Order Code RL32852
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy and Water Development:
Appropriations for FY2006
April 7, 2005
Coordinated by Carl Behrens
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. It summarizes the status
of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is
updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered
and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].

---

Energy and Water Development:
Appropriations for FY2006
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill in the past included
funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department
of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. The Bush Administration
requested $27.38 billion for these programs for FY2006, compared with $28.63
billion appropriated for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447).
Since the budget request was submitted, both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committees have reorganized their subcommittee structure and with
it the content of the various FY2006 appropriations bills that will be introduced. In
the case of Energy and Water Development, the only changes will be the
consolidation of DOE programs that had previously been funded by the Interior and
Related Agencies bill. When these programs are included, the requested amount for
FY2006 Energy and Water Development totals $28.92 billion. For FY2005, $30.22
billion was appropriated for comparable programs.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include:
! use of performance-based budgeting to determine Corps project
funding (Title I);
! funding and progress of major water/ecosystem restoration
initiatives such as Florida Everglades and California “Bay-Delta”
(CALFED) (Title II);
! funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Civilian Nuclear Waste);
! funding for developing nuclear warheads, in light of congressional
action last year to cut funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator and for a “Modern Pit Facility” to build nuclear weapons
components (Title III: Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship);
and
! plans to reduce the time necessary to prepare the Nevada Test Site
to resume nuclear weapons testing (Title III: Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Stewardship).
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Division
General
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Corps of Engineers
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Bureau of Reclamation
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
RSI
7-1704
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
RSI
7-5849
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia
FDT
7-7632
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
Power Marketing Administrations
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Bonneville Power Administration
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Fossil Energy Research
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Naval/Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Budget Data and Report Preparation
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT= Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Performance-Based Budgeting and Limiting New Starts . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Paying for Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief . . . . . . . 10
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Civilian Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Department of Energy Programs from Interior and
Related Agencies Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 29
Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Denali Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2006 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2006 . . 2

---

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
DOE Programs Transferred from Interior and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . 14
Table 9. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 10. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 11. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 12. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
DOE Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 13. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

---

Appropriations for FY2006:
Energy and Water Development
Most Recent Developments
The Bush Administration’s FY2006 budget request, released in February 2005,
budgeted Energy and Water Development Programs at $27.38 billion, compared to
$28.63 billion appropriated for the same programs for FY2005.
After the budget was submitted, both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees voted to reorganize the subcommittee structure, and with it the programs
included in specific appropriations bills. Under the reorganization, the Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill acquired DOE programs that previously had
been included in the appropriations bill for Interior and Related Agencies. The total
appropriated for these programs for FY2005 was $1.75 billion, and the amount
requested for FY2006 was $1.69 billion. Including these programs, the requested
amount for FY2006 Energy and Water Development totals $28.92 billion. For
FY2005, $30.22 billion was appropriated for comparable programs.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2006
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public Law
Report Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
House
Senate
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill has historically included funding for
civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy
(DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). With the
reorganization of the appropriations subcommittees, DOE programs that had been
funded in the Interior and Related Agencies bill have been transferred to the Energy
and Water Development bill. The Bush Administration’s request was $28.916 billion
for all of the programs now included in the Energy and Water bill for FY2006,
compared with $30.218 billion appropriated for FY2005.

---

CRS-2
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY1999 to FY2005 and the Administration’s request for FY2006.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY1999 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
(Req.)
21.2
21.2
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.7
30.2a
28.9a
Note: These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
a Includes DOE programs transferred from Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the four titles. The table also lists several
“scorekeeping” adjustments of accounts within Titles II and III, reflecting various
sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total
amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the individual
titles. The amounts listed for FY2005, in Table 3 and throughout this report, reflect
the 0.80% across-the-board recission applied to the omnibus FY2005 appropriations
act, P.L. 108-447.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ billions)
Title
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Title I: Corps of Engineers
5,040.4
4,513.0
Title II: CUP & BOR
1,017.6
981.1
Title III: Department of Energy
24,575.3
23,929.6
Title IV: Independent Agencies
289.3
234.3
E&W Subtotal
30,921.8
29,658.0
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Central Valley (Title II)
(46.4)
(43.9)
Colorado River Basins, WAPA (Title III)
(23.0)
(23.0)
Excess fees & recoveries, FERC (Title III)
(15.0)
(13.0)
Uranium Fund (Title III)
(459.3)
(451.0)
Hydropower Offset (Title II)
—
(30.0)
Reclassification of PMA receipts (Title I)
—
(181.0)
Clean Coal Technology
(160.0)
E&W Total
30,218.1
28,915.8
Source: Budget justifications from the President’s budget request for FY2006.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

---

CRS-3
For the Corps in FY2006, the Administration requested $4.51 billion, a decrease
of $527 million from the enacted appropriation for FY2005. It asked for $981
million for FY2006 for the Department of the Interior programs included in the
Energy and Water Development bill — the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project. This would be a decrease of $37 million from the FY2005 funding
level.
The FY2006 request for DOE programs was $23.930 billion, about $646 million
less than the previous year (not including adjustments). The major activities in the
DOE budget are energy research and development, general science, environmental
cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs. Also included in the DOE total is funding
of DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy statistics, which
had historically been included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations
bill. The FY2005 net appropriations for those programs was $1.752 billion. The
FY2006 request was $1.693 billion.
The FY2006 request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill
was $234 million, compared with $289 million appropriated for FY2005.
Tables 4 through 13 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 FY2005-FY2006.

---

CRS-4
Title I: Corps of Engineers
The FY2006 request for the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is $4.513 billion, a decrease of $155 million (3%) from the enacted
appropriation of $4.668 billion for FY2005 (not including the $372.4 million in
supplemental appropriations for storm damage in FY2005). The FY2006 request is
distinct from previous years in that the Administration has proposed that electricity
receipts from the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) reimburse the Corps
directly for its operation and maintenance (O&M) activities at selected hydropower
facilities. The request proposes to administratively reclassify the PMA receipts,
$181.0 million for FY2006, from mandatory to offsetting collections. In previous
fiscal years, these receipts were placed in the Treasury, and general Treasury
appropriations were used to cover the Corps’ expenses. Reclassifying the PMA
receipts would reduce the requested Corps appropriation for FY2006 to $4.332
billion.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
Program
FY2005a
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Investigations and Planning
143.4
95.0
Construction
1,844.6
1,637.0
Flood Control, Mississippi River
328.0
270.0
Operation and Maintenance
2,088.4
1,979.0
Regulatory
144.0
160.0
General Expenses
166.0
162.0
FUSRAPb
164.0
140.0
Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies
148.0
70.0
Office of the Asst. Secretary
of the Army
4.0
—
Storm damage — emergency
10.0
—
Subtotal Title I
5,040.4
4,513.0
Reclassification of PMA Receipts
—
(181.0)
Total
5,040.4
4,332.0
Source: Administration budget request for FY2006.
a. Amounts include $372.4 million, from P.L.108-324, in storm damage-related emergency funding — $0.4 million for
investigations; $62.6 million for construction; $6.0 million for flood control, Mississippi River; $145.4 for
operation and maintenance; $148.0 million for flood control and coastal emergencies; and $10 million for storm
damage.
b. “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”

