Appropriations for FY2000: Energy and Water Development

Congressional research reportOct 26, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30207

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2000:

Energy and Water Development

Updated October 26, 1999

Coordinated by (name redacted) and Carl Behrens

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget

resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and

budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is

bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program

authorizations.

This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each

year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate

Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development Appropriations. It

summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels,

and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues

covered and related CRS products.

Updates of this report are prepared as soon as possible after major legislative developments,

especially following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and

Senate.

NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is available to

congressional staff at [http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

Appropriations for FY2000:

Energy and Water Development

Summary

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil

projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Reclamation (BuRec), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of

independent agencies. The Administration requested $22 billion for these programs

for FY2000. The House and Senate approved $21.3 billion.

Low allocations under Section 302 (b) of the Budget Act created difficulties for

Appropriations Committees in both Houses. The Senate Committee responded by

cutting water projects for the Corps and BuRec, and keeping DOE funding about at

the requested level. The House Appropriations Committee increased money for the

Corps and cut about $1.5 billion from DOE, much of it in the weapons program. The

Senate passed the bill (S. 1186) June 16, 1999. The House passed its version of the

bill (H.R. 2605) July 27, 1999. The House-Senate Conference Committee reported

out its agreement on September 24, 1999, with some of the Senate cuts to the Corps,

and some of the House cuts to DOE, restored. The bill was signed by the President

on September 29, 1999 (P.L. 106-60).

Other key issues involving Energy and Water Development appropriations

programs included:

! Policy issues related to wetlands regulatory programs involving the Corps;

! the Bureau of Reclamation's controversial Animas-La Plata project in

Colorado, a large irrigation and tribal projects with likely controversial

environmental impacts, for which the Administration requested no new

appropriations in FY2000;

! a pending decision by DOE on the electrometallurgical treatment of nuclear

spent fuel for storage and disposal, a process that opponents contend raises

nuclear nonproliferation concerns;

! proposed funding increases for DOE’s accelerated computer simulation efforts

to simulate nuclear weapons explosions and other important aspects of the

nuclear weapons stockpile;

! increased funding for DOE’s Nuclear Cities Initiative in Russia, to find

alternative work for unemployed Russian nuclear weapons designers;

! NRC's plans to overhaul its regulatory system for nuclear power plant safety,

as urged by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees;

! The ongoing controversy over interim civilian nuclear waste storage; and

! DOE's "privatization" program for nuclear waste cleanup.

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

CRS

Division

Corps/Bureau of Reclamation

Steve Hughes

Betsy Cody

RSI

7-....

7-7229

General

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

General

Carl Behrens

RSI

7-....

Nuclear Energy

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

R&D Programs

Dick Rowberg

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

7-7039

Division abbreviation: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.

Telephone

Contents

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

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

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

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

Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Background on Reclamation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Research and Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Tennessee Valley Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,

FY1993 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

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

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appropriations for FY2000:

Energy and Water Development

Most Recent Developments

The President submitted his budget for FY2000 on February 1, 1999. In it was

$22.0 billion for energy and water development programs. The request was $800

million larger than the FY1999 appropriation of $21.2 billion. The Senate

Subcommittee marked up the bill, S.1186, on May 25. As reported out by the full

Appropriations Committee May 27 (S.Rept. 106-58), the bill's appropriation totaled

$21.7 billion. The Senate passed S.1186 on June 16. The House Appropriations

Committee reported out a $20.4 billion bill on July 20. The House passed the bill

(H.R. 2605) July 27. House-Senate Conference reached an agreement to spend $21.3

billion (including scorekeeping adjustments of $450 million) September 24. The bill

was signed (P.L. 106-60) by the President September 29, 1999.

Status

Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations, FY2000

Subcommittee

Markup

House Senate

7/15

5/25

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate Senate

Report Passage

Conf.

Report

Conference

Report Approval Public

Law

House Senate

106-253

7/27

S. Rept. 6/16

H.R. 2605 106-58 S. 1186

106-336

9/27

9/28

9/29

106-60

Overview

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil

projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Reclamation, most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of

independent agencies, including the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Administration requested $22 billion

for these programs for FY2000, compared with $21.2 billion appropriated for

FY1999.

As with other FY2000 appropriations bills, the Energy and Water

Subcommittees had difficulty meeting the spending allocations assigned them under

Section 302 (b) of the Budget Act. In the Senate, the allocation was $21.28 billion;

the House limit originally was significantly lower at $19.39 billion, but by the time the

CRS-2

House bill was reported out by the Appropriations Committee the allowance was

increased about $800 million.

For the Corps of Engineers, the Administration requested $3.9 billion in FY2000,

about the same as appropriated in FY1999. The Senate bill, S. 1186, would have

reduced this figure to $3.76 billion, with most of the reductions in the construction

budget. The House bill (H.R. 2605) recommended raising the Corps appropriation

to $4.19 billion. The Bureau of Reclamation would have received an increase of more

than 10% (excluding offsets), to $857 million. The Senate bill would have reduced

this to $761 million, below the FY1999 level. The House recommendation was $785

million. The House and Senate Conference settled on $4.14 billion for the Corps of

Engineers and $769.3 million for the Bureau of Reclamation.

DOE programs funded by the Senate bill would have risen about 4% to $17.1

billion, about what the Administration requested. The major activities in the DOE

budget are research and development on energy and general science, environmental

cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs. The House would have reduced funding for

these programs to $15.6 billion, with most of the cuts coming in the cleanup and

weapons programs. The House and Senate Conference agreed to fund DOE

programs at $16.6 billion. The remaining $1.2 billion of DOE’s FY2000 net

appropriations request (for fossil fuels programs, energy efficiency, and energy

statistics) is included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,

FY1993 to FY2000

(budget authority in billions of current dollars)*

FY93

FY94

FY95

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY2000

22.2

22.3

20.7

19.3

20.0

21.2

21.3

*These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect

rescissions.

