Energy and Water Development:
FY2012 Appropriations
Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
August 16, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41908
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects
of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation,
the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies.
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
February 2011, but the Congress was concerned for the first months of the year with completing
the appropriations cycle for FY2011. As with other funding bills, the FY2011 Energy and Water
Development bill was not taken to the floor in either the House or the Senate in the 111th
Congress. Funding for its programs was included in a series of continuing resolutions, and at the
beginning of the 112th Congress was part of a major debate over overall spending levels. Energy
and Water Development programs were included in the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) that became law April 15, 2011.
For FY2012 the level of overall spending is expected to be a major issue. In addition, issues
specific to Energy and Water Development programs may include the following:
• the status of additional emergency supplemental funding for the Corps for flood-
related expenditures in the Midwest and elsewhere;
• the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II)
projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above
Administration requests;
• support for ecosystem restoration and efforts to mitigate the impacts of water
resource projects, including funding for the Everglades (Title I) and for the
Central Valley Project and San Joaquin River Settlement (Title II);
• alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste
Disposal);
• large differences in funding proposals for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) programs (Title III); and
• funding decisions in DOE’s Office of Environmental Management.
On June 2, 2011, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
approved a FY2012 bill that would appropriate $30.6 billion for these programs, compared to the
Administration’s request of $36.5 billion. The full Appropriations Committee voted out the bill
(H.R. 2354) June 15. The bill passed the House July 15 by a vote of 219-196.
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Status................................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers..................................................................................................... 2
An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects.................................................................... 3
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers.................................................................................... 4
Emergency Supplemental Funding (Title V)....................................................................... 4
New Starts and Authorized Project Backlog ....................................................................... 5
Trust Funds.......................................................................................................................... 5
Asian Carp........................................................................................................................... 7
Everglades ........................................................................................................................... 7
Reductions: Continuing Authorities Programs and Low-Use Navigation........................... 8
Title II: Department of the Interior .................................................................................................. 8
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation...................................................................... 8
Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation............................................................................ 10
Background ....................................................................................................................... 10
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations.......................................................................... 10
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund................................................................................. 11
WaterSMART Program ..................................................................................................... 11
Title III: Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 12
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy............................................................................. 14
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) .......................................................... 14
Nuclear Energy.................................................................................................................. 22
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration ............................................. 26
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 27
Science .............................................................................................................................. 29
ARPA-E............................................................................................................................. 30
Nuclear Waste Disposal..................................................................................................... 31
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 32
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship .......................................................................... 36
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs............................................................ 46
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research Facilities............................................................................................. 47
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 56
Title IV: Independent Agencies...................................................................................................... 57
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies ............................................................................. 57
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................... 57
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2012.................................. 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2011............................... 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ............................................... 2
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army 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 Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 15
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D) ....................................... 27
Table 10. Science ........................................................................................................................... 30
Table 11. Funding for Weapons Activities ..................................................................................... 36
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program ............................................................. 37
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........................................................ 46
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management ...................................... 50
Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies......... 57
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 58
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 59
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
February 2011, but Congress was concerned for the first months of the year with completing the
appropriations cycle for FY2011. A continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year, P.L. 112-
10, was signed by the President April 15, 2011.
On June 2, 2011, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
approved a bill that would appropriate $30.639 billion for these programs, compared to the
$36.539 million in the President’s request. The full House Appropriations Committee voted the
bill out June 15 (H.R. 2354). After considering numerous amendments and adopting 32 of them,
the House passed the bill July 15 by a vote of 219-196.
Status
Table 1 indicates the current status of the FY2012 funding legislation. Cells will be filled in as
the appropriations cycle progresses.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2012
Subcommittee
Markup
Final Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/2/11
H.Rept.
7/15/11
112-118
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP)
and Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent
agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC).
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2005 to FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2011
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012a
30.2 36.7b 29.4 30.9 40.5c 33.4 32.7 36.5
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a. Requested budget authority.
b. Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
c. Includes $7.5 billion for Vehicles Manufacturers Loans.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles. It also lists the total of several scorekeeping
adjustments
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
Title
Approp.
Request House
Senate
Title I: Corps of Engineers
$4,857.2
$4,573.0
$4,762.8
Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1,094.5
1,051.4
934.0
Title III: Department of Energy
25,591.2
30,683.8
24,732.0
Title IV: Independent Agencies
247.0
267.6
276.6
E&W Subtotal
31,790.0
36,575.8
30,705.4
Scorekeeping Adjustments
-107.9
-36.0
-71.0
E&W Total
31,682.0
36,539.8
30,634.4
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as amended.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Tables 4 through 15 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
FY2010-FY2011. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the
major programs in the four titles. For the Department of Energy, P.L. 112-10 did not spell out
detailed funding for many subprograms for FY2011. However, the House report for the FY2012
bill, H.R. 2354, did give funding levels for FY2011, and that report is the source for the detailed
discussion of programs in Title III.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding for the civil program of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, an agency in the Department of Defense with both military and civilian
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a
wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts congressional attention because its
projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and environmental effects, in
addition to their water resource development purposes.
A number of recent changes have may affected Corps appropriations, including earmark
moratoriums in both houses in the 112th Congress, reductions in funding from previous years, and
the drawdown of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and other
supplemental funding. Additionally, flooding events in the spring and summer of 2011 on the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers and in other areas may strain the financial resources of the Corps.
Given this combination of events, the FY2012 budget for the Corps is likely to receive more
attention than in some prior years.