---

CRS-5
Funding for the Corps’ civil works program often has been a contentious issue
between the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically
providing more funding than requested, regardless of which political party controls
the White House and Congress. The FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations bills added
funds above the Administration’s request; they were, respectively, $370 million (9%)
and $548 million (13%) above the requested amounts.
Although this has been the historic trend, what will happen in FY2006 is
unclear. The FY2006 budget request is higher than recent requests, such as the
FY2004 request at $4.194 billion and the FY2005 request at $4.120 billion.
According to the President’s budget documents, the FY2006 request provides the
Corps construction program “with an additional $200 million available for the
highest performing projects contingent upon congressional adoption” of the
Administration’s performance-based budgeting initiative, which is described below.
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
The Corps has a backlog of authorized construction activities; estimates of the
backlog’s size vary from $11 billion to more than $50 billion depending on which
projects are included. Most Corps policy issues in the President’s FY2006 budget
request are aimed at reducing the construction backlog, while making progress on
Corps projects within current fiscal constraints and national priorities.
The Administration’s argument for reducing the backlog appeared to be that as
the Corps’ workload grew in recent years, some projects faced construction delays
and related cost overruns resulting from available appropriations being spread across
an increasing portfolio of projects. Efforts similar to those proposed in the FY2006
request have been proposed in recent budget requests; most have not been enacted
by Congress.
Performance-Based Budgeting and Limiting New Starts. The FY2006
request tackles the Corps construction backlog on a number of fronts. It limits the
number of new activities started to only one construction project and three planning
activities. The President’s request would fund construction projects that could be
completed in FY2006 and projects considered by the Administration to be priorities,
similar to the President’s FY2005 request. The nine national priority projects for
FY2006 include the New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening project,
restoration projects in the Florida Everglades and the Upper Mississippi River
system, and projects to meet environmental requirements in the Columbia River
Basin and the Missouri River basin.
The FY2006 request was developed using a performance-based budgeting
approach for determining which projects to fund for construction (and to a lesser
extent maintenance), based on their economic and environmental returns. The
construction projects selected for funding were chosen largely based on their having
either a high ratio of remaining benefits to remaining costs, or, for environmental
projects, a high cost-effectiveness. For example, these criteria were used to identify
35 active construction projects to be studied for possible suspension (i.e., to buy out
current construction contracts, rather than to complete them). The FY2006 request
would provide an $80 million fund with which to cancel contacts for these projects.

---

CRS-6
Most of the proposed suspension projects were included in the FY2005 request and
have local project sponsors that have made investments and raised funds for their
share of construction costs. The Administration’s FY2006 request also proposes that
the Corps reduce the federal government’s future contract liability through changes
to the types of contracts used, duration of contracts, and limiting clauses.
The budget request also focuses on the agency’s three main mission areas —
commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. Consequently, the President requests no funds for studies and
“environmental infrastructure” projects in the following non-traditional mission
areas: wastewater treatment, irrigation water supply, and municipal and industrial
water supply treatment and distribution. The Administration also had requested no
funds for environmental infrastructure projects for FY2005; Congress, however,
provided at least $44 million to environmental infrastructure projects for FY2005.
This reinforced the general pattern since 1992 that the executive branch has generally
been unsupportive of the Corps’ involvement in environmental infrastructure, while
Congress has provided authorizations and some appropriations for these activities.
As in the FY2005 budget request, the FY2006 budget request generally de-
emphasizes maintenance of shallow draft harbors and waterways with low
commercial use, based on the commercial cargo tons moved per mile. This results
in the FY2006 request reducing maintenance funding from historic levels for some
waterways, such as the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
Federal Cost Policy Changes. The FY2006 request does not budget for
the continued renourishment of shoreline storm damage reduction projects, indicating
that it considers these costs as maintenance expenses to be borne by the non-federal
project sponsors. If enacted, this policy change would reduce the Corps’ involvement
in renourishment, which has been at a 50% federal cost share. A similar proposal in
the FY2005 request was rejected by the 108th Congress. Unlike the FY2005 budget
request, the FY2006 request contains one renourishment exception — renourishment
of beaches harmed by navigation; the Corps proposed that these expenses be paid
100% from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Administration’s FY2005
funding levels for navigation operation and maintenance and beach renourishment
policy changes drew criticism from some stakeholders and support from others.
Because of the similarities of the policy changes in the FY2005 and FY2006 requests,
similar criticism and support for the FY2006 request is likely.
Ecosystem Restoration. A significant addition to the Corps’ mission in
recent years is a role in large environmental restoration programs, raising concerns
that funding for these programs could displace funding for other traditional water
resources activities. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program: Issues for Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh, for
more information.) The FY2006 request would provide $510 million for aquatic
ecosystem restoration. The FY2006 request outlines three restoration goals —
Florida Everglades ecosystem restoration ($137 million for construction-related
activities), coastal Louisiana wetlands restoration ($20 million for continuing

---

CRS-7
studies), and Missouri River species protection (almost $83 million for fish and
wildlife recovery investments).1
Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration
of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The President’s request for FY2006
includes $137 million for the Corps’ construction projects in the region, up from
$130 million in the FY2005 request and $121.25 in the enacted FY2004
appropriations in P.L. 108-447. The FY2006 budget request supports the state of
Florida’s efforts to accelerate work on certain projects.
The President’s request for the Everglades has drawn attention because of a
proposed change in the funding of the Modified Water Deliveries Project.2 The
request called for the Corps to broaden its role in the project, by having the agency
jointly fund it with the Department of the Interior, which previously had solely
funded the project. This proposal has raised a question: Is the Corps authorized to
receive appropriations to work on the project? The Corps’ FY2006 request provides
$35 million for the Modified Water project from the agency’s $137 million for
Everglades activities. The Administration’s position is for the Corps to pay for $124
million of the remaining $191 million required to complete the project during
FY2006 through FY2009.
In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water
Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are funded through
Department of the Interior appropriations bills. For more information on Everglades
funding for Interior agencies, see CRS Report RL32306, Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies, coordinated by Carol Hardy-Vincent and Susan
Boren.
Paying for Recreation. The Corps is one of the largest federal providers of
outdoor recreation services. The FY2006 budget request proposes a Corps recreation
initiative to give the Corps authority to collect entrance fees, similar to other federal
agencies. The Corps would use a portion of collections to upgrade recreation sites.
The Administration’s proposal also includes giving the Corps authority to conduct
a limited number of demonstration projects, including public-private and local
partnerships for making recreation improvements. For information on recreation on
federal lands and this Corps recreation initiative, see CRS Issue Brief IB10140,
Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy-Vincent.
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures. During
the 106th Congress, the Corps came under criticism for the way it evaluated and
undertook projects. Although the issue received media attention in the 107th
1 For more information on coastal Louisiana, see CRS Report RL32673, Coastal Louisiana:
Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem, by Jeffrey Zinn. For more information on the Missouri
River, see CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues
for the109th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
2 For more information on the Modified Waters Deliveries Project, see CRS Report
RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh.

---

CRS-8
Congress, it was not directly addressed through legislation. Corps reform was
debated during consideration of Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills in
the 108th Congress, but no legislation was enacted. No measures changing Corps
planning and evaluation processes are included in the FY2006 request. For more
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA): Army Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole T. Carter.

---

CRS-9
Title II: Department of the Interior
For the Department of the Interior, the Energy and Water Development bill
provides funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR).
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Central Utah Project Construction
30.6
31.7
Mitigation and Conservation Activities
15.3
1.0
Oversight & Administration
1.7
1.7
Total, Central Utah Project
47.6
34.4
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Bureau of Reclamation.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Water and Related Resourcesa
852.6
801.6
Loan Program Account
—
—
Policy & Administration
57.7
57.9
CVP Restoration Fund
54.6
52.2
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
—
35.0
Working Capital Fund
—
—
Drought Conditions, Nevada —
emergency
5.0
—
Gross Current Authority
969.9
946.7
CVP Collectionsb
(46.4)
(43.9)
Hydropower Direct Financing Offset
—
(30.0)
Indian Water Rights
—
—
Net Current Authority
924.0
872.8
Total, Title II
1,017.6
981.1
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Bureau of Reclamation.
a. Does not include supplemental appropriations of $5M for the Southern Nevada Water Authority authorized by P.L.
108-324.
b. In its request, the Bureau lists this as an “offset.”