Table 2 includes FY2000 budget request figures and budget totals for energy and

water appropriations enacted for FY1993 to FY1999. Tables 3-7 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 FY1998 - FY2000.

CRS-3

Title I: Corps of Engineers

The Clinton Administration was seeking a slight increase for civil projects of the

Army Corps of Engineers in FY2000, in contrast to the substantial cuts proposed

during the previous two budget cycles that were largely rejected by Congress. The

$3.9 billion request would have funded 19 new construction starts involving port

improvements, navigation, flood control, and environmental projects. The Senate

approved $3.7 billion, while the House supported $4.2 billion. The conference

agreement funds the Corps of Engineers for $4.14 billion.

Major initiatives in the Corps request included a proposed $951 million Harbor

Services Fund for port improvements and harbor maintenance, and $25 million for the

“Challenge 21” river restoration and flood mitigation program. A $10 million increase

was proposed for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP),

which was transferred from DOE in FY1998. The program cleans up contamination

at old industrial sites that processed nuclear materials for defense purposes.

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title I: Corps of Engineers

(in millions of dollars)

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

H.R.

2605

1186

P.L.

106-60

Investigations

156.8

161.7

135.0

159.0

125.5

162.0

Construction

1,473.4

1,429.9

1,240.0

1,412.6

1,113.2

1,400.7

Flood Control,

Mississippi

River

296.2

321.1

280.0

313.3

315.6

309.4

Operation and

Maintenance

1,740.0

1,653.3

1,836.0

1,888.5

1,790.0

1853.6

Regulatory

106.0

117.0

115.0

117.0

Flood Control

and Coastal

Emergencies

4.0

General

Expenses

148.0

151.0

149.5

FUSRAP

140.0

150.0

4,169.6

3,860.0

3,906.0

4,188.4

3,760.3

4,142.2

Program

Total

CRS-4

Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers

Funding for Corps of Engineers civil programs is often a contentious issue

between the Administration and the Congress, with final appropriations bills typically

funding more projects than requested. For FY1998, for example, the Congress

added $270 million (7%) to the $3.63 billion requested by the Administration.

Similarly, the FY1999 bill as passed included a total of $3.86 billion for the Corps,

$638 million (20%) more than requested.

The Administration’s FY2000 Corps request was somewhat less controversial.

At $3.9 billion it was slightly above the last year’s appropriation, and it provided $80

million for 19 new construction starts (including numerous port improvements,

navigation, flood control and environmental projects) and the proposed Challenge 21

River Restoration and Flood Mitigation initiative at $25 million.

A newly-proposed Harbor Services Fund would have provided for both port

improvements and harbor maintenance — $693 million requested under the operation

and maintenance account, and $258 million requested for construction. The Harbor

Services Fund would have replaced the existing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund with

a new fund from a proposed Harbor Services User Fee (which would replace the

existing Harbor Maintenance Tax, part of which was declared unconstitutional by the

Supreme Court in 1998).

The Senate bill reduced Corps funding by more than $200 million below the

Administration's request. Most of the cuts would have come in the construction

budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee report said it was attempting to

provide continuity of previously funded construction with specified “stretching out”

in contracting or completion schedules. The Senate also declined to initiate the

Challenge 21 proposal; nor did it modify harbor maintenance through the

appropriations language.

The House bill increased the Corps funding by more than $280 million above

the Administration's request, including increases in most of the Corps programs.

However, the House also declined to initiate the Challenge 21 proposal and did not

modify harbor maintenance through appropriations language.

Policy issues related to wetlands regulatory programs were addressed in the final

bill. As approved by the House on July 27, the bill included two such provisions.

One would require the Corps to modify a recently-established administrative appeals

process for certain Corps regulatory decisions to allow unsuccessful appellants to

directly challenge the decisions in court. The Administration supported creation of

an administrative appeals process but opposed this provision, saying that it would

impose excessive burdens on the Corps and the courts. Landowner and developer

groups favored it. The conference report (H.Rept. 106-336) deleted the House

language that would have made certain administrative decisions appealable to federal

courts prior to a final permit decision. It included Senate language providing that $5

million in additional funds for the Corps’ regulatory program in FY2000 shall be used

to establish an administrative process for appeals of jurisdictional determinations by

the Corps (i.e., whether an area contains wetlands that are subject to Corps permitting

requirements).

CRS-5

The House bill also included a provision to require the Corps to submit a study

on the workload impact and compliance costs of replacement permits for "nationwide

permit 26" (NWP 26) 30 days prior to publication of the final permits, but no later

than December 30, 1999. The NWP 26 program permits certain activities to fill

wetlands of less than 3 acres and has been highly controversial with environmental and

conservation groups. The Corps has proposed program changes to restrict use of

NWP 26 which are due to take effect by December 30, 1999. Landowner and

developer groups supported the House-passed provision, but the Administration

opposed it, saying that the study was unnecessary and, even with a Dec. 30 deadline,

would increase wetlands loss in the nation by delaying issuance of replacement

permits. The conference report on H.R. 2605 modified the House-passed language

by directing the Corps to study the workload impacts and costs of compliance of

proposed replacement permits, but dropped language that would have required

submission of a report to Congress before publication of final permits. (For more

information, see CRS Issue Brief 97014, Wetland Issues, and CRS Report 97-223,

Nationwide Permits for Wetlands Projects: Permit 26 and Other Issues and

Controversies.)

CRS-6

Title II: Department of the Interior

For the Department of the Interior, the Energy and Water Development bill

provides funding for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project

Completion Account. The Administration’s FY2000 request for the Bureau of

Reclamation was up more than 10% from the FY1999 appropriation (excluding a $37

million offset involving the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund). The

Administration proposed and the final bill included no new funding for the

controversial Animas-La Plata water supply project in Colorado, and instead

proposed allocating $3 million (with a recommendation of $2 million) from previous

appropriations for preconstruction activities.