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is below the
agency’s final appropriation.1 Enacted appropriations for FY2011 continued this trend. In contrast
to the reductions enacted for most other agencies, the Corps received an increase in total funding
compared to the President’s request. Before accounting for rescissions of prior year funds, the
FY2011 appropriation for the Corps was $5.055 billion, or $174 million more than the President’s
request.2
The FY2012 President’s request again proposed reductions from the amount enacted by Congress
in the previous fiscal year. The President’s budget requested $4.573 billion for the Corps, a
significant decrease from the FY2011 enacted level. The House-passed bill included $4.762
billion for the Corps, an increase of $189 million from the President’s Budget. The House also
recommended an additional $1.029 billion in emergency supplemental funding for flood fighting
activities.
An Agency Budget Composed Mainly of Projects
Corps funding is often a part of the debate on congressionally directed spending, or “earmarks.”
Unlike highways and municipal water infrastructure programs, federal funds for the Corps are not
distributed to states or projects based on a formula or delivered via a competitive program.
Generally about 85% of the appropriations for the Corps’ civil works activities are directed to
specific projects. Many of these projects are identified in the budget request, and others are added
during congressional consideration of the agency’s appropriations. In the past, site-specific Corps
project line items added by Congress have been subject to House and Senate chamber rules on
earmark disclosure.3 Earmark moratoriums in the in the 112th Congress may impact Congress’s
ability to direct funds toward specific projects. Absent specific direction from Congress, the
Executive Branch may determine project-level allocations internally.
1 For instance, in FY2010, the Administration requested $5.1 billion and Congress appropriated $5.44 billion.
2 As shown in Table 4, FY2011 included $198 million in rescissions of prior year appropriations in the Construction
and MR&T accounts.
3 While earmarks make up a relatively small percentage of most agency budgets, a significant number of Corps projects
have historically received additional funding from Congress for operational expenditures.
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Investigations and
160.0 126.7 104.0 104.0
Planning
Construction 2,031.0
1,613.8
1,480.0
1,614.1
Rescission
-
-176.0
-
-50.0
Mississippi River &
340.0 241.9 210.0 210.0
Tributaries (MR&T)
Rescission
- -22.0 -58.0
-
Operation and
2,400.0 2,365.8 2,314.0 2,369.0
Maintenance (O&M)
Regulatory 190.0
189.6
196.0
196.0
General Expenses
185.0
184.6
185.0
178.6
FUSRAPa 134.0
129.7
109.0
109.0
Flood Control & Coastal
- 0.0
27.0 27.0
Emergencies (FC&CE)
Office of the Asst.
Secretary of the Army
5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0
Total Title I
5,445.0
4,857.2
4,573.0
4,762.7c
1,028.7Error!
Reference
- - -
source not
Emergency Supplemental
found.
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118 and H.R. 2354, as passed by the House.
Notes: Annual totals (including FY2011) include rescissions of prior year funds.
a. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
b. The committee included emergency supplemental funding in the fol owing accounts: Construction
($376,000); O&M ($204.9 million); FC&CE ($233.8 million); MR&T ($589.5 million).
c. Does not include Emergency Supplemental funding available for obligation.
d. For FY2012, the House included emergency supplemental funding for the Corps under a separate title (Title
V) in the following accounts: Construction ($376,000); O&M ($204.9 million); FC&CE ($233.8 million); and
MR&T ($589.5 million). These funds were made available through a transfer of Department of
Transportation funds for high speed rail projects that was original y provided under Title XII of P.L. 111-5.
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers
Emergency Supplemental Funding (Title V)
In the spring and summer of 2011, major flooding events on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
and their tributaries has resulted in increased Corps flood-fighting activities and expenditures. To
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
date, the Corps has paid for these activities through the transfer of funds from existing FY2011
projects. However, new flood-fighting activities, including repair of damaged flood control
infrastructure (i.e., levees), are likely to result in more expenditures and increased financial stress
on the Corps. Without additional appropriations from Congress, the Corps would fund these
activities with additional transfers from ongoing projects.
In its mark-up of FY2012 Appropriations, the House Appropriations Committee recommended
$1.029 billion in emergency supplemental funding to the Corps for flood fighting activities.4 This
funding was in addition to the regular Corps appropriation under Title II. The House-passed bill
included the Committee’s recommended funding, which was provided as a transfer of high speed
rail funding previously made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.
111-5).
New Starts and Authorized Project Backlog
Funding for “new starts” (i.e., projects that have been authorized but not funded) receives
attention from Congress because of the large number of authorized Corps projects that have not
received appropriations to date (sometimes referred to as the “backlog” of authorized projects).
Estimates of the backlog vary from $11 billion to more than $80 billion, depending on which
projects are included (e.g., those that meet Administration budget criteria, those that have
received funding in recent appropriations, those that have never received appropriations). The
backlog raises policy questions, such as whether there is a disconnect between the authorization
and appropriations processes, and how to prioritize among authorized activities.5
The Administration’s FY2012 budget requested limited funding for new construction and
investigation starts. That is, the majority of projects included in the Corps FY2012 request were
ongoing projects. For FY2012, the Administration requested $11 million in funding for two new
construction starts, and $550,000 in funding for four new studies. The House provided no funding
for new starts.6
Trust Funds
In addition to regular appropriations, two congressionally authorized “trust funds” are
administered by the Corps and require annual appropriations: the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Both trust funds are likely to receive attention in the
FY2012 appropriations process. While the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has a surplus balance,
the Inland Waterway Trust Fund currently faces a shortfall and potential curtailments to activities.
4 Funding was provided under Title V of H.R. 2354.
5 For more information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization
and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
6 The House Appropriations Committee noted that it defines “new starts” differently than the Administration. While the
Administration seems to define this term as any project which was not included in a previous President’s budget
request, the committee defines it as any project which has not previously received funding in enacted appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to recover operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs at U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors from maritime shippers. O&M
is mostly the dredging of harbor channels to their authorized depths and widths. The tax is levied
on importers and domestic shippers using coastal or Great Lakes ports.7 The tax revenues are
deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from which Congress appropriates
funds for harbor dredging.