---

CRS-10
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation:
Budget In Brief
The Administration has requested $34.4 million for the Central Utah Project
(CUP) Completion Account for FY2006, a decrease of $13.6 million (28%) from the
FY2005 request and appropriation of roughly $48.0 million. The FY2006 request for
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) totals $946.7 million in gross current budget
authority. This amount is $23.2 million less than enacted for FY2005. The FY2006
request includes a $43.9 million “offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund, and a Hydropower Direct Financing offset of $30.0 million
(transferred from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) account in Title
III), yielding a “net” current authority of $872.8 million for BOR — $51.2 million
less than enacted for FY2005.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and
maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management
Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others.
The Administration has requested $801.6 million for the Water and Related
Resources Account for FY2006. This amount is $51 million (nearly 6%) less than
enacted for FY2005. The decreases appear to be fairly evenly spread among smaller
projects, with more significant decreases for some larger projects, such as the Central
Arizona Project and the Miscellaneous Project Programs of the Central Valley
Project.
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation
Background. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the
West were built by, or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation
projects, BOR’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to
reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR 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 31
million people. BOR is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western
states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. BOR
facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife
benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often controversial,
particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts among
competing water users.
CALFED. The Administration has requested $35 million for the California
Bay-Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2006. According
to BOR, the requested funds will be used for implementation of Stage 1 activities,
including the Environmental Water Account, water use efficiency, conveyance,
ecosystem restoration, storage studies, and program administration.
Funds have not been appropriated for this account since FY2000, when the
authorization for appropriations expired. However, funds were provided for FY2002,

---

CRS-11
FY2003, and FY2004 for activities that support the CALFED program — but not for
the CALFED program account. The Administration requested $15 million for this
account for FY2005, but the House Committee on Appropriations recommended that
no funds be appropriated for CALFED, and no funds were included in the omnibus
bill, P.L. 108-447. Consistent with past years, the committee noted it recommended
“no funding (for CALFED) in the absence of authorizing legislation for this multi-
year, multi-billion dollar effort.” The conference agreement provided, however, a
total of $8.5 million from the within the Water and Related Resources Account for
certain activities that support the CALFED program. This amount includes $7.5
million for activities that support California Bay-Delta Restoration, as stated in the
conference report, plus an “additional” $1.0 million for the Upper San Joaquin River
Basin Storage investigation. Other activities receiving funding from the $8.5 million
include $1.0 million for Sites Reservoir planning activities, $1.0 million for Shasta
Dam enlargement evaluation, and $1.0 million for Los Vaqueros expansion planning.
Although the CALFED program was reauthorized and signed into law October
25, 2004 (H.R. 2888, P.L. 108-361), the appropriations language was not changed.
It is not clear how much might be appropriated for the CALFED program account for
FY2006 now that the program has been reauthorized. (For more information on
CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of
Institutional and Water Use Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.)
Security. The Administration requested $50 million for site security for
FY2006. This amount is roughly $18 million more than enacted for FY2005. The
bulk of the request is for facility operations/security. Funding covers such activities
as administration of the security program (e.g. surveillance and law enforcement),
anti-terrorism activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the
Water Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.)
Beginning in FY2005 and continuing for FY2006, BOR has planned to assign
a portion of site security costs to water users for repayment based on existing project
cost allocations for operations and maintenance activities. However, conferees on
the FY2005 appropriation noted concern over the plan and directed BOR to submit
a report by May 1, 2005, on reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs before
implementation of the change, and stated that there should be no implementation of
the change “until the Congress provides direct instruction to do so.”

---

CRS-12
Title III: Department of Energy
Until this year, the Energy and Water Development bill has included funding for
most of DOE’s programs; some other DOE programs were funded in the Interior and
Related Agencies bill. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and
Water bill include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power,
general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs. The
Administration’s FY2006 request for these DOE programs was $22.237 billion,
about $586 million less than the amount appropriated for FY2005.
The subcommittee reorganization of the appropriations committees transferred
DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
and energy statistics, formerly included in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, to the Energy and Water Development bill. The Administration
requested $1.69 billion for these programs, compared to $1.75 billion appropriated
for FY2005. Including the transferred programs, the total request for Title III for
FY2006 was $23.930 billion, compared to $24.575 billion appropriated for FY2005
(excluding the adjustments noted in Table 3).
Table 7 lists FY2005 appropriations and FY2006 figures for the DOE programs
historically funded in the Energy and Water Development bill. Table 8 lists funding
for the DOE programs transferred from the Interior and Related Agencies bill.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Energy Supply R&D
Solar and Renewable
386.0
353.6
Electricity Transmission &
Distribution
120.2
95.6
Nuclear
Energy
379.5
389.9
Environment, Safety, Health
27.8
30.0
Other
(12.0)

—
Adjustments
30.9
33.5
Total, Energy Supply
932.3
902.7
Non-Defense Site Acceleration
157.3
172.4
Completiona
Non-Defense Environmental
289.0
177.5
Servicesa
Uranium Decontamination and
495.0
591.5
Decommissioning Funda
Science
High Energy Physics
736.4
713.9
Nuclear Physics
404.8
370.7

---

CRS-13
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Basic Energy Sciences
1,104.6
1,146.0
Bio. & Env. R&D
581.9
455.7
Fusion
273.9
290.6
Advanced Scientific Computing
232.5
207.1
Other
276.1
284.4
Adjustments
(10.7)
(5.6)
Total, Science
3,600.0
3,462.8
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
6,583.4
6,630.1
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,422.1
1,637.2
Naval Reactors
801.4
786.0
Office of Administrator
357.1
343.9
Total, NNSA
9,163.9
9,397.2
Defense Environmental Managementa
Environ. Restoration Privatization
—
—
Defense Site Acceleration
Completion
5,725.9
5,183.7
Defense Environmental Services
845.7
831.3
Total, Defense Env. Man.
7,473.4
7,002.5
Other Defense Activities
672.6
636.0
Defense Nuclear Waste
229.2
351.5
Total, Defense Activities
16,637.3
16,400.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
119.3
130.3
Office of Inspector General
41.2
43.0
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) b
Southeastern
5.2
—
Southwestern
29.1
3.2
Western
171.7
54.0
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.8
—
Total, PMAs
208.8
57.1
FERC
210.0
220.0
(revenues)
(210.0)
(220.0)
Civilian Nuclear Waste
343.2
300.0
Subtotal, Title III
22,823.0
22,236.9
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
a. DOE’s FY2005 “comparable” amounts for the five accounts that fund the Environmental Management Program reflect
the proposed transfer of 7 sites to the National Nuclear Security Administration within DOE, as well as committee-
directed transfer of funds to other accounts within DOE’s budget subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 108-447.
b. The difference between the FY2005 and FY2006 appropriations for PMAs is that the FY2006 request proposes that
PMAs use their electricity receipts to pay for PMA program direction and O&M activities, rather than having their
receipts placed into the Treasury and appropriations made for these activities.

---

CRS-14
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
DOE Programs Transferred from Interior and Related Agencies
($ millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Fossil Energy Research &
Development
571.9
491.5
Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale
Reserves
17.8
18.5
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
36.0
84.0
Energy Conservation b
868.2
846.8
Economic Regulatory
Administration
—
—
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
169.7
166.0
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
4.9
—
Energy Information Administration
83.8
85.9
Subtotal, Title III (Interior &
Related Agencies Programs)
1,752.3
1,692.7
Total Title III
24,575.3
23,929.6
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
DOE is the home of a wide variety of programs with different functions and
missions. In the following pages, the programs are described, and major issues
identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in the budget tables as
listed in Tables 7 and 8.
Renewable Energy. The FY2006 budget request aims to “accelerate” the
development of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. In particular, the Hydrogen
program goal is to facilitate industry commercialization of infrastructure for fuel cell
vehicles by 2015. Goals for other renewable energy technologies generally seek to
improve energy production performance while reducing costs.
The request seeks $353.6 million for renewables, which is $26.7 million, or 7%,
less than the FY2005 appropriation (excluding prior year balances). The main
increases are for Hydrogen ($5.1 million) and Facilities ($4.9 million). The main
cuts are for Biomass (-$30.5 million), Small Hydro (-$4.4 million), International
Renewables (-$3.4 million), and for Tribal Energy (-$1.5 million). Further, at least
$75.9 million in congressional earmarks would be reprogrammed or eliminated,
including Hydrogen (-$37.6 million), Biomass (-$35.3), and Intergovernmental (-$3.0
million). Also, the request includes $95.6 million for the Office of Electricity
Transmission and Distribution (OETD), a decrease of $23.0 million (excluding prior
year balances), or 20%. The main decreases in OETD are for High Temperature
Superconductivity R&D (-$9.6 million) and Transmission Reliability R&D (-$6.4
million).