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account

(in millions of dollars)

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

H.R.

2605

P.L.

1186 106-60

Central Utah

project construction

and oversight

24.5

27.0

22.3

21.7

22.3

23.9

Mitigation and

conservation

activities*

16.6

15.5

17.1

15.5

17.0

15.5

Total, Central

Utah Project

41.2

42.5

39.4

37.2

39.4

Program

* Includes funds available for Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

activities and $5 million for the contribution authorized by §402(b)(2) of the Central Utah

Project Completion Act (P.L. 102-575).

Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title II: Bureau of Reclamation

(in millions of dollars)

Program

H.R.

2605

1186

P.L.

10660

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

Water and related

resources

698.9

617.0*

652.8

604.9 612.5

607.9

California Bay-Delta

(CALFED)

85.0

75.0

95.0

75.0

50.0

60.0

Loan program account

10.4

8.4

12.4

CRS-7

Program

H.R.

2605

1186

P.L.

10660

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

General Admin. Expenses

47.6

47.0

49.0

45.0

49.0

Central Valley Project

(CVP) Restoration Fund

24.6

33.1

47.3

37.3

Gross Current

Authority

866.5

780.5

856.6

784.7 761.2

769.3

Colorado River Dam

Fund (transfer current

authority to WAPA)

(2.7)

CVP Restoration Fund

Offset

(25.7)

(37.1)

Net Current Authority

842.9

780.5

819.5

821.9 761.2

769.3

* Does not reflect appropriations derived from transfer of $25.8 million from the Working

Capital Fund, but does include $1.5 million in supplemental appropriations (P.L. 106-31).

** The Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office disagree as to

whether there is an offset for this fund.

Background on Reclamation Policy

Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or

with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). Whereas the Corps built

hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, the Bureau’s mission was to develop

water supplies and to reclaim arid lands in the West, primarily for irrigation. Today, the

Bureau manages more than 600 dams in 17 western states, providing water to

approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people.

The Bureau has undergone many changes in the last 15 years, turning from largely

a dam construction agency to a self-described water resource management agency. The

agency describes the “intent” of its programs and projects as follows:

! to operate and maintain all facilities in a safe, efficient, economical, and reliable

manner;

! to sustain the health and integrity of ecosystems while addressing the water

demands of a growing west; and

! to assist states, tribal governments, and local communities in solving

contemporary and future water and related resource problems in an

environmentally, socially, and fiscally sound manner.

In practice, however, the agency is limited in how it can address new demands and

new priorities because of numerous federal, state and local statutes, compacts, and

CRS-8

existing contracts, which together govern the delivery of water to project users.

Consequently, any proposal to change Bureau water allocation or water management

policies often becomes difficult to implement and extremely controversial.

Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation

The Administration requested an appropriation of $856.6 million for the Bureau for

FY2000 (gross current budget authority), approximately $80 million more than enacted

for FY1999 (excluding the $37.1 million offset to the CVP Restoration Fund). The

Senate bill included $761.2 million, $95.4 million less than requested and $19.3 million

less than enacted for FY1999 (excluding offsets). Appropriations for water projects

were recommended to be $40.4 million less than requested, with reductions for many

projects and increases for a few. The House bill included $784.7 million, $71.9 million

less than requested, but $2.7 million more than enacted for FY1999 (excluding offsets)

and $23.5 million more than in the Senate bill. The final bill appropriated $769.3 million

for FY2000, approximately $85 million less than requested and $11 million more than

enacted for FY1999.

One major difference between the House and Senate bills was funding for the

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration program (CALFED). (Funding for

CALFED is requested in the Bureau’s budget, but the appropriation will be allocated

among several federal agencies. The majority of funding is expected to go to the Bureau

and the Corps.) The FY2000 request for CALFED is $95.0 million, $43.3 million less

than the FY1999 request, but $20 million more than enacted for FY1999. The Senate

bill figure is $50 million for FY2000, $45 million less than requested and $25 million less

than enacted for FY1999. In addition, the Senate bill has $37.3 million for the Central

Valley Project Restoration Fund, $4.2 million more than enacted for FY1999, but $10

million less than the Administration requested for FY2000. The House Appropriations

Committee recommended $75.0 million for CALFED, matching the FY1999 funding,

but $20.0 million less than requested for FY2000 and $25.0 million more than

recommended in the Senate. The House Committee also recommended the full amount

requested for the Central Valley Project Restoration fund, $47.3 million. P.L. 106-60

appropriates $60 million for CALFED, $15 million less than requested, and $42 million

for the Central Valley Project Restoration fund ($5.3 million less than requested).

CRS-9

Title III: Department of Energy

The Energy and Water Development bill includes all but $1.2 billion of DOE’s

$17.8 billion FY2000 net appropriations request (including about $700 million in

offsets). Major DOE activities in the bill include research and development on renewable

energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons

programs. The Administration’s FY2000 request would boost DOE programs in the bill

by about 4% to $17.1 billion. The remainder of DOE’s FY2000 budget request — for

fossil fuels programs, energy efficiency, and energy statistics — is included in the Interior

and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title III: Department of Energy

(in millions of dollars)

Program

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

H.R.

2605

S. 1186

P.L.

