to the establishment of two new Clean
Energy Manufacturing Institutes as part of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.5
Research on energy efficient vehicles would have risen 59% under the FY2016 budget request.
The main activity increased under the vehicles program would have been the Electric Vehicle
Everywhere Grand Challenge Program, a 10-year program announced in March 2012 to
encourage production of cost-competitive plug-in electric vehicles. The funding request was
included in DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, which would have seen a
total increase of 42%, from $1.914 billion in FY2015 to $2.723 billion in FY2016. The proposed
increases were largely rejected by the House and by the Senate committee. The enacted omnibus
funding measure provided $2.073 billion for energy efficiency and renewables, including a 14%
increase in manufacturing research and a 10% boost in vehicle technologies.
Nuclear Waste Management
Funding for the disposition of highly radioactive “spent,” or “used,” fuel from nuclear power
plants would have risen 52%—from $71.5 million to $108.4 million—in the Administration’s
request. The additional funding would have expanded DOE’s efforts to develop a “consent based”
waste management system as an alternative to a planned repository at Yucca Mountain, NV,
which the Administration is no longer pursuing. But the House, as it has in the past, rejected
funding for the Administration’s nuclear waste management program and provided $175 million
to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Following the pattern of recent years, the
Senate committee did not include funding for Yucca Mountain but authorized a pilot consolidated
nuclear waste surface storage facility. The omnibus funding measure provided $85 million for
used nuclear fuel disposition but did not include the House funding for Yucca Mountain or the
Senate Committee pilot storage facility. For more information, see CRS Report RL33461,
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted)
.
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), under construction in France,
continues to draw congressional concerns about management, schedule, and cost. The United
States is to pay 9.09% of the project’s construction costs, including contributions of components,
cash, and personnel. The total U.S. share of the cost is currently estimated at between $4.0 billion
and $6.5 billion, up from $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion in 2008. The Administration’s proposed
U.S. contribution for FY2016 was $150.0 million, the same as the FY2015 level. The House
approved the Administration request, while warning that future support would depend on
management reform. The Senate committee proposed eliminating ITER funding. P.L. 114-113
5
For details, see CRS Report R42625, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to Establish a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, by (name redacted)
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
provided $115 million, along with reporting requirements on the project’s schedule and
management.
Nuclear Weapons Activities
Maintaining U.S. nuclear bombs and missile warheads is the responsibility of DOE’s National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The Administration requested $8.85 billion for
NNSA’s Weapons Activities in FY2016, a 10.7% increase over the comparable funding level in
FY2015. For FY2016, the Administration proposed to combine two counterterrorism programs
that had been located in Weapons Activities—Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, and
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation—and transfer them to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, also run by NNSA. P.L. 114-113 provided the Administration’s full request for
Weapons Activities, including the transfer and consolidation of the counterterrorism and
counterproliferation programs.
Surplus Plutonium Disposition
The Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), which would make fuel for nuclear reactors
out of surplus weapons plutonium, has faced sharply escalating construction and operation cost
estimates. After Congress rejected the Administration’s proposal for FY2015 to place the
controversial South Carolina project in “cold standby,” DOE requested level funding of $345
million for continued construction in FY2016. DOE completed a congressionally mandated study
of MFFF and a potentially less expensive alternative plutonium disposal method during FY2015,
to dilute the surplus plutonium for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico. P.L. 114-113 provided $340 million for MFFF construction, plus $5 million for planning
and design of the “dilute and dispose” option. For more information, see CRS Report R43125,
Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant and Plutonium Disposition: Management and Policy Issues,
by (name redacted) and
ame
(n redacted)
.
Cleanup of DOE Nuclear Facilities
DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for environmental cleanup and
waste management at the Department’s nuclear facilities. P.L. 114-113 provided $6.22 billion for
EM, a $400 million increase above the request of $5.82 billion, but did not fund a request of $472
million for the federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund. The nearly flat funding request—$5.82 billion requested in FY2016
compared with $5.86 billion enacted in FY2015—would have been coupled with efforts by DOE
to negotiate changes in its environmental compliance requirements that could modify cleanup
milestones at some sites, according to DOE’s budget justification. The milestones are specified in
enforceable environmental compliance agreements among DOE, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the states. DOE called for similar milestone renegotiations in its FY2015 budget
justification.
DOE efforts to resume operations at WIPP have continued in FY2016. DOE plans to resume
limited waste disposal operations sometime in the first quarter of calendar year 2016.6 WIPP is
the centralized geologic repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic wastes generated at
other DOE sites. WIPP operations ceased after two incidents in February 2014, one involving a
truck fire and the other involving a radiological release. P.L. 114-113 provided $300 million for
6
See the DOE WIPP website for status information: http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/recovery.html.