---

CRS-15
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development — including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and nuclear hydrogen production — the
Administration is requesting $389.9 million for FY2006, about $14.7 million above
the FY2005 appropriation. In addition to that funding, the DOE Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science, and Technology would receive $120.9 million under Other Defense
Activities for defense-related management and security at the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), which has been transferred to the nuclear energy program from
DOE’s environmental management program. The Nuclear Energy office’s total
FY2006 funding request of $510.8 million is 5.2% above the comparable FY2005
level, according to DOE.
“The benefits of nuclear power as an emissions free, reliable, and affordable
source of energy are an essential element in the Nation’s energy and environmental
future,” according to DOE’s budget justification. However, opponents have
criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an
industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and
economically uncompetitive.
President Bush’s specific mention of “safe, clean nuclear energy” in his 2005
State of the Union Address indicates the Administration’s interest in encouraging
construction of new commercial reactors — for which there have been no U.S. orders
since 1978. DOE’s efforts to restart the nuclear construction pipeline are focused on
the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which will pay up to half of the nuclear industry’s
costs of seeking regulatory approval for new reactor sites, applying for new reactor
licenses, and preparing detailed plant designs. The program is intended to provide
assistance for advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants that could be
ordered within the next few years.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is helping three utilities seek NRC approval
for potential nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. In addition,
three industry consortia in 2004 applied for a total of $650 million over the next
several years to design and license new nuclear power plants and conduct a feasibility
study. DOE awarded an initial $13 million to the consortia in 2004. The FY2006
budget request includes $56.0 million for the program, a 12.9% boost over FY2005.
The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program would
test the “one step” licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-486). Even if the licenses are granted by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), the industry consortia funded by DOE have not committed to
building new reactors. A DOE advisory group recommended in January 2005 that
the federal government provide up to $4.2 billion in loan guarantees, power purchase
agreements, accelerated depreciation, and investment and production tax credits to
persuade the industry to build new U.S. nuclear plants.3
Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment
are the focus of DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, for which
$45.0 million is being requested for FY2006, about 12.5% above FY2005.
3 Hiruo, Elaine. “Special DOE Task Force Recommends $4.2-billion in New Reactor Aid.”
Nucleonics Week. January 13, 2005. p. 1.

---

CRS-16
The Generation IV program is focusing on six advanced designs that could be
commercially available around 2020-2030: two gas-cooled, one water-cooled, two
liquid-metal-cooled, and one molten-salt concept. Some of these reactors would use
plutonium recovered through reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The
Administration’s May 2001 National Energy Policy report contends that plutonium
recovery could reduce the long-term environmental impact of nuclear waste disposal
and increase domestic energy supplies. However, opponents contend that the
separation of plutonium from spent fuel poses unacceptable environmental risks and,
because of plutonium’s potential use in nuclear bombs, undermines U.S. policy on
nuclear weapons proliferation.
The development of plutonium-fueled reactors in the Generation IV program is
closely related to the nuclear energy program’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI), for which the Administration is requesting $70.0 million — 3.8% above the
FY2005 level. According to the budget justification, AFCI will develop and
demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent
nuclear fuel and recover additional energy. Such technologies would involve
separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from
spent fuel for re-use in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator.
The program includes longstanding DOE work on electrometallurgical treatment of
spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) at INL.
In support of President Bush’s program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles,
DOE is requesting $20.0 million in FY2005 for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, an
increase of 124% from the FY2005 level. According to DOE’s FY2005 budget
justification, “preliminary estimates . . . indicate that hydrogen produced using
nuclear-driven thermochemical or high-temperature electrolysis processes would be
only slightly more expensive than gasoline” and result in far less air pollution.
An advanced reactor that would demonstrate co-production of hydrogen and
electricity — the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) — was allocated $25.0
million from DOE’s Generation IV program by the FY2005 omnibus appropriations
conference report. “The conferees expect the Department to submit a budget in fiscal
year 2006 that is consistent with the goal of demonstrating hydrogen production and
electricity generation by 2015 at the Idaho National Laboratory,” according to the
statement of managers. DOE’s FY2006 budget justification for Generation IV says
the research to be undertaken by the program “will help inform a decision on whether
to proceed with a demonstration of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant.”
DOE is again seeking no new funding specifically for the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (NERI), which provides grants for research on innovative nuclear
energy technologies. Instead, according to the budget justification, NERI projects will
be pursued at the discretion of individual nuclear R&D programs. NERI received an
appropriation of $2.5 million for FY2005. New funding also is not being requested
for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program (NEPO), which received $2.5
million in FY2005. The program supports cost-shared research by the nuclear power
industry on ways to improve the productivity of existing nuclear plants.
Science. For FY2006, DOE has requested $3.463 billion for Science, a
decrease of 4% from the FY2005 appropriation of $3.600 billion. The Office of

---

CRS-17
Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences, high-
energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy
sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs,
DOE is the third-largest federal supporter of basic research and the largest federal
supporter of research in the physical sciences.4
The requested funding for the largest program, basic energy sciences, is $1.146
billion, a 4% increase above FY2005. Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source
is expected to be completed in the third quarter of FY2006, so the request for this
facility includes less funding for construction but for the first time includes the cost
of operations. Operations will also begin at four of the five new Nanoscale Science
Research Centers. (The fifth is still under construction and is expected to begin
operations in FY2008.) Some have expressed concern that operations funding for
these facilities will result in reduced grant funding for other research in the basic
energy sciences program.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $291 million, a 6% increase. In 2003,
the United States rejoined negotiations on construction of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other
participants include China, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.
The requested FY2006 budget for fusion energy sciences includes $50 million related
to ITER and estimates that the total U.S. share of the project will be $1.1 billion
through FY2013. When the FY2006 budget was released, the international partners
remained split on where ITER should be located, a decision that was originally
expected in November 2003.
The other four Office of Science programs would all be reduced in the FY2006
request. High-energy physics would receive $714 million, down 3%. Biological and
environmental research would receive $456 million, down 22%. Nuclear physics
would receive $371 million, down 8%. Advanced scientific computing research
would receive $207 million, down 11%. Most of the decrease for biological and
environmental research corresponds to the completion of congressionally directed
one-time projects.
The FY2005 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-792) encouraged
DOE “to request sufficient funds for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2006 to
operate user facilities for as much time as possible.” For the facilities funded by four
of the six Science programs, the FY2006 budget request includes “a reduction in
operating hours due to funding limitations.” The major facilities of the basic energy
sciences program will be capable of operating for users for a total of 32,200 hours in
FY2006, but only a total of 28,800 hours are scheduled. The Tevatron complex at
Fermilab, funded by the high-energy physics program, will be capable of operating
for 4,800 hours, but is scheduled for only 4,560. The four facilities of the nuclear
physics program will be capable of operating for a total of 22,765 hours, but are
scheduled for only a total of 14,695. The three fusion energy sciences facilities will
4 Based on 2003 data from Tables C-29 and C-22 of National Science Foundation, Division
of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years
2001, 2002, and 2003, NSF 04-310 (March 2004).

---

CRS-18
be capable of operating for a total of 3,000 hours, but are scheduled for only 680. In
each of these cases, the difference between optimal hours and scheduled hours was
less in FY2005 than is requested in FY2006.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship. Congress established the
Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency
established by Congress in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
106-65, Title XXXII) within DOE. It seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account. The three main elements of stockpile stewardship, described next, are
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities (RTBF). Table 9 presents funding for these elements. NNSA also
manages two major programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, discussed in a subsequent section of this report, and Naval
Reactors.
Several of the stockpile stewardship programs have been highly controversial.
The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and the Advanced Concepts Initiative, part of
the Directed Stockpile Work program, were unfunded by the Congress for FY2005
and have been proposed again with some changes for FY2006. Funding for “Pit
Manufacturing,” in the Campaigns program, has also been subject to debate. DOE’s
proposal to reduce the time required to resume nuclear testing from 24 months to 18
months, also part of the Campaigns program, remains controversial. These and other
programs are discussed below.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and
CA), four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah
River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN), and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and
sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Table 9. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Program
Request
H.R.
S.
DSW
1,277.2
1,421.0
Campaigns
2,294.5
2,080.4
RTBF
1,786.5
1,631.4
Othera
1,225.2
1,497.3
Total
6,583.4
6,630.1
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards and Security, and several adjustments.