In 1990, Congress increased the HMT rate from four cents per $100 of cargo value to 12.5 cents
per $100 of cargo value, one of many tax increases in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(P.L. 101-508) designed to lower the federal deficit at that time. In recent years, HMTF annual
expenditures have remained relatively flat while HMT collections have increased due to rising
import volume (except in 2009 when collections declined along with import volume).
Consequently, a large “surplus” in the HMTF has developed. The maritime industry seeks to
enact a “spending guarantee” to spend down the surplus in the HMTF. Some harbor channels are
reportedly not being maintained at their authorized depth and width, requiring ships with the
deepest drafts to “light load” or wait for high tide. Harbors primarily used by fishing vessels or
recreational craft have also complained of insufficient maintenance dredging. Since spending
from the HMTF requires an appropriation from Congress, spending more from the HMTF could
reduce available funding for other Energy and Water Development activities under congressional
budget caps.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request states that the Administration will propose
legislation to expand the authorized use of the HMTF to cover the cost of other federal activities
that support commercial navigation in ports. The budget requests $789 million from the HMTF,
leaving an estimated-end-of-FY2012 balance of $6,928 million.8 (For more information on harbor
maintenance, see CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by John
Frittelli.)
Inland Waterway Trust Fund
Since the 1980s, expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation projects on inland
waterways have been cost-shared on a 50/50 basis between the federal government and users
through the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF). IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax imposed
on vessels engaged in commercial transportation on designated waterways, plus investment
interest on the balance.9 The IWTF currently has a balance of less than $100 million, and needed
funding for eligible work exceeds available funding.
In FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations, as well as the ARRA (P.L. 111-5), Congress provided
additional federal funding compared to previous years for new projects and to temporarily ensure
solvency of the IWTF.10 Due to the drawdown of this funding and the lack of new or increased
7 An estimate by the Corps is that improved collection from domestic shippers could increase annual receipts by $500
million.
8 The Administration estimates FY2012 HMT collections to total $1,514 million.
9 Pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), the fuel tax has been fixed at $0.20 per
gallon since 1992.
10 Pursuant to language in these bills, some inland waterway projects have been paid for using IWTF funds, while
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
revenues, FY2011 appropriations for inland waterway projects were limited to amounts available
with expected current-year fuel tax revenues. In FY2012, the Administration once again requested
that appropriations for inland waterway projects be limited to current-year fuel tax revenues.11
Without a new source of revenue or some other change directed by Congress, the overall number
of inland waterway projects is expected to be limited in FY2012.12 Previously the Administration
submitted a legislative proposal to replace the current fuel tax with a lock user fee that would
have increased user-generated revenues. This proposal was widely criticized by Congress and not
enacted. More recently, in 2010 user groups proposed changes that would result in an overall
increase for inland waterway funding, including an increase to the federal share of inland
waterway projects. Congress has not acted on this proposal. (For more information on inland
waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues For
Congress, by Charles V. Stern.)
Asian Carp
In recent years, the Corps has taken on a prominent role in efforts to prevent the Asian carp from
encroaching on the Great Lakes through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC). Along
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Corps is a lead agency in Asian carp monitoring and prevention efforts.
The President’s FY2012 included $27 million in funding for the Corps to combat Asian carp, an
increase of approximately $4 million over the enacted level for FY2011. This amount includes
$24 million to construct and operate two electronic barriers on the CSSC and $3 million for a
major study (known as the GLMRIS study) evaluating the long-term options for permanent
separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River drainage basins. Under the current timeline,
the remaining cost for the study after FY2012 would be $17.8 million, and the first part of this
study is expected to be complete by FY2015. Some groups contend that this is not fast enough,
and that the Corps should further expedite the study, which would require additional funding. (For
more information on Asian Carp prevention efforts, see CRS Report R41082, Asian Carp and the
Great Lakes Region, by Eugene H. Buck et al.)
Everglades
The Energy and Water bill typically includes funding for restoration of the Everglades in South
Florida, including the Corps component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program,
or CERP.13 In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water Development
(...continued)
others were paid for using general revenue funds until they could be brought to a logical stopping point. The effect of
these provisions and the additional federal funding under ARRA has been to generally slow down the drop in IWTF
balances.
11 Assuming annual fuel tax revenues of approximately $80 million, overall spending on inland waterways construction
for FY2011 and FY2012 would be approximately $160 million for each year (or approximately $90 million less than
the average funding provided from FY1992-2010).
12 According to the Corps, the only project scheduled to receive construction funds through FY2015 under the current
baseline is Olmstead Lock & Dam on the Ohio River.
13 For more information, see CRS Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, coordinated
by Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are also funded through Department of the
Interior appropriations bills. As a result of recent reductions in state funding levels for Everglades
restoration, federal funding for Everglades restoration may receive additional scrutiny in coming
years.
The FY2012 Obama Administration request for the Corps’ component of south Florida
Everglades restoration work was $163 million. The House-passed bill reduced funding for the
Corps component of Everglades restoration by $32 million. In its report, the Committee noted
that while it supports funding for Everglades restoration, it did not believe the requested funding
was equitable compared to the larger Corps budget.