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
WIPP within the Environmental Management appropriation, of which $82 million was allocated
to recovery activities. The total FY2016 appropriation for WIPP is $57 million above the request
of $243 million, and $20 million below the FY2015 appropriation of $320 million.
Energy-Water Nexus
DOE proposed a new Energy-Water Nexus crosscutting activity for FY2016 that would analyze
the relationships between energy and water use and conduct research on water and energy
systems. In justifying the new activity, DOE noted that energy is a major user of the nation’s
water and that extraction, distribution, and treatment of water requires large amounts of energy.
DOE offices that would be involved in this crosscut include Energy Policy and Systems Analysis,
International Affairs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Indian Energy
Policy and Programs, and Science. Funding for Energy-Water Nexus activities, to be provided
through existing program offices, would total $38.4 million in FY2016. The initiative is currently
being implemented by the Secretary of Energy’s Water-Energy Tech Team,7 although it was not
specifically mentioned in P.L. 114-113. For more information, see CRS Report R43200, EnergyWater Nexus: The Water Sector’s Energy Use, by (name redacted) , and CRS Report R43199,
Energy-Water Nexus: The Energy Sector’s Water Use, by (name redacted).
Bill Status and Recent Funding History
Table 1 indicates the steps taken during consideration of the FY2016 funding legislation.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2016
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
House
Report
4/15/2015
5/19/2015
4/24/2015
House
Passed
Senate
Report
Senate
Passed
5/1/2015
5/21/2015
Final Approval
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
12/18/2015
12/18/2015
12/18/2015
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2008 through FY2016.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2016
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
30.9
40.5a
33.4
31.7
34.4b
36.0c
34.1
34.8
37.3
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Notes: Figures 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.
7
DOE, “Water Energy Tech Team,” undated website, http://www.energy.gov/water-energy-tech-team.
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Description of Major Energy and Water Programs
The annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill includes four titles: Title I—
Corps of Engineers—Civil; Title II—Department of the Interior (Central Utah Project and Bureau
of Reclamation); Title III—Department of Energy; and Title IV—Independent Agencies, as
shown in Table 3. Major programs in the bill are described in this section in the approximate
order they appear in the bill. Funding details for many of these programs are provided in separate
CRS reports as indicated.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com
FY2016
omnibus
Title I: Corps of
Engineers
5,468
5,455
4,732
5,640
5,372
5,989
Title II: CUP and
Reclamation
1,113
1,140
1,106
1,107
1,144
1,275
Title III: Department of
Energy
27,355
28,153
30,528
28,968
29,302
29,744
Title IV: Independent
Agencies
265
269
281
298
301
342
34,200
35,045
36,647
36,015
36,119
37,350
-74
-265
-611
-613
-751
-27
34,126
34,780
36,036
35,402
35,368
37,323b
Title
Subtotal
Rescissions and
Scorekeeping
Adjustmentsa
E&W Total
Source: Administration budget requests, H.Rept. 113-486, S.Rept. 114-54, Congressional Budget Office, H.R.
2029 explanatory statement, https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/12/17/CREC-2015-12-17-bk2.pdf.
a. Budget “scorekeeping” refers to official determinations of spending amounts for congressional budget
enforcement purposes. These scorekeeping adjustments may include offsetting revenues from various
sources and rescissions.
b. The grand total in the Explanatory Statement includes $26.9 million in rescissions but excludes $111.1
million in additional scorekeeping adjustments that would reduce the grand total to $37.185 billion, the
subcommittee allocation shown in S.Rept. 114-197. See Senate Committee on Appropriations, Comparative
Statement of New Budget Authority FY2016, January 12, 2016, p. 11.
Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an agency in the Department of Defense with both military
and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works program, which is funded by the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of water
resources facilities. Corps appropriations are generally authorized in water resources development
acts. Most recently, Congress enacted a new water resources development act in June 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.8
8
For detailed background on the WRRDA 2014 legislation, see CRS Report R43298, Water Resources Reform and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Corps funding is part of the ongoing 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.9 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
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.10
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10176, Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016
Appropriations, by (name redacted) .
Table 4. Army Corps of Engineers
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)
Program
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
Investigations
and Planning
125.0
122.0
97.0
113.5
109.0
121.0
Construction
1,656.0
1,639.5
1,172.0
1,635.0
1,641.0
1,862.3
Mississippi
River and
Tributaries
(MR&T)
307.0
302.0
225.0
275.0
330.0
345.0
2,861.0
2,908.5
2,710.0
3,094.3
2.909.0
3,137.0
Regulatory
200.0
200.0
205.0
199.6
200.0
200.0
General
Expenses
182.0
178.0
180.0
179.0
178.0
179.0
FUSRAPa
103.5
101.5
104.0
104.0
101.5
112.0
Operation and
Maintenance
(O&M)
(...continued)
Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions, by (name redacted) et al.
9
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.