---

CRS-19
The FY2006 request includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2010 (see
Table 10).
Table 10. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
DSW
1,421.0
1,459.3
1,487.5
1,516.2
1,545.4
Campaigns
2,080.4
2,034.7
2,043.9
2,027.7
2,027.7
RTBF
1,631.4
1,745.5
1,817.1
1,915.8
2,000.1
Othera
1,497.3
1,540.8
1,573.0
1,617.6
1,688.4
Total
6,630.1
6,780.3
6,921.5
7,077.3
7,261.6
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards
and Security, and several adjustments.
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition, maintaining
them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in
support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2006 DSW request would
support life extension programs for three nuclear warheads: B61 (gravity bomb),
W76 (for Trident I and II submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and W80 (for cruise
missiles). It would fund surveillance and maintenance for nine warhead types, some
work on retired warheads, and some management and technology work not linked to
a specific warhead.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act reduced DSW to $1,316.9
million (before adjustments), from $1,406.4 million requested. Probably the most
noticed provisions were elimination of the $27.6 million request for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), and transfer of the $9.0 million request for the
Advanced Concepts Initiative (ACI) to a new program, Reliable Replacement
Warhead. RNEP and ACI had been sharply debated in the FY2004 and FY2005
budget cycles.
RNEP is a study of the cost and feasibility of modifying existing nuclear bombs
to enable them to penetrate into the ground before detonating, thereby magnifying
their effect on a buried target. (See CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon
Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness,
and CRS Report RL32347, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and
Plan, FY2005-FY2009.) RNEP’s supporters argue that it is needed to attack hard and
deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers or chemical weapons production
facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations; critics
reply that RNEP would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt
other nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack.

---

CRS-20
Congressional concern about RNEP arose in part because the FY2005 NNSA
request projected $484.7 million for the program for FY2005-FY2009. While RNEP
was a study, this figure was provided in response to a congressional requirement that
five-year costs be included in the budget request. The figure represented a projection
based on experience with other programs, DOE indicated. It was not possible to
provide a more precise number until the cost and feasibility study was completed.
Further, the figure projected the cost based as if the program were to progress beyond
the study stage into various development stages, although moving the program
beyond the study stage would have required an Administration decision and
congressional approval.
For FY2006, NNSA requests $4.0 million for the RNEP study, projects another
$14.0 million for FY2007, and then projects no further funds. (The Department of
Defense budget includes an additional $4.5 million for RNEP for FY2006.) The
funds would be used to complete the study.
ACI was also controversial. Critics claimed that its purpose was to develop a
low-yield “mini-nuke” that would make nuclear weapons more usable; supporters
responded that NNSA was not working on a mini-nuke and that ACI would help
develop and maintain weapons design expertise. The Administration requested $9.0
million for ACI for FY2005. The omnibus bill provided no funds for ACI; instead,
the conference report stated that “the same amount is made available for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead [RRW] program to improve the reliability, longevity, and
certifiability of existing weapons and their components.”
NNSA requests $9.5 million for RRW for FY2006. It states that the program
“is to demonstrate the feasibility of developing reliable replacement components that
are producible and certifiable for the existing stockpile” and to initially provide
replacement pits (first-stage cores) “that can be certified without Underground
Tests.” It projects the following amounts: FY2007, $14.8 million; FY2008, $14.4
million; FY2009, $29.6 million; and FY2010, $29.0 million. It is important to note,
however, that these out-year figures simply transfer the funds planned for ACI to
RRW.
Campaigns. These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide
specialized scientific knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work
on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” For FY2006, there are six campaigns, each of
which has multiple components: Science; Engineering; Inertial Confinement Fusion
and High Yield; Advanced Simulation and Computing; Pit Manufacturing and
Certification; and Readiness.
The FY2005 omnibus bill contained $2,323.4 million for campaigns (before
adjustments), vs. $2,393.8 million requested for FY2005. Conferees expressed
considerable concern over a slip in the target date, from 2010 to 2014, for achieving
ignition with the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a facility now under construction
that will be the world’s largest laser. NIF will be used for inertial confinement fusion
research in support of stockpile stewardship and for other scientific research.
Conferees directed several studies on this topic.

---

CRS-21
The FY2005 conferees also focused on the Pit Manufacturing and Certification
Campaign, which is working to produce “pits” (the fissile core of the primary stage,
or “trigger,” of nuclear weapons) and to certify them for use in the stockpile.
Conferees provided the amount requested, $132.0 million, for pit manufacturing and
reduced funds for other components of the program. In particular, they reduced funds
for the Modern Pit Facility (MPF), a proposed facility for pit manufacture that would
become operational around 2021, from $29.8 million requested to $7.0 million, and
barred use of funds to select a construction site for MPF in FY2005.
For FY2006, NNSA requests $2,080.4 million for campaigns, vs. $2,294.5
million appropriated for FY2005. Many items within campaigns have significance
for policy decisions. As one example, the Science Campaign’s goals include
improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing,
improving readiness to conduct tests should the need arise, and maintaining the
scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories.
The test readiness posture — the length of time between a presidential order to
resume testing and the actual conduct of the test — has been controversial. In
FY2004, the defense authorization conference report called for a posture of not more
than 18 months, while the energy and water conference report called for NNSA “to
focus on restoring a rigorous test readiness program that is capable of meeting the
current 24-month requirement before requesting significant additional funds to
pursue a more aggressive goal of an 18-month readiness posture.” The FY2005
omnibus conference report did not address the topic, and for FY2006 NNSA
requested $25.0 million for Test Readiness, part of the Science Campaign, “to
continue improving the state of readiness to reach an 18-month test-readiness posture
in FY 2006.”
Another significant example is the Enhanced Surveillance program, for which
NNSA requests $96.2 million for FY2006, in the Engineering Campaign, which
seeks to develop “predictive capabilities for early identification and assessment of
stockpile aging concerns ... to give NNSA a firm basis for determining when systems
must be refurbished.” This program is of interest to Congress because it is
conducting experiments to determine the service life of pits based on plutonium
aging characteristics; the result will bear on a decision to build the MPF.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. It has
six subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities ($1,021.7 million
appropriated for FY2005, $1,160.8 million requested for FY2006). Others include
Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in
multiple programs ($103.5 million appropriated for FY2005, $105.7 million
requested for FY2006), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($65.4 million appropriated for FY2005, $72.7 million requested for FY2006).
Construction is a separate category within RTBF; the FY2005 appropriation was
$275.2 million, and the FY2006 request is $2243.1 million.
The FY2005 omnibus bill provided $1,670.4 for RTBF. Most components were
funded at the requested level; increases included $104.0 million for Operation of

---

CRS-22
Facilities, $50.0 million for a Highly Enriched Uranium Facility (Project 01-D-124)
at the Y-12 Plant, and $37.8 million for the Microsystem and Engineering Science
Applications (MESA) facility at Sandia.
Other Programs. Weapons Activities includes four smaller programs in
addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF.
! Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials safely and securely. It includes
special vehicles used for this purpose, communications and other
supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The FY2005
appropriation was $199.7 million; the FY2006 request is $212.1
million.
! Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for use of DOE assets
to manage and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within
DOE, in the United States, or abroad. The FY2005 appropriation
was $108.4 million; the FY2006 request is $118.8 million.
! Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program provides for
deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements for the
nuclear weapons complex. In contrast, RTBF “ensure[s] that
facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload activities
are maintained sufficiently,” according to NNSA. The FY2005
appropriation was $313.7 million; the FY2006 request is $283.5
million.
! Safeguards and Security provides operations and maintenance funds
for physical and cyber security, and related construction, to protect
NNSA personnel and assets from terrorist and other threats. The
FY2005 appropriation was $751.9 million; the FY2006 request is
$740.5 million.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs. 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 included in
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
Funding for these programs in FY2005 was $1.422 billion. For FY2006, the
Administration requested $1.637 billion.
In May 2004 DOE consolidated a number of programs, aimed at repatriating
fresh and spent fuel containing highly enriched uranium (HEU) from research
reactors around the world supplied by the United States and Russia, and converting
reactors that use HEU fuel to operate on low-enriched uranium, into a single Global
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Program. Most of the funding for GTRI was redirected from Nonproliferation
programs, but some came from Defense Environmental Management programs.
DOE said that the target for completion of the program was 2010, and that it would