106-60

Energy Supply R&D

Solar and Renewable

346.3

365.9

446.0

356.5

353.9

362.2

Nuclear Energy

243.0

284.0

269.3

265.7

287.7

288.7

Fusion Energy

(see General Sci.

below)

232.0

—

Other

171.2

175.1

173.6

46.4

168.6

48.6

Subtotal

992.5

825.0

889.0

638.6

810.2

699.5

adjustments

(85.7)

(98)

(52.9)

(91.0)

(94.8)

(60.4)

Subtotal

906.8

727.0

836.1

577.6

715.4

639.1

220.2

240.2

200.0

250.9

High Energy Physics

680.0

696.5

697.0

715.5

691.0

707.9

Nuclear Physics

320.9

335.1

342.9

357.9

330.0

352.0

Basic Energy

Sciences

668.2

809.1

888.1

736.0

854.5

783.1

Bio. & Env. R&D

406.7

443.6

411.2

406.2

429.7

441.5

Fusion (see energy

supply R&D)

—

223.3

222.6

250.0

220.6

250.0

Other

255.0

175.3

74.7

253.0

199.3

265.4

Subtotal

2,235.7

2,682.9

2,835.4

2,718.6

2,725.1

2,799.9

497.0

431.2

330.9

327.2

327.9

333.6

Uranium Enrichment

D&D

General Science

Environ. Res. & Waste

Mgmt., non-defense

CRS-10

Program

FY1999

FY2000

Request

H.R.

2605

S. 1186

4,379.5

4,310.3

4,505.7

4,157.8

4,551.7

4,484.3

Defense Facilities

Closure Projects

890.8

1,038.2

1,054.5

1,069.5

1,064.5

Environmental

Restoration

Privatization

200.0

228.4

228.0

189.0

National Security

(Weapons)

4,146.7

4,400.0

4,531.0

4,000.0

4,609.8

4,443.9

Other National Security

1,638.8

1,696.7

1,792.0

1,651.8

1,872.0

1,722.4

Departmental Admin.

(net)

87.4

63.9

123.5

86.9

102.5

99.5

Office of Inspector

General

27.5

29.0

30.0

29.0

29.5

Alaska

13.5

Bonneville

(non-add, capital

obligations)

253.0

(352.0)

Southeastern

(prior year balance for

FY2000)

12.2

7.5

4.7

39.6

Southwestern

25.2

26.0

27.9

28.0

Western

189.0

203.0

171.5

223.6

193.4

Colorado River Basin

(net)

-16.1

-21.0

Falcon & Armistad

O&M

1.0

1.3

FERC

(revenues)

165.6

(165.6)

167.5

(167.5)

179.0

(179.9)

175.0

(175.0)

170.0

(170.0)

175.0

(175)

Nuclear Waste

350.0

358.0

370.0

281.0

354.5

352.0

Adjustments

1.6

-5.5

-1.1

15,943.1 16,423.3 17,062.0 15,553.5 17,078.4

16,670.5

Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste

Management

FY1998

P.L.

106-60

Power Marketing Admin.

Total, Title III

CRS-11

Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy

Research and Development Programs. For FY2000, DOE requested $3.48

billion for civilian R&D within the jurisdiction of this bill, an increase of 5.4% over the

comparable FY1999 appropriation. For national security programs, DOE requested

$3.40 billion for R&D, 4.7% above FY1999. While not as large as the changes from

FY1998 to FY1999, 7.5% and 8.6% respectively, requested increases for FY2000 were

well above the year-to-year average received by DOE for all R&D in the 1990s.

Renewable Energy. “The solar and renewable energy program is a major

component of the Administration’s activities to address global climate change,”

according to the Appendix to the U.S. Government’s FY2000 Budget (p. 397). In

accordance with that policy, DOE proposed to boost solar and renewables funding to

$398.9 million (net) — an increase of $62.9 million (19%) over the FY1999 level.

Within DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), this includes

$21.1 million more for photovoltaics, $19.2 million more for biomass, $10.8 million

more for wind, and $10 million more for solar program support. Also, DOE's request

sought $47.1 million for renewable energy-related research programs under the Office

of Science (OS).

In passing S.1186 on June 16, the Senate voted to reject most of the requested

increase, recommending $353.9 million for DOE's renewable energy programs. A

Jeffords floor amendment (No. 648) to increase funding by $70 million failed due to a

technical flaw and a parliamentary maneuver to block its correction. The Senateapproved figure covers $306.8 million for EERE programs (including $33.5 million for

electric energy systems and storage) and $47.1 million for OS programs. The figure for

EERE is $92.1 million less than the request and $11.2 million less than the FY1999

appropriation.

The House Appropriations Committee also voted to reject the Administrationproposed increase. It recommended $326.5 million for FY2000, including $279.4

million for EERE programs (including $38.0 million for electric energy systems and

storage) and $47.1 million for OS programs. The figure for EERE is $119.6 million, or

27%, less than the request; including $26.3 million less for photovoltaics, $21.6 million

less for biomass, $20.6 million less for wind, and $8 million less for solar program

support. Also, the Committee recommendation is $39.5 million, or 11%, less than the

FY1999 appropriation. In a July 20 letter to committee leaders, the Office of

Management and Budget expressed strong opposition to the bill as approved by the

House Appropriations Committee, partly due to the cuts proposed for renewable energy.

The House-passed bill included a floor amendment (#350) that added $30 million more

for renewable energy that was offset by a reduction for DOE contractor travel expenses.

The Conference-approved total of $362.2 million covers $315.1 million for EERE

(including $38.4 million for Electric Energy Systems and Storage) and $47.1 million for

DOE's OS Programs. The figure for EERE is $84.3 million, or 21%, less than the

request and it is $3.4 million, or 1%, less than the FY1999 appropriation. Compared to

the request, the Conference figure seeks $26.3 million less for Photovoltaics, $20.4

million less for Biomass, $12.6 million less for Wind, and $5 million less for Solar

Program Support.

CRS-12

A new $1 million Electricity Restructuring Program included in the bill would

provide technical assessments of policy concepts and programs such as renewable

portfolio standards (RPS), public benefits funds, consumer information and disclosure

provisions, “green power” marketing programs, and distributed generation concepts.

Also, a new $1 million Competitive Solicitation Program is to support cost-shared field

verification projects, including data on generation and system outages, to address market

barriers arising from a lack of cost and operational information.

Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy programs — including research and

development, space power systems, closing of surplus facilities, and uranium programs

— DOE was appropriated $288.7 million for FY2000, a boost of nearly $20 million from

the Administration’s request. Funding was increased for a program begun in FY1999

to support innovative nuclear energy research projects, the “nuclear energy research

initiative” (NERI), from $19 million to $22.5 million. The energy and water bill also

provides DOE’s full request —$5 million — for a separate research program rejected by

Congress in FY1999 to improve the economic competitiveness of existing nuclear power

plants, called “nuclear energy plant optimization” (NEPO).

Funding for NEPO was identified by DOE as part of the Administration’s “Climate

Change Technology Initiative.” To be matched by industry, the NEPO funding would

focus on research to extend the operating lives of existing reactors and to allow them to

operate more efficiently and reliably. Because nuclear plants directly emit no carbon

dioxide, greater production of nuclear power from existing reactors could help the

United States reduce its total “greenhouse gas” emissions. “Continued operation of

existing nuclear power plants avoids over 620 million tons of carbon dioxide annually,”

according to the DOE budget justification. However, opponents have criticized DOE’s

nuclear energy research programs as providing wasteful subsidies to a failing industry.

Controversy has also been generated by the “electrometallurgical treatment” of

DOE spent fuel, a process in which metal fuel is melted and highly radioactive isotopes

are electrochemically separated from uranium and plutonium. DOE contends that such

treatment may be the best way to render certain types of spent fuel — particularly from

the closed Experimental Breeder Reactor II in Idaho — safe for long-term storage and

disposal. DOE received $40 million in FY1999 to complete a demonstration program

for the technology.

According to the DOE budget justification, a decision will be made in FY2000 on

whether to proceed with a full-scale electrometallurgical treatment program, and $10.7

million was requested to maintain the necessary facilities in case the option is pursued.

The House Appropriations Committee report specified that $40 million under nuclear

facility “termination costs” be provided for the program in FY2000, including $20 million

for demonstration activities. The Conference Report boosts “termination costs” by $15

million over the Administration request but does not specify how much should be spent

for electrometallurgical treatment.

Opponents contend that such treatment is unnecessary and that the process could

be used for separating plutonium to make nuclear weapons. They note that the process

uses much of the same technology and equipment developed for the plutonium-fueled

Integral Fast Reactor, or Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, which was canceled by

Congress in 1993 partly because of concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation.

CRS-13

The final bill also includes $9 million under the category “civilian research and

development” for research into the use of particle accelerators to transmute long-lived

elements in radioactive waste into shorter-lived elements for safer disposal.

Science. For the Science programs, DOE requested an increase of $116.9 million

over FY1999, or about 4.3%. Most of this increase consists of two items: $84 million

(65%) for continued construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and $70

million for the scientific simulation initiative (SSI). The former is to be a major user

facility providing a new source of neutrons for a wide variety of research goals. The

latter is designed to develop very high speed computational capability for use in

simulating complex physical and biomedical problems such as global climate change and

genome structure and to carry out such simulations. While both of these efforts have

much support in the scientific community, the extent of the increase requested for these

two activities would be to leave funding for the rest of the DOE Science research

somewhat lower than FY1999.

The Senate appropriated $2.73 billion for Science for FY2000, 3.7% below the

request, but 0.4% above the FY1999 level. The Senate approved $169.0 million for

SNS construction, which, it stated, would amount to full funding given delays that have

taken place in that project. The Senate did not, however, provide any funding for the

SSI project. Most of the other programs would receive small reduction, which, the

Senate noted, were primarily the result of constrained budget resources.

The House recommended $2.72 billion for Science for FY2000, 4.5% below the

request and nearly equal to the FY1999 level. Included in the House bill is $51 million

in contractor travel and other directed reductions. The House bill increases funding for

High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics over the request. It did not provide any

funding for the SSI program arguing that it could not support two supercomputer

development programs within DOE given the existence of the Accelerated Strategic

Computing Initiative (ASCI) within the DOE weapons activities. The House also

provided $50 million for SNS construction, stating that project management problems

needed to be resolved before full construction funding could be provided. The House

bill directs DOE to meet a series of conditions to demonstrate such resolution.

The final appropriations bill provides $2.80 billion for Science programs for

FY2000, a reduction of 1.1% from the request but 3.0% above the FY1999 level. This

amount includes $31.8 million in general reductions for contractor travel and other

purposes. The conferees provided $117.9 million for SNS construction but no funds for

the SSI. The report contained language expressing strong support for the DOE

supercomputer programs -- both civilian and defense. The conferees, however, did urge

DOE to submit a comprehensive plan for a civilian supercomputing program. Congress

is providing $250 million for the Fusion Energy Science program, an increase of nearly

$28 million over the request. The conferees expressed their approval of the program's

reviews recently completed by the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and the Fusion

Energy Science Advisory Committee.

Stockpile Stewardship. The primary element of DOE's national security R&D

request is the stockpile stewardship program, aimed at developing the science and

technology to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear

testing. The main focus of the program is the development of computational capabilities

CRS-14

that can simulate weapons explosions and perform other important computations. For

FY2000, DOE requested $542.5 million for this element, the Accelerated Strategic

Computing Initiative (ASCI)/Stockpile Computing. That sum is 23.7% of the entire

stockpile stewardship request, and is 12.2% above the FY1999 appropriation.

The Senate appropriated $2.352 billion for Stockpile Stewardship, 2.9% above the

request and 10.6% above the FY1999 level. The Senate repeated its concern that DOE

is not requesting sufficient funding for this program. It considers Stockpile Stewardship

to be “critically important” particularly in view of the cessation of underground testing.

The Senate directed DOE to take steps to improve management of the weapons activities

in order to operate effectively in the restricted budget environment. The Senate also

noted its concern with the rate of growth of the ASCI project, but it did provide DOE

with its full request for the project. Further, the Senate commended DOE on its

achievements so far and recommended that the project speed up to reach the 100

teraflop goal. A set of strategic actions now under study by DOE was noted by the

Senate which approved an additional $35 million to the core Stockpile Stewardship

program to begin those actions. The Senate also provided an additional $10 million for

the Inertial Confinement Fusion program to assist the National Ignition Facility (NIF)

project to avoid delays in reaching ignition once completed.