10
In recent years, Congress has provided the Corps funding above the President’s request in appropriations legislation
and provided guidance to the agency on how to distribute the additional funding for several broad categories of projects
in accompanying reports or explanatory text. Generally, Congress has 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 are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/
Budget.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
Flood Control
and Coastal
Emergencies
(FC&CE)
28.0
28.0
34.0
34.0
28.0
28.0
Office of the
Asst.
Secretary of
the Army
5.0
3.0
5.0
4.8
3.0
4.8
Program
Rescission
Total Title I
-28.0
5,467.5
5,454.5
-128.0
4,732.0
5,639.1
5,371.5
5,989
Source: FY2016 budget request and Work Plans for FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015; S.Rept. 114-54; P.L. 113-2;
H.R. 2029 explanatory statement.
a. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
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. While 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 for farming and ranching.
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, 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.11 Reclamation also typically requests funds in a
number of smaller accounts, and has proposed additional accounts in recent years. Congress has
provided Reclamation additional appropriations in recent years to address drought conditions in
the West, including $50 million in additional funding for Western Drought Response in FY2015.
11
The Water and Related Resources Account is largely funded by the Reclamation Fund, which receives and
distributes receipts related to a number of federal activities (including royalties received from oil and gas leasing on
federal lands). For more on this fund and financing of selected Reclamation Projects, see CRS Report R41844, The
Reclamation Fund: A Primer, by (name redacted) .
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Implementation and oversight of the Central Utah Project (CUP) is conducted by a separate office
from Reclamation within the Department of the Interior. The Administration has proposed for
several years to shift those responsibilities to Reclamation.
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10175, Bureau of Reclamation: FY2016
Appropriations, by (name redacted) .
Table 5. Bureau of Reclamation
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)
FY2013
Approp.
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
Water and Related
Resources
848.2
954.1
978.1
805.2
950.7
988.1
1,119,0
Policy and Administration
56.9
60.0
58.5
59.5
59.5
58.5
59.5
CVP Restoration Fund
(CVPRF)
50.4
53.3
57.0
49.5
49.5
49.5
49.5
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
37.6
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
San Joaquin Restoration
Funda
-
-
-
35.0
0
0
0
Indian Water Rights
Settlementa
-
-
-
112.5
0
0
0
Rescission
0
0
-.5
0
0
0
0
Gross Current
Reclamation Authority
993.0
1,104.4
1,130.1
1,098.7
1,096.7
1,133.2
1,265.0
Central Utah Project
(CUP) Completion
21.0
8.7
9.9
7.3
9.9
9.9
10.0
1,014.0
1,113.1
1,140.0
1,106.0
1,106.5
1,143.0
1,275.0
Program
Total, Title II Current
Authority (CUP and
Reclamation)
Source: FY2016 budget request, H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement, S.Rept. 114-54, H.R. 2029 explanatory
statement.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. CVP: Central Valley Project.
a. 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. The FY2016 request shows FY2015 appropriations under these categories for comparability.
Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE programs since FY2005. Major
DOE activities include research and development (R&D) on renewable energy, energy efficiency,
nuclear power, and fossil energy, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy statistics, general
science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs. Table 6
provides the recent funding history for DOE programs, which are briefly described further below.
DOE’s full budget justifications are available at http://energy.gov/cfo/reports/budget-justificationsupporting-documents.
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Table 6. Department of Energy
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
1,901.7
1,923.9
2,723.0
1,668.8
1,950.0
2,073.0
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability
147.3
147.0
270.1
187.5
152.3
206.0
Nuclear Energy
888.4
833.4
907.6
936.2
950.2
986.2
Fossil Energy R&D
561.9
571.0
560.0
605.0
610.0
632.0
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves
20.0
20.0
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
0
15.6
0
0
0
0
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
189.4
200.0
257.0
212.0
200.0
212.0
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
8.0
1.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
Energy Information Administration
117.0
117.0
131.0
117.0
122.0
122.0
Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup
231.8
246.0
220.2
229.2
244.0
255.0
Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund
598.6
625.0
542.3
625.0
614.0
673.7
5,066.4
5,067.7
5,339.8
5,100.0
5,143.9
5,350.2
280.0
280.0
325.0
280.0
291.0
291.0
0
0
0
150.0
0
0
Departmental Admin. (net)
126.4
126.0
153.5
74.0
131.0
131.0
Office of Inspector General
42.1
40.5
46.4
46.4
46.4
46.4
0
0
20.0
0
0
0
Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loans
6.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Title 17 Loan Guarantee
20.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17,0
Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee
0
0
11.0
0
0
0
Rescission (Clean Coal Technology)
0
-6.6
0
0
0
0
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
10,205.0
10,232,7
11,555.0
10,279.2
10,502.8
11,026.6
Weapons Activities
7,781.0
8,186.7a
8,846.9
8,713.0
8,882.4
8,846.9
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,954.0
1,616.6
1,940.3
1.907.6
1,705.9
1,940.3
Naval Reactors
1,095.0
1.234.0
1,375.5
1,322.8
1,300.0
1,375.5
Program
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Science
Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy (ARPA-E)
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Office of Indian Energy