---

CRS-23
be funded at about $450 million. Funding for GTRI in FY2005 was calculated by
DOE at $93.8 million. The request for FY2006 is $98.0 million.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program, which received $224
million for FY2005, would be funded at $272.2 million in the Administration’s
FY2006 request. Nonproliferation and International Security programs would
receive $80.2 million in the request, compared with $91.3 million in FY2005. These
programs include international safeguards, export controls, and treaties and
agreements. A major part of funding for the new GTRI came from the
Nonproliferation and International Security programs.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, would receive $343.4 million under the President’s request,
compared to $294.7 million appropriated for FY2005.
Two programs in the former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI), were combined for FY2005
into a single program called “Russian Transition Initiative,” aimed at finding non-
weapons employment for roughly 35,000 under-employed nuclear scientists from the
former Soviet weapons complex. The FY2005 appropriation for the program was
$40.7 million. For FY2006, $37.9 million was requested; the program has been
renamed “Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention,” to reflect expansion of the
work to include retraining and redirection of scientists and technicians from other
than the former Soviet Union.
Table 11. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
224.0
272.2
Nonproliferation & International
91.3
80.2
Securityb
International Materials Protection,
294.7
343.4
Control and Accounting (MPC&A)b
Global Initiatives for Proliferation
40.7
37.9
Preventiona
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
44.0
132.0
Plutonium Production
HEU Transparency Implementation
20.8
20.5
Fissile Materials Disposition
613.1
653.1
Global Threat Reduction Initiativeb
93.8
98.0
Adjustments
Total, Defense Nuclear
1,422.1
1,637.2
Nonproliferation
Source: Budget justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
a. Formerly called “Russian Transition Initiative.”
b. GTRI funding redirected from other programs, primarily Nonproliferation and International Security and MPC&A.

---

CRS-24
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006
was $53.1 million, compared with $613.1 million in appropriated for FY2005. The
program’s goal is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into
fuel for commercial power reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the
plutonium to reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC, and a similar program in Russia.
Environmental Management. The Environmental Management Program is
the largest single function within DOE in terms of funding, representing
approximately one-third of the Department’s total budget. The primary purpose of
the program is to manage radioactive and hazardous wastes, and to remediate
contamination from such wastes, at former nuclear weapons sites across the country.
The program also addresses waste management and remediation at sites where the
federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research. As such, DOE’s
Environmental Management Program is the largest waste management and
environmental cleanup program throughout the federal government, with an annual
budget of around $7 billion in recent years. In comparison, annual funding for the
cleanup of contamination at Department of Defense sites has been less than $2 billion
in recent years, and annual funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s
cleanup of the nation’s most hazardous private sector sites under the Superfund
program has been around $1.25 billion.
The President’s FY2006 budget includes $6.51 billion for DOE’s
Environmental Management Program, $548 million less than DOE’s FY2005
“comparable” appropriation of $7.05 billion. The proposed funding decrease has
received attention among states and environmental organizations concerned that
reduced funding might result in slower and less stringent cleanup. However, the
Administration asserts that the proposed cut would not result in a weaker cleanup
effort. Rather, the Administration indicates that its proposed funding reflects:
! completion of certain cleanup activities;
! changes in scheduling of activities at some sites, such as
purposefully slowing engineering and construction at Hanford due
to uncertain design variables arising from considerations of seismic
activity at that location;
! scaling back technology development as a federally funded
programmatic activity, and instead allowing market forces to drive
the development of more cost-effective technologies by contractors
seeking to maximize profits; and
! safeguard and security cost savings from reduced infrastructure at
some sites, such as the Idaho National Laboratory.
Historically, there have been many longstanding issues associated with DOE’s
Environmental Management Program. Much attention has focused on the amount
of time and money needed to clean up environmental contamination, and to manage
and dispose of radioactive and other hazardous wastes. DOE reports that in FY2006
there will be 107 geographic sites within the Environmental Management Program,
which were contaminated from nuclear weapons production or civilian nuclear
energy research. DOE has been responsible for 114 sites under this program, but

---

CRS-25
proposes to transfer 7 of these sites to the National Nuclear Security Administration
within the Department.5
According to DOE, all response actions were complete at 76 sites as of the end
of FY2003. Congress had appropriated approximately $70 billion through FY2003
for cleanup and site closure since the EM program was established in FY1989. DOE
expects cleanup to be complete at 3 additional sites by the end of FY2005, and at 7
additional sites by the end of CY2006, yielding a total of 86 sites with cleanup
complete.
Although cleanup is projected to be complete at many of the remaining sites
within a decade, cleanup at the most contaminated sites is not expected to be
complete until 2035. DOE’s most recent estimate of future costs to complete its
planned waste disposal and cleanup activities is $95 billion from FY2004 through
final site closure in 2035. This is a substantially lower estimate than in past years,
as a result of cost and time savings DOE expects from its cleanup reform initiative.
DOE launched this initiative in FY2003 and signed letters of intent with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the states to accelerate cleanup at its major
sites. DOE also prepared Performance Management Plans for many of its sites,
which outlined how cleanup would be accelerated and costs reduced.
In developing its plans to accelerate cleanup, DOE established baselines for the
completion of its planned waste disposal and remedial actions, reflecting defined
scope, costs, and schedules. According to DOE, its goals of faster and less costly
cleanup are being accomplished through awarding competitive contracts,
renegotiating existing contracts with performance-based incentives, working with
regulators on more efficient technical and regulatory approaches, deploying
innovative technologies, and coordinating with stakeholders and regulators to better
define “end states” (i.e., the intended condition or use of each site once cleanup is
complete).
DOE’s cleanup reform initiative would continue in FY2006 under the
President’s budget, with funding provided under five accounts. These accounts
include two for Site Acceleration Completion, one for Defense and one for Non-
Defense, which fund efforts to complete cleanup and close contaminated facilities at
a faster pace than previously scheduled. There also are two Environmental Services
accounts, one for Defense and one for Non-Defense as well, which fund activities
that indirectly support the mission of accelerated cleanup and closure, such as policy
development and coordination, and the integration of mission activities across the
complex of sites. A fifth account for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund supports the cleanup of uranium enrichment plants and
uranium and thorium processing sites.
5 These sites include (1) Nevada Test Site, (2) Sandia National Laboratory, (3) Separation
Process Research Unit, (4) Kansas City Plant, (5) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore Site, (6) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Site 300, and (7) Pantex. In addition,
operation of the low-level waste disposal site at the Nevada Test Site and newly generated
waste management at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Y-12 site are also
proposed for transfer from the Environmental Management Program to the National Nuclear
Security Administration within DOE.