Reductions: Continuing Authorities Programs and Low-Use Navigation
Projects funded under the Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs) are typically smaller
projects that can be carried out without obtaining a project-specific study or construction
authorization or project-specific appropriations.14 CAPs are typically referred to by the section
number in the bill where the CAP was first authorized. The Administration’s FY2012 budget
requested no funding for four of the nine CAPs, including Section 14 (emergency streambank and
shoreline protection), Section 103 (shore protection), Section 107 (navigation), and Section 208
(snagging and clearing for flood control). Additionally, the Administration proposed to reprogram
$23 million in prior-year carry over from these same four programs to fund four of the remaining
five CAPs that are to be continued. The House-passed bill agreed to these reductions.
The Administration’s FY2012 request also included reductions of $76 million (45%) for
operations and maintenance of navigation projects with relatively low commercial usage.
Combined with the aforementioned reductions for inland waterway construction, the
Administration proposed significantly less funding for inland waterway projects in FY2012 than
these projects received in prior years. The House-passed bill included an addition of $123 million
for the O&M account for “additional” unspecified navigation projects.
Title II: Department of the Interior
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for the Central Utah Project (CUP) and
the Bureau of Reclamation, both part of the Department of the Interior. The total discretionary
budget request for Title II funding for the Central Utah Project and Reclamation is approximately
$1.049 billion, or a decrease of $45 million from the FY2011 enacted amount. The Obama
Administration requested $33 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account in
FY2012, or $1 million more than the amount appropriated under the long-term continuing
resolution for FY2011 and $9 million less than the 2010 enacted level. The FY2012 request for
the Bureau of Reclamation totaled $1.018 billion in gross current budget authority. This amount
was $44 million less than the enacted amount for FY2011. The FY2012 request for the Bureau of
14 A summary of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program is provided on p. 11 of CRS Report R41243, Army
Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V.
Stern.
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Reclamation included an “offset” of $52.8 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund (Congress does not list this line item as an offset), yielding a “net” discretionary
authority of $965.6 million. As in previous years, additional funding is estimated to be available
for FY2012 via “permanent and other” funds.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp. Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Central Utah Water
$38.8 n/a
$29.4
$25.2
Conservancy District
Mitigation and Conservation
1.5 n/a 2.0 2.0
Commission Activities
DOI Oversight and
1.7 n/a 1.6 1.6
Administration
DOI Fish and Wildlife
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Conservation Projects
Total, Central Utah
42.0 32.0 32.9 28.7
Project
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House Senate
Water and Related Resources
$951.2
$911.7
$805.2
$822.3
Policy and Administration
61.2
61.1
60.0
60.0
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)
35.4
49.9
53.1
53.1
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
40.0
39.9
39.7
35.9
San Joaquin Restoration Fund
—
—
9.0
-66.0
Indian Water Rights Settlement
—
—
51.5
—
Gross Current Reclamation
1,087.0 1,062.6 1,018.4 905.3
Authority
Total, Title II (CUP and
1,129.7 1,094.5 1,051.4 934.0
Reclamation)
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118.
Notes: Consistent with prior enacted appropriations, the House provided funding for the proposed Indian
Water Rights Settlement account within the Water and Related Resources account.
Reclamation’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
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Management and Development, among others. The Obama Administration requested $805.2
million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2012, a reduction from FY2011 of
$106.5 million or approximately 12%. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $822
million for this account.
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. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds
of flood control and navigation projects, Reclamation’s mission was to develop water supplies,
primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, Reclamation manages hundreds
of dams and diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states.
These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and a population of
31 million. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the
second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation facilities also provide
substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations
of Reclamation facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife
species and conflicts among competing water users.
As with the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation budget is made up largely of individual project
funding and relatively few “programs.” Also similar to the Corps, previously Reclamation
projects have often been subject to earmark disclosure rules. Thus the current moratorium may
have a different effect on the Reclamation budgetary process compared to agencies that receive
most of their funds through programs.
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations
The CVP in California is one of Reclamation’s largest and most complex water projects.
Recently, Reclamation has had to limit water deliveries and pumping from CVP facilities due to
drought and other factors, including environmental restrictions. In previous appropriations bills,
this action has resulted in attempts to prevent Reclamation from implementing Biological
Opinions (BiOps) which in some cases restrict CVP operations because of the project’s potential
effects on certain fish species.15 For example, in FY2011 appropriations, the House included a
provision prohibiting the use of any federal funds to implement the primary components of these
BiOps.16 A similar amendment was previously proposed during FY2010 appropriations.
15 The two BiOps in question have found that continued operation of the projects under a plan developed and
implemented in 2004 (Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP)) would jeopardize the existence of both Delta Smelt and
salmon and other endangered species in California. OCAP allowed increased pumping from the Delta, which some
believe has further imperiled fish species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Others
note that factors such as invasive species, pollution, and non-federal withdrawals of water from the Delta have
contributed to fishery declines. Critically low numbers of Delta Smelt resulted in a court-imposed limit on pumping at
certain times. In the meantime, low water deliveries to certain water districts (e.g., those with junior water rights) are
reportedly exacerbating unemployment in an area with an economy already challenged by other stressors.
16 112th Congress, H.R. 1.
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Neither the FY2010 nor the FY2011 provisions preventing implementation of BiOps in the CVP
were enacted. However, other measures have been passed so as to lessen the impact of these
restrictions. For instance, the FY2010 enacted bill included an amendment providing for a two-
year authorization of water transfers among certain CVP contractors without meeting particular
conditions established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of P.L. 102-575).
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
The San Joaquin River Restoration Fund was authorized by the enactment of Title X of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act. The Fund is to be used to implement fisheries restoration and water management
provisions of a stipulated settlement agreement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
v. Rodgers lawsuit.17 The Fund is supported through the combination of a reallocation of
approximately $5.6 million annually in Central Valley Project Restoration Fund receipts from the
Friant Division water users and accelerated payment of Friant water users’ capital repayment
obligations, as well as other federal and non-federal sources. Significant actions planned for
FY2012 include release of interim flows and continued planning and environmental compliance
for initial channel and structural improvements.