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
377.0
369.6
402.7
385.5
375.0
363.8
11,207.0
11,407.3
12,565.4
12,328.9
12,263.3
12,526.5
5,000.0
5,000.0
5,055.6
5,055.6
5,180.0
5,289.7
0
463.0
471.8b
471.8
614.0
0
755.0
754.0
774.4
767.6
764.0
776.4
16,962.0
17,624.3
18,867.2
18,623.8
18,821.3
18,592.7
Southeastern
0
0
0
0
0
0
Southwestern
11.9
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
Western
95.9
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
Falcon and Amistad O&M
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Colorado River Basins Fund
-23.0
TOTAL, PMAs
85.2
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
Subtotal, DOE
27,251
28,152.9
30,527.2
29,018.4
29,429.2
29,744.2
-26.2
-236.1
0
-51.2
-125.9
-26.9
27,225
27,916.8
30,527.2
28,967.2
29,303.2
29,717.3
Program
Office of Admin./Salaries and
Expenses
Total, NNSA
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Defense Uranium Enrichment D&D
Other Defense Activities
TOTAL, DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)
Offsets
Total, DOE
Source: H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement, FY2015 budget request, H.Rept. 113-486, S.Rept. 114-54,
Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2029 explanatory statement. Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. This is the level as enacted in the FY2015 appropriations bill. NNSA proposed to change its budget
structure for FY2016, such as transferring Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response from Weapons
Activities to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The FY2015 Weapons Activities figure comparable to the
FY2016 figure is $8,007.7 million.
b. Budget request proposed creating a new line item.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
President Obama has declared energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) 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.” Congress has not supported most of the President’s proposed annual funding increases,
although a boost of about $150 million was approved for FY2016.
The Sustainable Transportation program area includes hydrogen and fuel cell technologies,
bioenergy, and vehicle technology. DOE’s electric vehicle program is driven by the 10-year EVEverywhere Challenge (launched in 2012), which aims to achieve parity for plug-in electric
vehicle (EV) affordability and convenience by 2022. A key supporting technology goal is to cut
battery production cost from $300/kilowatt-hour (kwh) of battery capacity in 2014 to $125/kwh
by 2022. 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 gallon-
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
equivalent (gge) by 2020. Bioenergy goals include the development of “drop-in” liquid fuels that
would be largely compatible with existing energy infrastructure. 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.
Renewable energy programs focus on electricity generation from solar, wind, water, and
geothermal sources. DOE’s SunShot Initiative is aimed at halving the cost of solar power to 6
cents per kwh to make solar power cost-competitive without subsidies by 2020. 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 drop from 8 cents to 5.7 cents/kwh by 2020 and 4.2 cents/kwh by
2030. Second, for offshore settings, the goal is to cut energy costs 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. The geothermal 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.
In the energy efficiency program area, the advanced manufacturing program has a general goal of
reducing the energy use of manufactured goods across targeted product life-cycles by 50% over
10 years. More specific objectives include (1) 50% energy savings through advanced materials
and industrial processes, (2) helping leading companies cut energy intensity by 25% over 10
years, and (3) facilitating installation of 40 gigawatts of combined heat and power equipment by
2020.12 The building technologies program has a goal of reducing building energy use 50% by
2030. The program strategy is designed with three linked paths: Improve building components
(envelope/windows, heating/ventilation/air conditioning, lighting, and sensors/controls),
strengthen market demand (through cooperation with private industry), and raise energy
efficiency levels for new equipment (via standards) and new buildings (via model codes).
The EERE program also provides grants to fund energy efficiency improvements and energy
planning. Weatherization grants support state and local governments in providing home energy
services to low-income families that help them reduce energy costs and save money. State energy
grants support both administrative and program activities at many state energy offices.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
The DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) has the mission of
supporting more economically competitive, environmentally responsible, secure, and resilient
U.S. energy infrastructure. To achieve that mission, OE supports electric grid modernization and
resiliency through research and development (R&D), demonstration projects, 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’s 2015 Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program Plan describes the Department’s vision for
“a future electric grid that provides a critical platform for U.S. prosperity, competitiveness, and
innovation by delivering reliable, affordable, and clean electricity to consumers where they want
it, when they want it, how they want it.” To help achieve this vision, DOE has established three
key national goals:
12
DOE, EERE-Advanced Manufacturing Office, FY14 Budget At-a-Glance, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
pdfs/budget/manufacturing_ataglance_2014.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
10% reduction in the economic costs of power outages by 2025;
33% decrease in the cost of reserve margins while maintaining reliability by
2025; and
50% decrease in the net integration costs of distributed energy resources by
2025.13
For more details, see CRS Report R44357, DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE): A Primer, with Appropriations for FY2016, by (name redacted)
.