---

CRS-26
Defense sites have traditionally received most of the funding within the
Environmental Management Program. Of the $6.51 billion FY2006 request, $5.18
billion would be allocated to the Defense Site Acceleration Completion Account, and
$831 million would be allocated to the Defense Environmental Services Account.
The Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion Account would receive $172
million, and the Non-Defense Environmental Services Account would receive $178
million. The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
would receive $591 million. Although the total appropriation for these five accounts
would be $6.96 billion, this amount would be offset by $451 million from the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, yielding a total
request of $6.51 billion.
Although there has been widespread concern about the amount of time and
money needed to clean up nuclear waste sites, questions have been raised as to how
DOE would accomplish its goals of faster and less costly cleanup without weakening
environmental protection. Some have contended that more contamination may be
left on site rather than removed. Because of the substantial amount of time required
for certain types of radioactivity to decay, arguments have been raised that
contamination left in place may migrate in unexpected ways over the long-term, and
result in pathways of exposure that could not have been predicted when the remedy
was originally selected. Others counter that completely removing radioactive
contamination from all sites to permit unrestricted future land use, and eliminate all
future pathways of exposure, would not be economically feasible, and in some cases
would be beyond the capabilities of current cleanup technologies.
One of the more controversial issues regarding DOE’s cleanup acceleration
initiative has been how to dispose of radioactive and chemical wastes stored in
underground tanks at the Hanford site in Washington State, the Savannah River site
in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. For FY2005, DOE proposed
a new account to fund the classification of some of the tank wastes as “incidental to
reprocessing,” and to dispose of it as low-level waste or transuranic waste. The most
contentious element of DOE’s proposal was to leave some of the waste in the tanks,
and to dispose of it as low-level waste by mixing and immobilizing it with a cement-
like “grout” to seal it in place upon closure of the tank.
Some Members of Congress, states, environmental organizations, and
communities opposed DOE’s proposal, arguing that none of the tank wastes should
be allowed to remain in place. Among the chief concerns was the possibility that the
grout might not mix thoroughly with the residual waste to contain it safely and
prevent leaks. However, others asserted that there would be limited environmental
and public health risk benefit to be gained by removing all of the waste from the
tanks. There also were concerns that removal of all of the waste would be technically
difficult, pose a significant health and safety risk to the workers, and be very costly.
After considerable debate, the 108th Congress included authority in the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-375) for DOE
to classify some of the tank wastes at the Savannah River site and the Idaho National
Laboratory as other than high-level waste, and to dispose of some of the tank waste
by grouting it in place if certain conditions are met. However, the authority was not
extended to Washington State, where most of the tank waste is located at the Hanford

---

CRS-27
site. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Wastes:
Disposal Authority in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005, coordinated by David Bearden.)
The FY2006 request for the Environmental Management Program includes
funding for the closing of one tank at the Idaho National Laboratory. Safely closing
a tank involves numerous steps, such as removing and processing removed waste for
disposal elsewhere, flushing of pipes, and sealing a tank in such a manner to ensure
its structural integrity to prevent collapse. DOE’s budget justification did not
indicate the amount of waste in the tank slated for closure in Idaho, which may be
classified as other than high-level pursuant to the authority in P.L. 108-375, and
grouted in place upon tank closure. The FY2006 request also includes funding for
the construction of waste treatment facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory and the
Savannah River site that would be necessary for DOE to process the waste removed
from the tanks prior to grouting any residual waste that may remain upon closure.
Related to the Environmental Management Program, the President’s FY2006
budget also includes $79 million for DOE’s Office of Legacy Management, slightly
more than the FY2005 appropriation of $77 million. Of the request, $45 million
would be allocated to former defense sites and related activities, and the remaining
$34 million to non-defense sites. Congress provided the funding for DOE to
establish this office in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
FY2004 (P.L. 108-137). The primary functions of the Office of Legacy Management
are to monitor and maintain remedial actions over the long-term once cleanup is
complete, to ensure protection of human health and the environment, and to manage
the pensions and benefits of former contractor personnel who performed the cleanup.
DOE previously administered these responsibilities under multiple elements of its
Environmental Management Program.
Civilian Nuclear Waste. Upon releasing the civilian nuclear waste
program’s FY2006 budget request, program officials announced that the opening of
DOE’s planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, would be
delayed at least two years from the previous goal of 2010. The waste program’s
funding request of $651.4 million is about 14% above the FY2005 level but only
about half the amount that last year’s budget justification said would have been
needed to open the repository by 2010. DOE officials also announced that a Yucca
Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be
delayed by a year, to the end of 2005.
Funding for the program is provided under two appropriations accounts. The
Administration is seeking $300.0 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds
the fees paid by nuclear utilities. An additional $351.5 million is being requested
under the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, which pays for disposal of high-
level waste from the nuclear weapons program in the planned Yucca Mountain
repository. The waste program is run by DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management (OCRWM).
The FY2005 budget request for the nuclear waste program had assumed that
Congress would enact legislation to offset most of the program’s spending with
revenue from a longstanding fee on nuclear power, which currently is not available

---

CRS-28
without appropriation. As a result, the net appropriation request was only $131
million, significantly less than the previous year’s appropriation. However, Congress
did not approve the funding offset proposal. Congressional appropriators then had
to work to find additional appropriations for the nuclear waste program to prevent a
large cut in the program. For FY2006, the Administration is again proposing that
nuclear waste funding be offset by fees, but the budget request does not assume the
proposal will be enacted and therefore includes full funding through appropriations.
One of the largest proposed increases in the civilian waste disposal budget
request in FY2006 is for transportation, which would rise from $30.7 million in
FY2005 to $85.4 million. The 178% increase is needed for developing a new branch
rail line to Yucca Mountain and for preparing a national waste transportation system,
according to the budget justification. Funding for waste disposal packages would
triple under the budget request, to $14.5 million, and funding to develop a nuclear
waste handling facility at Yucca Mountain would rise 45% to $30 million.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended,
names Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository.
Congress passed an approval resolution in July 2000 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that
authorized the Yucca Mountain project to proceed to the licensing phase.
The new 2012 target for opening a permanent repository is nearly 15 years later
than the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 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. The nation’s largest nuclear utility, Exelon
Corporation, reached a breach-of-contract settlement with the federal government in
August 2004 that may total $600 million if DOE does not begin taking spent fuel
before 2015.
Further delays in the Yucca Mountain program could result from a July 2004
court decision that overturned a key aspect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) regulations for the repository. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year
compliance period was too short, but it rejected several other challenges to the
standards. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear
Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.)
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 in response to the
construction of dams and multi-purpose water projects operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. In many cases, conservation and
management of water resources — including irrigation, flood control, recreation or
other objectives — were the primary purpose of federal projects. However, these
facilities often generated electricity to meet project needs; PMAs were established
to market the excess power.

---

CRS-29
The PMAs sell power to electric utilities and federal agencies “at the lowest
possible rates ... consistent with sound business practice,” and priority for 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,
with the exception of Southeastern, they own transmission facilities. The PMAs are
responsible for covering their expenses and for repaying debt and the federal
investment in the generating facilities.
The 104th Congress debated sale of the PMAs and, in 1995, authorized
divestiture of one PMA (the Alaska Power Administration Act, P.L. 104-58). Since
then, there has been no explicit interest in disposing of the remaining PMAs.
The FY2006 Administration request for the PMAs is sharply down from
FY2005 levels — a reduction from the FY2005 appropriation of $208.8 million to
a request for $57.1 for FY2006, an overall reduction of 72.6%. New appropriation
language proposed by the Administration would extend authority to SEPA, SWPA,
and WPA to credit a portion of their revenues to their appropriation accounts as
offsetting collections for program and operating expenses. The FY2006 request of
$57.1 million reflects a reduction of $117.8 million for WAPA and $26.0 million for
Southwestern. Net appropriations for Southeastern, budgeted at roughly $5.2 million
in FY2005, would be eliminated altogether.
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from
permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion
to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). BPA is not requesting additional
borrowing authority in FY2006. BPA intends to use $487 million of its borrowing
authority in FY2006, up from $432 million in FY2005, for generation and
transmission services, conservation, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife, and capital
equipment programs.
Department of Energy Programs from
Interior and Related Agencies Bill
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2006 budget request of $491.5 million for fossil energy
research and development is 14.1% less than the amount enacted for FY2005 ($571.9
million) and 25.4% less than the enacted amount for FY2004 ($659 million). Major
funding categories and amounts include Coal and Other Power Systems ($351.0
million), Natural Gas Technologies ($10.0 million), Oil Technology ($10.0 million),
and Program Direction and Management Support ($98.0 million).
DOE is proposing to terminate both the Natural Gas and Oil Technology
programs based on a Program Assessment Rating Tool review which rated both
programs ineffective. Congressional support of Natural Gas and Oil Technology
programs has been significantly higher than the Bush Administration’s request in
previous years.
The Administration requests $68 million for its Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI), including $18 million for FutureGen, a project to demonstrate co-production