Funding for the San Joaquin River settlement has been controversial in the past. In FY2011
appropriations, the House-passed continuing resolution (H.R. 1) included a requirement that no
funding be available for implementation of some of the most important components of the
settlement agreement. This provision was not enacted. Recently legislation (H.R. 1837) was
introduced that would repeal some portions of the settlement.
For FY2012, Reclamation proposed an allocation of $9 million in discretionary funds for the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund for FY2011, as well as $24 million in other receipts into the fund
that are available for expenditure without further appropriation. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended eliminating the requested funding for FY2012, and also proposed
permanently rescinding unobligated mandatory funds within this account, for a net savings of $66
million.
WaterSMART Program
In recent years Reclamation has combined funding for several individual “bureau-wide”
programs into a single program—the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources
for Tomorrow) Program. The program is part of an effort by the Department of the Interior to
focus on water conservation, re-use, and planning, and also includes work by the U.S. Geological
Survey. In the FY2012 request the WaterSMART program included four individual components:
WaterSMART Grants (formerly known as Challenge Grants), Basin Studies, Title XVI Projects,
and Water Conservation Field Services.18 Reclamation proposed $59 million, a net decrease of
17 Construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s and subsequent diversion of San Joaquin River water to off-stream
agricultural uses blocked salmon migration and dewatered stretches of the San Joaquin, resulting in elimination of
spring-run Chinook into the upper reaches of the river. One goal of the settlement is to bring back the salmon run;
another is to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term contractors. For more
information on the settlement agreement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report R40125, Title X
of H.R. 146: San Joaquin River Restoration, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
18 Prior to FY2012, the Water Conservation Field Services program has been a “bureau-wide” program. For
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
approximately $10 million from the corresponding enacted levels for these programs in FY2011.
For individual program components of WaterSMART, Reclamation’s FY2012 request included
$18.5 million for WaterSMART/Challenge Grants (a decrease of $14.5 million from FY2011), $6
million for Basin Studies (same level as FY2011), $29 million for Title XVI Projects (increase of
$9 million from FY2011), and $5 million for Water Conservation Field Services (decrease of $2.7
million). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $38 million for WaterSMART
programs.
Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE’s programs since FY2005. 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, and the bill now includes programs for fossil fuels, energy
efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and energy statistics, which formerly had been
included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
The FY2011 appropriations act, P.L. 112-10, funded DOE programs at $25.6 billion. For FY2012,
the Obama Administration requested $30.7 billion for DOE programs. The House bill, H.R. 2354,
would fund DOE at $24.7 billion.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
$1,795.6 $3,200.1 $1,314.6
Energy
Electricity Delivery and Energy
141.0 237.7 139.5
Reliability
Nuclear Energy
725.8
754.0
727.6
Fossil Energy R&D
444.5
453.0
477.0
Clean Coal Technology
-16.5
––
––
Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves
20.9
14.9
14.9
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
123.1
121.7
192.7
SPR Account
––
-250.0
-500.0
Northeast Home Heating Oil
11.0 10.1 10.1
Reserve
Northeast Home Heating Oil
–– -100.0 -100.0
Reserve Sale
(...continued)
consistency, comparisons to prior year funding in this report include this program within WaterSMART totals.
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Energy Information Administration
95.0
124.0
105.0
Non-Defense Environmental
223.5 219.1 254.1
Cleanup
Uranium D&D Fund
497.1
504.2
449.0
Science
4,842.7
5,416.1
4,800.0
Energy Transformation Acceleration
179.6 550.0 179.6
Fund (ARPA-E)
Nuclear Waste Disposal
-2.8
0.0
25.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
48.7
128.7
-38.5
Office of Inspector General
42.8
41.8
41.8
Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan
10.0
6.0
6.0
Innovative Tech. Loan Guarantee
-0.3
1,060.0
160.0
Better Building Loan Guarantee for
–– 105.0 0.0
Universities, Schools and Hospitals
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
9,181.7 12,596.4 8,258.3
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
Weapons Activities
6,896.4
7,589.4
7,091.7
Nuclear Nonproliferation
2,273.7
2,519.5
2,091.8
Naval Reactors
959.2
1,153.7
1,030.6
Office of Administrator
393.3
450.1
400.0
Total, NNSA
10,522.5 11,712.6 10,599.0
Defense Environmental Cleanup
4,979.7
5,406.8
4,937.6
Other Defense Activities
785.0
860.0
814.0
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL, DEFENSE
16,287.3 17,979.3 16,365.7
ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)
Southeastern 0.0
0.0
0.0
Southwestern 13.1
11.9
11.9
Western 109.0
96.0
96.0
Falcon & Amistad O&M
0.2
0.2
0.2
TOTAL, PMAs
122.2 108.1 108.1
Total, Title III
25,591.2 30,683.8 24,740.7
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as passed.
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the
following pages, some of the most important programs are described and major issues are
identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
In President Obama’s February 2011 State of the Union address, he continued to stress his priority
for energy efficiency and clean energy:
This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a
level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a
few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest
in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology—an
investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs
for our people.
In that speech, the President also proposed the establishment of a Clean Energy Standard as a
complementary demand-side policy to stimulate a stable market for the supply of new clean
energy technologies.19 The President’s 2012 Economic Report further stresses the importance of
clean energy innovation and development to new industries, exports, and international
competitiveness.
FY2012 Request Overview and Comparison with FY2011 Appropriation
For FY2012, DOE requested $3,200.1 million for the EERE programs. Compared with the
FY2010 appropriation, the FY2012 request would increase EERE funding by $957.6 million, or
42.7%. However, the final FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) reduced EERE funding by
$416.9 million (18.6%) relative to the FY2010 appropriation. So, compared with the FY2011
appropriation, the FY2012 request would increase EERE funding by $1,374.5 million, or 75.3%.