Nuclear Energy
DOE’s nuclear energy program has four major stated goals:
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.
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. Advanced reactor research focuses on “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 gascooled reactors. Cost-shared research with the nuclear industry is also conducted 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). This subprogram is also
conducting research to understand the Fukushima disaster and to develop accident prevention and
mitigation measures.
The nuclear energy program also provides design and licensing funding for small modular
reactors (SMRs), which range from about 40 to 300 megawatts of electrical capacity. Support
under this subprogram is currently being provided to the NuScale Power SMR, which has a
generating capacity of 50 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.14
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 DOE. 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. Within this
subprogram, DOE is also conducting work toward establishing a new spent fuel management
system, consistent with the Administration’s moves to terminate the previously authorized waste
repository program at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Other major research areas in the Fuel Cycle
13
DOE, Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program Plan, November 2015, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/
Grid%20Modernization%20Multi-Year%20Program%20Plan.pdf.
14
DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors,” http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactortechnologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors.
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
R&D program include the development of accident-tolerant fuels for existing commercial
reactors, evaluation of fuel cycle options, development of improved technologies to prevent
diversion of nuclear materials for weapons, and technology to increase nuclear fuel resources,
such as uranium extraction from seawater.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
DOE’s Fossil Energy R&D Program focuses primarily on carbon capture and storage for coalfired power systems. Major activities include the following:
Carbon Capture subprogram for separating CO2 in both pre-combustion and postcombustion systems;
Carbon Storage subprogram on long-term geologic storage of CO2, including
small- and large-scale CO2 injection tests;
Advanced Energy Systems subprogram on improving availability and efficiency
of fossil energy systems integrated with CO2 capture. The sub-program focuses
on gasification, oxy-combustion, advanced turbines, and other energy systems.
Cross-Cutting Research on innovative systems;
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Program,
developing technology to replace the conventional steam cycle in electric
turbine-generators with supercritical carbon dioxide; and
Natural Gas Technologies R&D, with a focus on environmentally sound
technologies for shale gas development.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns built within 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 capacity reached 727 million barrels.15 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. DOE has been conducting a major
maintenance program to address aging infrastructure and a deferred maintenance backlog at SPR
facilities.
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 supply curtailment. The
U.S. sale of 30.6 million barrels reduced the SPR inventory to 695.9 million barrels.
15
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).
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
In March 2014, DOE’s Office of Petroleum Reserves conducted a test sale that delivered 5.0
million 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).
Science
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.
DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program focuses on developing and
maintaining computing and networking capabilities for science and research in applied
mathematics, computer science, and advanced networking. The program plays a key role in the
DOE-wide effort to advance the development of exascale computing, which seeks to build a
computer that can solve scientific problems a thousand times faster than today’s best machines.
DOE leadership asserts that the department is on a path to have a capable exascale machine by
the early 2020s.
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), the largest program area in the Office of Science, focuses on
understanding, predicting, and ultimately controlling matter and energy at the electronic, atomic,
and molecular level. The program supports research in disciplines such as condensed matter and
materials physics, chemistry, and geosciences. BES also provides funding for scientific user
facilities (e.g., the National Synchrotron Light Source II, which began transitioning from
construction to operation in FY2015, and the Linac Coherent Light Source-II), and certain DOE
research centers and hubs (e.g., Energy Frontier Research Centers, as well as the Batteries and
Energy Storage and Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hubs).
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) seeks a predictive understanding of complex
biological, climate, and environmental systems across a continuum from the small scale (e.g.,
genomic research) to the large (e.g., Earth systems and climate). Within BER, Biological Systems
Science focuses on plant and microbial systems, while Biological and Environmental Research
supports climate-relevant atmospheric and ecosystem modeling and research. BER facilities and
centers include three Bioenergy Research Centers and the Environmental Molecular Science
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) seeks to increase understanding of the behavior of matter at very
high temperatures and to establish the science needed to develop a fusion energy source. FES
provides funding for the ITER project, a multi-national effort to design and build an experimental
fusion reactor. 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.”
However, many U.S. analysts have expressed concern about ITER’s cost, schedule, and
management, as well as the budgetary impact on domestic fusion research.
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program conducts research on the fundamental constituents of
matter and energy, including studies of dark energy and the search for dark matter. The FY2016
HEP budget request sought to align the program with the recommendations of the Particle
Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) report. Nuclear Physics supports research on the nature
of matter, including its basic constituents and their interactions. A major project in the Nuclear
Physics program is the construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
University. Nearing completion is the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Upgrade
project.16
For more details, see CRS Report R43963, DOE’s Office of Science and the FY2016 Budget
Request, by (name redacted)
.