The House approved about $2 billion for Stockpile Stewardship for FY2000, 12.1%

below the request and 5.4% below the FY1999 level. Included in the recommendation

are $88.2 million in contractor travel and other reductions that are assumed to be this

program's share of the $180 million reduction recommended by the Committee for all

DOE weapons activities. Nearly all of the reduction from the request would take place

in the core stockpile stewardship activity, which the bill would fund at the FY1999 level.

Within that activity, the House bill provides the ASCI effort a $6.1 million increase over

FY1999. The Committee argued that cost efficiencies could be achieved throughout the

weapons complex that would permit these recommendations. The Inertial Confinement

Fusion (ICF) activity would receive an additional $10 million above the request and the

NIF would be fully funded for FY2000. The House bill directs that $10 million be made

available to further high-average-power laser development. For the technology transfer

and education activities, the House recommended $14 million compared to a request of

$52 million. The House argued that budget constraints make it necessary to concentrate

available funds on the weapons mission.

In the report accompanying its recommendations, the House noted the security

problems reported about the DOE weapons labs. In particular, it cited the report by the

President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board that argued for a restructuring of the

DOE national security programs as the only way to deal with those problems, which, the

Board found, were very serious. The House has concluded that an independent agency

will be needed. It argued that even a separate agency within DOE would not suffice

because no significant staffing changes would take place. In order to ensure that action

will take place, the House recommended a provision that would delay $1 billion in

obligations for DOE until after June 30, 2000, in order to give time for Congress "to

craft careful, bipartisan legislation" addressing the problem. Provisions reorganization

the weapons program into a semi-autonomous agency within DOE were included in the

FY2000 Defense Authorization Act (S. 1059, P.L. 106-65), signed into law October 5,

1999.

CRS-15

The final appropriations bill provides $2.252 billion for Stockpile Stewardship for

FY2000, $3.6 million above the request. The conferees directed DOE to reduce funding

for weapons activities by $64.8 million. It is likely that some of that reduction will be

applied to the Stockpile Stewardship program, which makes up about 50% of the

weapons activities budget. Therefore, the actual amount available for the program will

probably be less than the $2.252 billion. The conferees provided $316 million for the

ASCI program, $25 million below the request. Also, the additional $10 million

appropriated by the House for high-average-power laser development remains in the final

bill. The conference report contained language expressing strong disappointment about

news that the NIF cost estimate has increased, and the conferees ordered DOE to submit

a certified cost estimate to the Appropriations Committees by June 1, 2000. If that is not

possible, the conferees directed DOE to submit a project termination cost estimate.

Nonproliferation and National Security Programs. The Administration’s

FY2000 request for these programs was $747 million, about $70 million over FY1999.

The House bill included $691 million funding, and the Senate bill $822 million. The bill

as passed appropriated $745 million for nonproliferation and national security programs

(which are included in the "Other Defense Activities" listed in Table 6).

Much of the requested increase was aimed at helping Russia and other former

Soviet states deal with the cutbacks of their nuclear weapons activities. Among the

programs are the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), to help unemployed nuclear weapons

designers find civilian jobs, and the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), to help

develop new non-defense technologies in the Former Soviet Union. NCI's budget

would have been doubled to $30 million and IPP received $25 million in the FY2000

request. The bill as passed included $7.5 million for NCI and $22.5 million for IPP. For

the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPCA) program, aimed at improving

security and accounting systems at Russian nuclear weapons facilities, the request was

$145 million, a $5 million increase over FY1999. The bill as passed appropriated $150

million.

Environmental Management. DOE’s Environmental Management Program (EM)

is responsible for cleaning up environmental contamination and disposing of radioactive

waste at DOE nuclear sites. The FY2000 appropriation for the program totals $6.32

billion, including $189 million for the “privatization” of several DOE waste management

projects, such as the solidification of high-level radioactive waste at Hanford,

Washington, and $250 million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and

decommissioning fund. The total EM appropriation is about $35 million below the

Administration’s request but $93 million above the FY1999 funding level.

The FY2000 EM budget is based on the program’s accelerated cleanup strategy,

which attempts to maximize the number of sites that can be completely cleaned up by the

end of FY2006. DOE managers contend that substantial long-term savings can be

gained by focusing on completing work at those sites, allowing the earliest possible

termination of infrastructure costs. Major sites scheduled for completion during that

period are included in the “Defense Facilities Closure Projects” account, for which about

$1 billion was provided in FY2000 — about the same level as in FY1999. The largest

facilities under that account are the Rocky Flats site in Colorado and the Fernald site in

Ohio.

CRS-16

Nearly half of EM’s FY2000 privatization funding request would go for Phase 1 of

the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System, consisting of a pilot vitrification plant that

would turn liquid high-level waste into radioactive glass logs for eventual disposal.

Other major privatized projects include a facility to treat “mixed” radioactive and

hazardous waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The EM privatization effort is intended to reduce costs by increasing competition

for cleanup work and shifting a portion of project risks from the federal government to

contractors. Profits to contractors would depend on their success in meeting project

schedules and holding down costs; potentially, profits could be substantially higher or

lower than under traditional DOE contracting arrangements.

In a typical non-privatized DOE project, a contractor would be hired to build and

operate a facility with government funds. DOE would approve and pay all the

contractor’s costs, and then award the contractor a profit based on performance. Under

the privatization initiative, a contractor would be expected to raise almost all funding for

necessary facilities and equipment for a project. The contractor would recover that

investment and earn a profit by charging previously negotiated fees to DOE for providing

services under the contract, such as solidification of radioactive waste. The contractor

could earn higher profits by reducing costs, but the contractor could lose money if

project costs were higher than expected or the required services were not delivered.