That dollar amount is the largest single year increase ever requested for EERE. Given the FY2011
reduction, and the current concerns about the budget deficit, there may be intense debate over the
FY2012 request for EERE. The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2354, signaled the
beginning of that debate by recommending EERE funding at $1.305 billion (see below).
DOE requested an additional $237.7 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(EDER) programs. Relative to the FY2010 appropriation, that would be an increase of $65.7
million, or 38.2%. However, P.L. 112-10 set the FY2011 appropriation at $144.7 million.
Compared with the FY2011 appropriation, the FY2012 request would be an increase of $93.0
million, or 64.2%. Such a large increase may also be controversial. Table 8 gives the
programmatic breakdown of the regular appropriations for EERE and EDER.
19 For more about the Clean Energy Standard, see CRS Report R41720, Clean Energy Standard: Design Elements,
State Baseline Compliance and Policy Considerations, by Phillip Brown, and CRS Report R41797, Clean Energy
Standard: Potential Qualifying Energy Sources, coordinated by Kelsi Bracmort.
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Request House Senate
Hydrogen/Fuel Cel Technologies
$174.0
$98.0
$100.5
$91.5
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
220.0
182.7
340.5
150.0
Solar
Energy
247.0 263.5 457.0 166.1
—Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
49.7
—-
50.0
—-
—Photovoltaic (PV) Power
128.5
—-
380.0
—-
Wind
Energy
80.0 80.0 126.9 76.0
Geothermal
Technology
44.0 38.0 101.5 38.0
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
50.0
30.0
38.5
50.0
Subtotal, Renew. and Hydrogen
815.0 692.2
1,164.8 571.6
Vehicle
Technologies
311.4 300.0 588.0 254.0
Building
Technologies
222.0 210.5 470.7 150.0
Industrial
Technologies
96.0 108.2 319.8 96.0
Federal
Energy
Management
32.0 30.4 33.1 30.0
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
661.4 649.1
1,411.6 530.0
Facilities
and
Infrastructure
19.0 51.0 26.4 26.4
Program
Management
185.0 170.0 176.6 110.0
Strategic
Programs
—- 32.0 53.2 25.0
R&D Subtotal
1,680.4 1,594.3 2,832.6 1,263.0
Renewables
Deployment
10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Appliance
Rebates
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Adv.
Battery
Manufacturing
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Transportation
Electrification
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alternative
Fueled
Vehicles
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal, Demon. And
10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Deployment
Weatherization
Grants
210.0 174.3 320.0 33.0
State
Energy
Grants
50.0 50.0 63.8 25.0
Efficiency
Block
Grants
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-specific
EERE
RDD&D
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cong.-Directed
Assistance
292.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rescission
—
-30.0 — —
Prior Year Balances
0.0
0.0
-26.4
-26.4
Total Appropriation
2,242.5 1,795.6 3,200.1 1,304.6a
Office of Electricity Delivery and
172.0
141.0
237.7
139.5
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Request House Senate
Energy Reliability (OE)
Sources: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118.
a. House floor amendments increased EERE funding by $10 million.
Primarily to address major new initiatives, the FY2012 request proposed a large increase relative
to the FY2011 appropriation level for each of five program areas. In declining order of funding
amount, the largest program increases would go to Vehicles ($288.0 million), Buildings ($260.2
million), Industry ($211.5 million), Solar Energy ($193.5 million), and Biomass ($157.8 million).
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $1,304.6 million for EERE, which is
$1,895.4 million (59.2%) less than the FY2012 request. Compared with the request, the
Committee recommended major cuts for nearly all program areas. It proposed the largest cuts for
the five programs that would be home to key DOE initiatives, as noted above: Vehicles (-$334.0
million), Buildings (-$320.7 million), Industry (-$223.8 million), Solar Energy (-$290.9 million),
and Biomass (-$190.5 million).The Committee recommended an increase for only one program—
Water Power (+$11.5 million).
Relative to the FY2011 appropriation, the Committee recommended a cut of $491.0 million
(27.3%). This total EERE cut, and cuts for key programs, are much smaller than the cuts
measured relative to the request, but are still significant. Cuts for the five program areas with key
DOE initiatives are: Vehicles (-$46.0 million), Buildings (-$60.5 million), Industry (-$12.2
million), Solar Energy (-$97.4 million), and Biomass (-$32.7 million).
House Appropriations Committee Concerns, Directives, and Funding
Recommendations
For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee report identified “major concerns” about
DOE’s “strategic direction,” putting a special focus on EERE programs. Acknowledging that the
nation “faces an unprecedented global race to lead tomorrow’s energy sector,” the Committee
nevertheless finds that DOE requests “billions of dollars in additional ‘clean energy’ research and
development, [but] it provides little justification for these increases.” The Committee states that it
will apply strong oversight to ensure good DOE stewardship of public funds and thereby assure
“America’s innovation leadership.”
The Committee found that DOE does not adequately follow congressional funding directions,
specifically:
The Committee is concerned that the Department engages in practices that contravene
congressional direction for these [annual] funding levels by regularly redirecting a
percentage of program budgets to other purposes ...The Department also frequently funds
Presidential, Secretarial, and senior management initiatives by redirecting funds away from
purposes directed by the Congress ...The Committee is concerned with the Department’s lack
of transparency and respect for congressional direction, and the recommendation includes
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
language within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, where the problem
may be the most pervasive, requiring reporting on these practices within that account.20
The key DOE-proposed initiatives—and the related funding proposals from DOE and the House
Appropriations Committee report—are described below.