ARPA-E
The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was authorized by the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to support transformational energy technology research projects.
DOE budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk
technological barriers to the development of energy technologies.
For more details, see CRS Report R43986, ARPA-E and the FY2016 Budget Request, by (name re
dacted)
.
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans
DOE’s Loan Programs Office provides loan guarantees for projects that deploy specified energy
technologies, as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 10958), and direct loans for advanced vehicle manufacturing technologies. Section 1703 of the act
authorizes loan guarantees for advanced energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas releases,
and Section 1705 established a temporary program for renewable energy and energy efficiency
projects.
Title XVII allows DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 80% of construction costs for eligible
energy projects. Successful applicants must pay an up-front fee, or “subsidy cost,” to cover
potential losses under the loan guarantee program. Under the loan guarantee agreements, the
federal government would repay all covered loans if the borrower defaulted. This would reduce
the risk to lenders and allow them to provide financing at below-market interest rates. The
following is a summary of loan guarantee amounts available for various technologies:
$8.3 billion for non-nuclear technologies under Section 1703;
$2 billion for unspecified projects from FY2007 under Section 1703;
$18.5 billion ceiling for nuclear power plants ($8.3 billion committed);
$4 billion allocated for loan guarantees for uranium enrichment plants;
$1.183 billion ceiling for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under
Section 1703, in addition to other ceiling amounts, which can include
applications that were pending under Section 1705 before it expired; and
An appropriation of $170 million for subsidy costs for renewable energy and
energy efficiency loan guarantees under Section 1703. If the subsidy costs
averaged 10% of the loan guarantees, this funding could leverage loan guarantees
totaling $1.7 billion.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160). The goal of the program, as amended by the FY2010 National
16
DOE, FY2016 Budget Justification, Volume 4, http://www.energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2016-budget-justification.
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84, §3111), is to ensure “that the nuclear weapons stockpile
is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing.” The
program is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous
agency within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII).
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account. Most
stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex (the “complex”), which consists
of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas
City National Security Campus, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12
National Security Complex, TN); and the Nevada National Security Site (formerly Nevada Test
Site). NNSA manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight
sites.
Directed Stockpile Work involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as
monitoring their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and
modifications; conducting R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The number
of warheads has fallen sharply since the end of the Cold War, and continues to decline. As a
result, a major activity of Directed Stockpile Work is interim storage of warheads to be
dismantled; dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components and
materials).
Campaigns are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide specialized scientific
knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work on the nuclear weapons
stockpile.” Many campaigns have significance for policy decisions. For example, the Science
Campaign’s goals include improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear
testing, improving readiness to conduct nuclear tests should the need arise, and maintaining the
scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Campaigns also fund some large
experimental facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Note that P.L. 113-235 renamed “Campaigns” as “Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation.”
Infrastructure and Operations (formerly Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities) has as its
main funding elements material recycle and recovery, recapitalization of facilities, and
construction of facilities. The latter included two controversial and expensive projects, the
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12 National Security Complex (TN) and the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project, which deals with plutonium,
at Los Alamos National Laboratory (NM).
Weapons Activities also has several smaller programs, including the following:
Secure Transportation Asset, providing for safe and secure transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials.
Site Stewardship seeks to “bring focus on environmental compliance, nuclear
materials disposition and developing the needed skills and talent for NNSA’s
enduring technical workforce at the laboratories and production plants.”
Defense Nuclear Security provides operations, maintenance, and construction
funds for protective forces, physical security systems, personnel security, and
related activities.
Information Technology and Cybersecurity elements include cybersecurity,
enterprise secure computing, and Federal Unclassified Information Technology.
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Legacy Contractor Pensions provides supplemental funds for pensions for
retirees from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories who
began employment when the University of California was the contractor for
those labs.
For more information, see CRS Report R43948, Energy and Water Development: FY2016
Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship, by (name redacted)
.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
nonproliferation and national security programs are administered by NNSA’s Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, which was reorganized in 2015.
Global Materials Security has two major program elements. The “First Line of Defense” focuses
on increasing the security of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material in other countries. The
“Second Line of Defense” is intended to “improve partner countries’ abilities to deter, detect, and
interdict illicit trafficking,” according to DOE’s FY2016 budget justification. Activities toward
achieving those goals include the provision of equipment and training, workshops and exercises,
and collaboration with international organizations.
Materials Management and Minimization conducts activities to minimize and, where possible,
eliminate stockpiles of weapons-useable material around the world. Major activities include
conversion of reactors that use highly enriched uranium (useable for weapons) to low enriched
uranium, removal and consolidation of nuclear material stockpiles, and disposition of excess
nuclear materials.