For non-defense environmental management, the House recommended elimination

of all funding — $3.7 million — for the DOE National Low-Level Waste Program. The

program provides technical assistance to states and interstate compacts in managing

commercial low-level waste. “Over $80,000,000 has been provided for the low-level

waste program over the past two decades, and State expertise is now mature enough that

Federal funding is no longer required,” according to the House Committee report. The

Conference Report specifies that $595,000 be provided to the program in FY2000 for

maintaining federal low-level waste data bases.

An additional $10 million was provided for cleanup activities at DOE’s uranium

enrichment plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, which are currently

leased to a private firm. Recent controversy has focused on environmental hazards

posed by the plants, particularly contamination resulting from the past enrichment of

reprocessed uranium at Paducah.

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal. DOE requested $409 million for the civilian

nuclear waste program in FY2000, an increase of $51 million over the level provided for

FY1999. Of that increase, $39 million would have come from unspent funds

appropriated in FY1996 for an interim waste storage program that has yet to receive

congressional authorization. Because the $39 million has already been appropriated, the

use of that funding reduced the program’s FY2000 net appropriation request to $370

million. The FY2000 Energy and Water Development bill provides $352.5 million for

the program but does not release the previously appropriated funding sought by DOE.

The Civilian Nuclear Waste Program is focused almost entirely on studying a

proposed permanent underground repository for highly radioactive waste at Yucca

Mountain, Nevada. DOE’s budget justification contends that the $409 million proposal

CRS-17

for FY2000 is the minimum required to keep the waste disposal program on its current

schedule. The major program efforts planned for FY2000 are completion of the final

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository,

preparation of a site recommendation report to be submitted to the President in FY2001,

and a license application to be sent to NRC in 2002. If any of those “critical near-term

milestones” are missed, DOE says it might not be able to open the repository in 2010 as

planned.

Although DOE did not receive its full request for the waste program, the final

amount was substantially more than the level approved by the House. Citing “severe

budget constraints,” the House Appropriations Committee had voted to cut total

appropriations for the waste program to $281 million and directed DOE to “review all

cost components to see what savings can be achieved in fiscal year 2000.” The final

appropriation includes $240.5 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which consists of

fees paid by nuclear utilities, and $112 million from the defense nuclear waste disposal

account.

The 2010 target for opening a permanent repository is 12 years later than a

statutory deadline of January 31, 1998, for DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear

plant sites. Nuclear utilities and state utility regulators, upset over DOE’s failure to meet

the 1998 disposal deadline, have won two federal court decisions upholding the

Department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to compensate utilities for any

resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal

Claims, although specific damages have not yet been determined.

For FY1999, Congress provided $4 million from general revenues to pay for

research on treating high-level radioactive waste with advanced particle accelerators.

Such treatment would be intended to transmute long-lived radioactive waste into

shorter-lived isotopes. DOE did not request further funding for the effort in FY2000,

but the energy and water bill provides $9 million for the program under nuclear energy

research and development.

DOE requested the restoration of funding for the State of Nevada to monitor the

Yucca Mountain Project in FY2000, totaling $12.3 million for the state and nearby units

of local government. For FY1999, Congress rejected all but $250,000 of DOE’s nearly

$5 million request for funds for Nevada, because of concerns that the state was using the

money to fight the waste program, while providing $5.5 million to local governments.

The Senate voted to provide $10.1 million for Nevada and affected local governments

in FY2000, but the House recommended no state and local funding. The conference

agreement provides $500,000 for DOE reimbursement of state oversight costs, and $5.4

million for affected local governments.

Power Marketing Administrations.

DOE’s four Power Marketing

Administrations (PMAs) developed out of the construction of dams and multi-purpose

water projects during the 1930s that are operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the

Army Corps of Engineers. The original intention behind these projects was conservation

and management of water resources, including irrigation, flood control, recreation and

other objectives. However, many of these facilities generated electricity for project

needs. The PMAs were established to market the excess power; they are the Bonneville

CRS-18

Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern (SEPA), Southwestern (SWPA), and

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).

The power is sold at wholesale to electric utilities and federal agencies "at the

lowest possible rates ... consistent with sound business practice," and priority on PMA

power is extended to "preference customers," which include municipal utilities, co-ops

and other "public" bodies. The PMAs do not own the generating facilities, but they

generally do own transmission facilities, except for Southeastern. The PMAs are

responsible for covering their expenses and repaying debt and the federal investment in

the generating facilities.

The 104th Congress debated sale of the PMAs and did, in 1995, authorize

divestiture of one PMA, the Alaska Power Administration. Sale of the remaining PMAs

has not since been an issue, pending decisions yet to be made about the treatment of

public power in the broader context of electric utility restructuring.

BPA receives no annual appropriation. The Administration's request for the PMAs

for FY2000 was $200 million, a reduction of 15.8% from the FY1999 appropriation.

The savings stemmed from the Administration's proposal that, beginning in FY2000,

customers of SEPA, WAPA, and SWPA would be responsible for making their own

power purchases and transmission arrangements from any suppliers other than the PMA

to satisfy their needs. Under the Purchase Power and Wheeling Program (PPW), the

PMAs have purchased electricity and transmission capability, which is repaid by PMA

customers, to supplement federal generation. The premise behind the proposed

elimination of the PPW program was that deregulation should make it less expensive and

less complicated for PMA customers to make these arrangements. Another possible

reason is that the money appropriated to the PMAs under PPW is repaid to the Treasury

rather than to DOE. This means that the PPW appropriation is fully scored against the

caps on discretionary domestic spending with which DOE must comply. Bipartisan

groups in both the House and Senate found this feature of the budget request

controversial.

The Senate passed the bill with the PPW program maintained and more than $80

million restored. In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee said it "disagrees"

with the Department's proposal. However, the House supported the Administration

proposal and requested levels. The Senate position prevailed in conference and in the

enacted bill.