Solar PV “Sunshot” Initiative
The Sunshot Initiative is the largest new power initiative proposed in the FY2012 request. The
initiative aims to reduce utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) cost 75% by 2020, reaching grid parity at
a capacity cost target of $1,000 per kilowatt (kw) or at an electric power cost target of six cents
per kilowatt-hour (kwh). The Initiative would support the Administration’s proposed Clean
Energy Standard (CES) by aiming to install 375 gigawatts (gw) of PV power plant capacity by
2030, which would meet about 13% of estimated power demand.
EERE would conduct the Sunshot Initiative in collaboration with DOE’s Office of Science and
with DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The initiative would focus
on improving technology and reducing costs for power electronics controls, building integrated
photovoltaics (BIPV), and balance of system equipment. The request states that the ultimate goal
is to regain world leadership in PV manufacturing and, thereby, grow jobs.
DOE requested an increase of $213.6 million above the FY2010 appropriation for the Solar
Energy Program. The proposed Sunshot Initiative would account for most of the requested $210.8
million increase (above the FY2010 appropriation) in funding for the Photovoltaic R&D
subprogram and all of the requested $20.3 million increase (above the FY2010 appropriation) for
the Systems Integration subprogram.
For the entire Solar Energy Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $193.5 million increase above
the FY2011 appropriation.
The House Appropriations Committee report makes no specific statement of support for the
Sunshot Initiative, which was identified with the bulk of the DOE requested increase for Solar
Programs. For the entire Solar Energy Program, the Committee report recommended a $290.9
million cut below the request ($97.4 million cut below the FY2011 appropriation).
Biomass and Biorefinery Program Initiatives
Under this program, the main subprogram initiative in the FY2012 request was the Cellulosic
Biofuels Reverse Auction. The auction would employ a competitive bidding process for the
lowest cost to produce cellulosic biofuels with an innovative “pioneer” or “first-of-its-kind”
facility. The goal is to lower the cost per gallon to produce cellulosic biofuels, while providing an
investment financing incentive in the form of a guaranteed cash flow. DOE requested $150
million for this production cost subsidy.
DOE requested $25 million for a new Integrated Biorefineries subprogram. These facilities would
convert biomass feedstock to advanced biofuels, biopower (process heat and power), and/or
20 H.Rept. 112-118. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2012. p. 74.
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
bioproducts (chemicals). The funding would continue, and build upon, cost-shared projects begun
with industry partners through support provided by the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). The new phase
in FY2012 would focus on scale-up and replication of biorefineries.
DOE also requested $22.5 million for a new subprogram of pilot-scale demonstrations of utility-
scale biomass cofiring with coal. Up to 10 megawatts (mw) of new capacity would be developed
by 2015 and an additional 20 mw by 2016. An industry cost share of 20% to 50% would be
required for all new biopower projects.
For the entire Biomass and Biorefinery Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $157.8 million
increase above the FY2011 appropriation.
For the Biomass Program, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a $190.5 million
cut below the FY2012 request ($32.7 million cut below the FY2011 appropriation). The report
finds that the proposed Cellulosic Biofuels Reverse Auction would be ineffective and fiscally
unsustainable and, thus, includes no funds for it. To avoid possible side effects on crop and food
prices, the report directs DOE to conduct work only on biomass technologies “that could not be
otherwise used as food.”
Better Buildings Initiative
DOE requested support for a major new commercial buildings initiative, named the Better
Buildings Initiative. The initiative would aim to stimulate private sector investment to upgrade
offices, stores, schools, municipal buildings, universities, hospitals, and other commercial
buildings. The collective goal would be a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. Tax
incentives and financing support would be offered to private building owners. A new $181.6
million “Race to Green” competitive grant program would be established for state and local
governments to streamline regulations, building codes, and performance standards. The goal
would be to overcome market barriers and accelerate efficiency upgrades to existing buildings.
Also, a Commercial Building Partners subprogram would provide support for new construction
and to establish community extension partnerships.
The existing Innovation Hub for Energy Efficient Building Systems Design would be extended
with a new request for $24.4 million. Also, the request seeks a $35.0 million increase (above the
FY2010 appropriation) to accelerate the scope and effectiveness of equipment efficiency
standards.
For the entire Buildings Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $260.2 million increase above the
FY2011 appropriation.
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended a $320.7 million cut below the
FY2012 request ($60.5 million cut below the FY2011 appropriation). It specifically includes no
funds for the proposed Race to the Green grant program. The report recommended $24.4 million
for the third year of the Energy Efficient Building Systems Design Energy Innovation Hub. DOE
is directed to report to the Committee within 60 days of bill enactment on the current status of the
Hub, including past and future milestones and performance measures.
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Vehicles Program Initiatives
The President announced a goal to put one million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2015.
To help achieve that goal, DOE requested $200.0 million (above the FY2010 appropriation)
under the Outreach subprogram for Vehicle Technology Deployment to support a new
deployment initiative that would make available competitive grants for infrastructure and fleet
conversion. Much of that total would be used to support establishment of EV recharging points.
That activity would be complemented by an $89.4 million increase (above the FY2010
appropriation) for the Batteries and Electric Drive Technology subprogram to support an R&D
initiative that would focus on doubling battery energy density and reducing production cost 70%
by 2014.
For the entire Vehicles Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $288.0 million increase above the
FY2011 appropriation.
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $334.0 million less than the request
for the Vehicles Program ($46.0 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). It would provide
$26.5 million for Vehicle Technology Deployment, specifically prohibiting use of funding to
support EV vehicle charging points. The report finds that federal funding for such charging points
could crowd out businesses that may seek to provide such charging points as a marketable
service. Instead, the report directs DOE to use $3 million of its recommended funding to support
a National Academy of Sciences study of the market barriers affecting the purchase, deployment,
and charging infrastructure for EVs.