Nonproliferation and Arms Control works on “strengthening the nonproliferation and arms
control regimes in order to reduce proliferation and terrorism risks,” according to the FY2016
justification. This program conducts reviews of nuclear export applications and technology
transfer authorizations, implements treaty obligations, and analyzes nonproliferation policies and
proposals.
Other programs under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation include research and development and
construction. The Nonproliferation Construction program consists of the Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility (described under “Funding Issues” above), which is being built in South
Carolina to convert surplus weapons plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel.
DOE also proposed for FY2016 to transfer counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs
from the Weapons Activities appropriations account to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
According to the budget justification, “These transfers align all NNSA funding to prevent,
counter, and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorism in one appropriation.” The change was
approved in the P.L. 114-113 explanatory statement.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Sites
The development and production of nuclear weapons for national defense purposes during half a
century since the beginning of the Manhattan Project resulted in a legacy of wastes and
contamination that continues to present substantial challenges today. In 1989, DOE established
the Office of Environmental Management primarily to consolidate its responsibilities for the
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
cleanup of former nuclear weapons production sites that had been administered under multiple
offices.17
DOE’s nuclear cleanup efforts are broad in scope and include the disposal of large quantities of
radioactive and other hazardous wastes generated over decades; management and disposal of
surplus nuclear materials; remediation of extensive contamination in soil and groundwater;
decontamination and decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities; and safeguarding,
securing, and maintaining facilities while cleanup is underway.18 The Office of Environmental
Management also is responsible for the cleanup of DOE sites that were involved in civilian
nuclear energy research, which also generated wastes and contamination. These research sites add
a non-defense component to the office’s mission, albeit smaller in terms of the scope of their
cleanup and associated funding.19
DOE has identified more than 100 “geographic” sites in over 30 states that historically were
involved in the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research for civilian
purposes.20 The geographic scope of these sites is substantial, collectively encompassing a land
area of approximately 2 million acres. Cleanup remedies are in place and operational at the
majority of these sites. The responsibility for the long-term stewardship of these sites has been
transferred to the Office of Legacy Management and other offices within DOE for the operation
and maintenance of cleanup remedies and monitoring.21 Some of the smaller sites for which DOE
initially was responsible were transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in 1997 under the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Once the Corps completes the
cleanup of a FUSRAP site, it is transferred back to DOE for long-term stewardship under the
Office of Legacy Management.
Much work remains to be done at the sites that are still administered by the Office of
Environmental Management. DOE expects cleanup to continue for several years or even decades
at some of these sites, and estimates additional cumulative funding needs ranging from $191.6
billion to $224.3 billion over the long-term to fulfill the cleanup liability of the United States.22
The Office of Environmental Management has completed the cleanup of 91 sites in 30 states and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and plans to continue the cleanup of 16 sites in 11 states in
FY2016.23
17
In 1989, DOE created the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, which later was renamed the
Office of Environmental Management.
18
The term “cleanup” often is used in reference to the remediation of risks at a site. Cleanup may be accomplished
through various means to prevent potentially harmful levels of exposure to wastes and contamination. Cleanup may not
necessarily entail the removal of all hazards from a site, but in some instances may involve the permanent containment
of wastes or contamination to address exposure risks. If residual wastes or contamination remains on-site after cleanup
is complete, long-term stewardship may continue to monitor residual wastes or contamination and ensure that cleanup
measures continue to operate effectively.
19
For additional information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Environmental Management, see
DOE’s website: http://energy.gov/em/office-environmental-management.
20
For an interactive map and listing of each site, see DOE’s Office of Environmental Management website,
http://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites. There are links to separate maps for active and completed sites.
21
The Office of Legacy Management administers the long-term stewardship of DOE sites that do not have a continuing
mission once cleanup remedies are in place. Sites that have a continuing mission are transferred to the DOE offices that
administer those missions, which are responsible for their long-term stewardship.
22
Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2016 Congressional Budget Request, February 2015,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 89.
23
Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2016 Congressional Budget Request, February 2015,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 5. See p. 90 for a list of the 16 sites where cleanup is planned to continue in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Three appropriations accounts fund the Office of Environmental Management. The Defense
Environmental Cleanup account is the largest in terms of funding, and it finances the cleanup of
former nuclear weapons production sites. The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account
funds the cleanup of federal nuclear energy research sites. Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-486) established the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning (D&D) Fund to pay for the cleanup of three federal facilities that enriched
uranium for national defense and civilian purposes.24 Title X of P.L. 102-486 also authorized the
reimbursement of uranium and thorium licensees for their costs of cleaning up contamination at
sites that processed nuclear materials for national defense purposes at these federal facilities.25
The three federal uranium enrichment facilities are located near Paducah, KY; Piketon, OH
(Portsmouth plant); and Oak Ridge, TN.