CRS-19

Title IV: Independent Agencies

Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water Development

bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA), and the Appalachian Regional Commission. TVA, which pays for most of its

activities with electricity revenues, requested only a small congressional appropriation

for FY2000 for its land management activities.

Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Title IV: Independent Agencies

(in millions of dollars)

Program

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

Request

Appalachian Regional

Commission

170.0

66.4

60.0

71.4

66.4

Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(Revenues)

Net NRC

472.8

(454.4)

18.0

465.0

(444.8)

20.2

465.4

(442.4)

23.0

455.4

(432.4)

23.0

465.4

(442.4)

23.0

465.0

(442.0)

23.0

Tennessee Valley

Authority

70.0

54.0

7.0

Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety

Board

17.0

16.5

17.5

16.5

17.5

17.0

Nuclear Waste

Technical Review

Board

2.6

3.1

2.6

3.1

2.6

Denali Commission

Rescission

Total

H.R.

2605

S. 1186

P.L.

106-60

-18.0

277.6

159.7

117.0

84.1

20.0

147.0

Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies

Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was

established as a federal corporation in 1933 to bring electricity and development to a

region encompassing all of Tennessee and portions of Kentucky, Virginia, North

Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. The agency’s electric power operations are

self-supporting and receive no appropriation.

TVA is also responsible for certain non-power functions intended to further the

agency’s mission to develop and conserve the region’s natural resources. These include

flood control, recreation, navigation, and an Environmental Research Center. TVA

operates more than 50 dams and reservoirs and a 170,000-acre recreational area in

129.0

CRS-20

Kentucky and Tennessee, Land Between the Lakes (LBL). These non-power programs

represent roughly 2% of TVA's total budget and have been supported by congressional

appropriation. However, critics of TVA have argued in recent years that TVA should

absorb the cost for these programs and could do so with the savings that could be

realized from more efficient operation.

In recent years, the congressional appropriation for the TVA non-power programs

has been declining. The appropriation for the non-power programs was $106 million for

FY1997. The conferees on the FY1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill

recommended an appropriation of $70 million, but stipulated that TVA would thereafter

absorb the entire cost of these programs through “internally generated revenues and

savings.” Nonetheless, the Administration requested $77 million for TVA non-power

programs for FY1999. The House held to the intent of the prior year's conference report

while the Senate proposed appropriating $70 million again to TVA for FY1999. The

House position prevailed in the enacted Energy and Water Appropriations (P.L. 105245).

However, shortly before the end of the 105th Congress conferees restored $50

million to TVA for the non-power programs in an omnibus spending bill (P.L. 105-277).

The conferees also authorized TVA to refinance $3.2 billion of its debt to the Federal

Financing Bank (FFB) without prepayment penalty. It was expected that the refinancing

would save TVA $100 million annually. This, it was further argued, should give TVA

sufficient annual cost savings to support the non-power programs without further

appropriations. The legislation also stipulated that if LBL were not provided $7 million

by Congress in future annual appropriations, administration of LBL would be transferred

from TVA to the Forest Service.

In line with these enactments in the 105th Congress, the Administration requested

only $7 million specifically for the operation of LBL for FY2000. The Senate concurred;

the House did not. House Appropriations recommended no funding for TVA,

commenting in the committee report that "final year appropriations for the non-power

programs" were provided in FY1999. The conferees authorized TVA to spend $3

million from previously appropriated funds for administration of TVA, pending transfer

of LBL to the Forest Service, and for expenses relating to the transition in stewardship.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

requested $471 million for FY2000, an increase of $1.6 million over FY 1999. Major

activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation of commercial nuclear reactors,

licensing of nuclear waste facilities, and oversight of nuclear materials users. The

funding request also included about $6 million for the NRC inspector general’s office.

The conference report provides nearly all of the NRC request, although the funding

request for the inspector general was cut by $1 million.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees sharply criticized NRC last year

for allegedly failing to overhaul its regulatory system in line with improvements in

nuclear industry safety. The committees contended, among other problems, that NRC’s

regional offices were inconsistent with one another, that NRC was inappropriately

interfering with nuclear plant management, and that numerous NRC review processes

were outdated and unnecessary. NRC’s FY2000 budget justification asserted that

sufficient funding was included to address those concerns

CRS-21

The Senate expressed satisfaction with NRC’s response to last year’s criticism and

granted the agency’s full request for FY2000. “The Commission as a whole, the five

Commissioners individually, and the Commission staff deserve a great deal of credit for

the Commission’s accomplishments in the last year,” the Committee report says. The

House echoed that statement, but, on the grounds that the changes at NRC would result

in reduced budget requirements, it cut NRC’s request by $10 million, a cut that was

reversed in conference.

To ensure that NRC’s budget will continue to be mostly offset by fees on nuclear

power plants and other licensed entities, the FY2000 Energy and Water bill includes a

one-year extension of the agency’s current fee-collection authority. The nuclear power

industry has long contended that the existing fee structure requires nuclear reactor

owners to pay for a number of NRC programs, such as foreign nuclear safety efforts,

from which they do not directly benefit. As in the past, DOE is to reimburse NRC for

oversight of DOE’s high-level nuclear waste disposal program.

CRS-22

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief 92059. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal.

CRS Issue Brief 97031. Renewable Energy: Key to Sustainable Energy Supply?

CRS Issue Brief 91039. The DOE Fusion Energy Science Program.

CRS Issue Brief IB10036. Restructuring DOE and Its Laboratories: Issues in the 106th

Congress.

CRS Reports

CRS Report RL30307. Department of Energy Programs: Programs and Reorganization

Proposals.

CRS Report 97-464. The National Ignition Facility and Stockpile Stewardship.

CRS Report 96-212. Civilian Nuclear Spent Fuel Temporary Storage Options.

CRS Report RL30054. Research and Development Budget of the Department of Energy

for FY2000: Description and Analysis.

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

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.