---

CRS-30
of electricity and hydrogen from coal with no emissions. According to DOE’s budget
justification, CCPI is a “cost-shared program between the government and industry
to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation and to
accelerate their commercialization.” Nearly $400 million has been appropriated
since FY2002.
CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP), which
began in the late 1980s. It has completed most of its projects and has been subject to
rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. The CCTP eventually is to be phased
out.
Coal R&D other than CCPI and FutureGen would rise by 5.9% to $218 million,
while nearly all other fossil fuel programs would be cut. Within the Coal R&D, the
Administration’s request for gasification research increased from $34.5 million in
FY2005 to $56.4 million in FY2006. The FY2005 enacted level was $45.8 million.
This level of increase is an indication of more commitment by the Administration
and Congress to the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology aimed
at commercialization. There is sustained investment in IGCC because of its potential
benefits from reduced NOx, SOx, mercury and fine particulate matter emissions.
Moreover, lower CO2 emissions through greater plant efficiencies and/or potential
sequestration could be substantial. Under the Administration’s request, funding for
DOE’s Carbon Sequestration program would increase significantly — from $45.4
million in FY2005 to $67.2 million in FY2006.
In its report on the FY2005 funding bill, the House Appropriations Committee
expressed disappointment with the emphasis of the Administration’s request on
funding new, long-term energy research efforts, such as FutureGen, at the expense
of ongoing energy programs that could yield energy savings and emissions reductions
over the next decade. The Committee recommended restoring many of the proposed
reductions for research to improve fossil energy technologies, contending that it
would be “fiscally irresponsible” to discontinue research in which major investments
have been made before that research is concluded (H.Rept. 108-542, p.7-8).
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which more than 680 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose
of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in
the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption
threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton
Administration, housing 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to
capacity (700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over
to the federal government as payment for production from federal leases. Acquiring
oil for the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance
direct purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in
so far as the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. Deliveries of RIK

---

CRS-31
oil began in the spring of 2002 and are currently scheduled to continue through
August 2005 when the capacity of the SPR should be filled. Some policymakers have
objected to RIK fill, arguing that this oil should instead be released to tight markets.
The Administration has argued that the volumes involved, varying between 65,000-
200,000 barrels per day of deliveries to the SPR, are too small to have any discernible
effect on crude and product prices.
The current program costs for the SPR are almost exclusively dedicated to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
The costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites are borne by the contractors, so no new
money was requested for the SPR petroleum account beginning with FY2004.
Congress agreed to a funding level of $174.6 million for the program in
FY2005, including $4.9 million for the NHOR. The Administration request for
FY2006 for the SPR itself is $166.0 million, a reduction from the FY2005
appropriation of slightly more than $4 million. No new money is requested for the
NHOR in FY2006, owing to the use of prior-year balances of $5.3 million.
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB87050, The Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Energy Conservation. The FY2006 budget request (Appendix, p. 402) notes
that the “Administration’s energy efficiency programs have the potential to produce
substantial benefits for the nation — both now and in the future — in terms of
economic growth, increased energy security and a cleaner environment.” In
particular, the request aims to “accelerate” the development of hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles. The Hydrogen program aims to facilitate industry
commercialization of infrastructure for those vehicles by 2015. Goals for other
energy end-use and production technologies generally seek to improve energy
efficiency and performance while reducing costs.
The Administration’s FY2006 request seeks $846.8 million for energy
efficiency, which is $21.5 million, or 2%, less than the FY2005 appropriation. The
main increases are for Biomass/Biorefinery ($14.5 million) and Fuel Cells ($8.7
million). The main cuts are for Industrial programs (-$18.3 million), Advanced
Combustion Vehicles (-$8.6 million), Buildings (-$7.5 million), Clean Cities (-$4.1
million), and State Energy Program (-$3.2 million). See Table 12, below.
Table 12. Energy and Water Development Appropriations DOE Energy
Conservation
($ in millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Vehicle Technologies
165.4
165.9
Fuel Cell Technologies
74.9
83.6
Intergovernmental
309.0
298.2
Weatherization Grantsa
228.2
230.0
Distrib. Energy Resources
60.4
56.6

---

CRS-32
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Building Technologies
65.5
58.0
Industrial Technologies
74.8
56.5
Biomass/Biorefinery
7.3
21.8
Federal Energy Management
17.9
17.1
Program Management
93.0
89.0
R&D Subtotal
595.8
575.8
Grants Subtotal
272.4
271.0
Total Appropriation
868.2
846.8
Source: Budget Justifications for FY2006 from the Department of Energy.
a. Weatherization grants are included in the “Intergovernmental” account.

---

CRS-33
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.
Table 13. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
Program
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
S.
Appalachian Regional Commission
65.5
65.5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
664.9
701.7
(Revenues)
(536.8)
(567.1)
Net NRC
128.1
134.6
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
20.1
22.0
Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board
3.2
3.6
TVA Inspector General a
—
—
Denali Commission
66.5
2.6
Delta Regional Authority
6.0
6.0
Total
289.3
234.3
Source: President’s budget request for FY2006.
a. TVA Inspector General would receive $9 million from TVA revenues under the Administration’s budget.
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is requesting a total budget of $701.7 million for FY2006, including $8.3
million for the NRC inspector general’s office. The request is about 4.8% above the
FY2005 funding level. Major activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation
and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste facilities,
and oversight of nuclear materials users.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United
States, NRC has focused additional attention on the security of nuclear power plants
and other users of radioactive material. NRC’s FY2006 budget request includes
$61.0 million for activities related to homeland security, a 2% increase over FY2005.
NRC oversees force-on-force security exercises at nuclear plants and is requiring
revised security plans to reflect increased baseline threats. (For more information on
protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power
Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by Carl E. Behrens.)

---

CRS-34
To begin reviewing an anticipated DOE license application for a national
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, NRC is requesting $69.1
million — a slight increase over FY2005 but more than double the FY2004 level.
The budget request also includes safety testing of full-scale casks for transporting
nuclear waste by rail and by truck.
Under the FY2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-377), 90% of the NRC budget is to be offset by fees on licensees. Because $69.1
million in FY2006 is to be appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for
waste repository licensing and another $2 million would be used for DOE defense
waste oversight, the 90% fee requirement applies to about $630 million of the
budget, leaving a net appropriation of about $63 million. Including the Nuclear
Waste Fund and defense waste appropriation, NRC’s total FY2006 net appropriations
request is $134.6 million.
Denali Commission. The main difference between the FY2006 request for
Title IV programs and the amount appropriated for FY2005 is a sharp reduction in
funding for the Denali Commission, a regional economic development agency
established in 1998. The Administration’s proposed reduction is typical. FY2004
funding for the commission was $54.7 million; for FY2005 the Administration
requested $2.5 million, and the House bill, H.R. 4614 (108th Congress) did not fund
it at all, but the omnibus appropriations act, P.L. 108-447, appropriated $66.5
million.

---

CRS-35
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB10041. Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity
Production Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Issue Brief IB92059. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.
CRS Issue Brief IB10091. Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues, by Carl Behrens.
CRS Issue Brief IB10120. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues
for Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Issue Brief IB88090. Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt and Carl Behrens.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20569. Water Resource Issues in the 109th Congress, by Betsy A.
Cody and H. Steven Hughes.
CRS Report RS20866. The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers:
A Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL30478. Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs, by the Resources, Science and Industry Division.
CRS Report RL32189. Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and
Water Use Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced
Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia.

---

CRS-36
CRS Report RL32347, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan,
FY2005-FY2009, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL31993, Nuclear Warhead ‘Pit’ Production: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32163, Radioactive Waste Streams: An Overview of Waste
Classification for Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.
CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by
Carl E. Behrens.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts, by Anthony
Andrews.
CRS Report RS22080. Power Marketing Administrations: Offsetting Collections in
the President’s FY2006 Budget Proposal, by Kyna Powers.

---