The adequacy of funding for the Office of Environmental Management to attain cleanup
milestones across the entire site inventory has been a recurring issue. Cleanup milestones are
enforceable measures incorporated into compliance agreements negotiated among DOE, EPA,
and the states. These milestones establish time frames for the completion of specific actions to
satisfy applicable requirements at individual sites.26
Power Marketing Administrations
DOE’s four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)—were established to sell the power
generated by the dams operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers.27 The primary purpose of these projects in many cases was conservation and
management of water resources—including irrigation, flood control, recreation, or other
objectives. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22564, Power Marketing Administrations:
Background and Current Issues, by (name redacted)
.)
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water Development bill include
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and
the Denali Commission. Their recent appropriations history is shown in Table 7.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Congress for the first time included control points within the overall NRC appropriation in
enacting P.L. 114-113 and also reduced the agency’s total spending level by $12 million from
FY2015. The Explanatory Statement for the omnibus measure provides $760.0 million for
(...continued)
FY2016. One of these 16 sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, is not a cleanup site itself, but is a
permanent, geologic repository for “transuranic” wastes that are removed from other DOE sites for disposal.
24
42 U.S.C. §2297g.
25
42 U.S.C. §2296a.
26
Compliance agreements for individual sites are available on DOE’s Office of Environmental Management website:
http://energy.gov/em/compliance-documents.
27
Net funding for the Western Area Power Administration includes the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing Fund.
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Nuclear Reactor Safety, $15.0 million for Integrated University Programs, $172.0 million for
Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety, and $43.0 million for Decommissioning and Low-Level
Waste. The largest three control points include specific limits on the amount that can be used for
“corporate support.” Sec. 402 of the omnibus measure establishes new reprogramming authority
in conjunction with the control points. Also included in the Explanatory Statement is a
requirement that NRC staff receive approval from the NRC commissioners before committing
resources to new rulemaking activities.
Table 7. Independent Agencies Funded by Energy and Water Development
Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
Approp.
FY2015
Approp.
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S.Com.
FY2016
omnibus
Appalachian Regional Commission
80.3
90.0
95.0
95.0
105.0
146.0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1,055.9
1,015.3
1,032.21
1,015.3
1,002.1
1,002.1
(Revenues)
-930.7
-895.5
-910.1
-872.4
-883.0
-882.9
Net NRC (including Inspector General)
125.2
119.8
122.2
143.0
119.2
119.2
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
28.0
28.5
29.2
29.9
29.2
29.2
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Denali Commission
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
Delta Regional Authority
12.0
12.0
14.9
12.0
25.0
25.0
Northern Border Regional Commission
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
7.5
7.5
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
0.3
0.3
0
0.3
0
0.3
Federal Coordinator of Alaska Gas Projects
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
0
0
265.1
269.0
280.9
297.8
300.5
341.7
Program
Total
Source: H.R. 83 Explanatory Statement, agency budget requests, H.Rept. 113-486, S.Rept. 114-54, CBO, H.R.
2029 explanatory statement.
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Hearings
The following hearings were held by the Energy and Water Development subcommittees of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the FY2016 budget request. Testimony and
opening statements are posted on most of the web pages cited for each hearing, along with
webcasts in many cases.
House
Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, February 11, 2015,
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=
393968.
Bureau of Reclamation, February 12, 2015, http://appropriations.house.gov/
calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=393969.
Department of Energy, February 26, 2015, http://appropriations.house.gov/
calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=393992.
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons
Activities, March 4, 2015, http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394016.
Department of Energy, Applied Energy Programs, March 17, 2015,
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=
394035.
Department of Energy, Office of Science, March 17, 2015,
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=
394041.
Department of Energy, Environmental Management, March 18, 2015,
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=
394044.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 24, 2015,
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394071.
National Nuclear Security Administration, Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval
Reactors, March 25, 2015, http://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394081.
Senate
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, February 11, 2015,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings-and-testimony/energy-waterdevelopment-subcommittee-fy16-army-corps-engineers-bureau.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 4, 2015,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings-and-testimony/energy-waterdevelopment-subcommittee-fy16-nuclear-regulatory-commission.
National Nuclear Security Administration, March 11, 2015,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings-and-testimony/energy-waterdevelopment-subcommittee-fy16-national-nuclear-security.
Department of Energy, March 25, 2015, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/energywater-development-subcommittee-hearing-fy16-us-department-energy-budget.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy Policy
r[ edacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
General
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Corps of Engineers
(name redacted)
Nicole Carter
7-....
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Bureau of Reclamation
(name redacted)
Betsy Cody
7-....
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Solar and Renewable Energy
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Energy
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Science Programs
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Amy Woolf
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Nonproliferation
Mary Beth Nikitin
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Power Marketing Administrations
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Bonneville Power Administration
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Fossil Energy Research
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Energy Conservation
(name redacted)
7-....
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
24
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
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.