Industry Program Initiatives
Under the Industry Program, DOE identified a general goal to double energy productivity and
reduce carbon intensity by 2020. To meet that goal, it requested an increase of about $225.5
million (above the FY2010 appropriation) for new initiatives. Two “Next Generation” initiatives
would be launched: one focused on materials and one focused on manufacturing processes. Those
two initiatives would be complemented by two additional initiatives: one focused on industrial
technical assistance and one focused on new manufacturing energy systems.
An increase of $89.4 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support a Next Generation
Materials subprogram. It would aim to achieve breakthroughs in nanomaterials, new cements,
ceramics, and other materials to reduce energy and carbon intensity while enhancing U.S. clean
energy (green) manufacturing competitiveness. Included in that increase would be $20.0 million
to fund a new Innovation Hub for Critical Materials. The hub would be established through a
competitive process and would focus on recycling and other strategies to reduce dependence on
critical materials.
An increase of $77.4 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support a new Next
Generation Manufacturing Processes subprogram. The subprogram would aim to provide critical
energy and environmental improvements to increase competitiveness and stimulate job growth by
improving the productivity, responsiveness, agility, and adaptability of U.S. factories. There
would be a focus on production systems, innovative bioprocessing techniques, nano-scale
processes, and smart process manufacturing.
A net increase of $44.1 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support new initiatives
under the Industrial Technical Assistance subprogram. The main initiative would be a new $50.0
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
million Energy Efficiency Partnership between DOE and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce. The goal would be to accelerate the
development of advanced technologies that allow existing manufacturing facilities to employ
energy efficient technologies, such as cogeneration and waste heat recovery. An additional
increase of $7.1 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support an Energy Services
Development subprogram, with the goal of conducting free energy audits for small- and medium-
sized manufacturers and conducting market development activities for combined heat and power
equipment and other energy technologies.
A net increase of $15.0 million (above the FY2010 appropriation) would support a new
Manufacturing Energy Systems (MES) subprogram. MES centers would be based at premier U.S.
universities to help catalyze private sector efforts in clean energy. Goals include accelerating the
movement of innovation from laboratory to commercial products and processes, spawning
complementary businesses to facilitate technology adoption, and stimulating competitiveness and
job creation.
For the entire Industry Program for FY2012, DOE requested a $211.5 million increase above the
FY2011 appropriation.
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $223.8 million less than the request
for the Industry Program ($12.2 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). It would provide
$66.8 million less than the request for Next Generation Materials ($34.0 million below the
FY2011 appropriation). From that amount, $20.0 million would go to the proposed Critical
Materials Energy Innovation Hub. The Committee expressed particular interest in work toward
rebuilding/advancing a domestic rare earths supply chain. It directed DOE to report on the Hub’s
organization, milestones, and plans for coordination with ARPA-E. The Committee report found
that the proposed Manufacturing Energy Systems program would be redundant, and
recommended no funding for it.
Other Large Increases Proposed
For the Weatherization Grant Program, DOE requested $320.0 million, an increase of $110.0
million over the FY2010 appropriation ($145.7 million above the FY2011 appropriation). From
that total, $43.3 million would go directly to increasing the number of low-income households
that are weatherized. The remaining $67.0 million of the requested increase would support the
Innovations in Weatherization subprogram. Its goal is to demonstrate new ways to increase the
number of homes weatherized and to lower the federal cost per home. DOE’s main strategy is to
leverage outside funding through partnerships with non-traditional weatherization providers such
as foundations, non-profits, labor unions, churches, private contractors, and large companies. The
House Appropriations Committee report recommends $287.0 million less than the request
($141.3 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The report estimates that the program will
have about $1.5 billion of unspent funding from the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5) available for use
in FY2012.
For the Geothermal Program, DOE requested $101.5 million, an increase of $58.4 million above
the FY2010 appropriation ($63.5 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Four subprograms
would receive the majority of the funding increase. First, Enhanced Geothermal Systems would
get the largest increase, $18.4 million, to expand work on improving reservoir performance and
reducing production costs. Second, a new subprogram, Innovative Exploration Technologies,
would receive $15.0 million to develop exploration tools (e.g. remote sensing, seismic
Congressional Research Service
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
processing) to confirm the availability of hydrothermal resources in the Western states. Third, a
new subprogram, Low Temperature and Coproduced Resources, would get $14.0 million to
support efforts on low temperature geothermal resources, including fluids co-produced from oil
and gas operations that have surface and subsurface infrastructure in place. Fourth, a new
subprogram, Permeable Sedimentary Resources, would be established with $6.0 million focused
on geographic expansion of the potential resource base by improving subsurface characterization
in sedimentary formations and by helping to adapt tools and technologies from the oil and gas
industry. The House Appropriations Committee report recommends $63.5 million less than the
request (just a few thousand dollars less than the FY2011 appropriation). In its report, the
Committee expressed concern that DOE had overcommitted to multi-year (mortgaging) funding
for this program. The report directs DOE to use FY2012 funds only to pay “mortgages” on past
awards, and forbids DOE to announce new funding opportunities until its remaining mortgages
for future years are less than half of the overall program appropriation for FY2012.
For the Wind Program, DOE requested $126.9 million, a net increase of $47.9 million above the
FY2010 appropriation ($48.9 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Together with some
subprogram reductions, a total of $63.7 million would support demonstration of offshore wind
projects under the Technology Development and Testing subprogram. DOE anticipates that the
demonstration would accelerate market deployment of more than five gigawatts of currently
planned offshore projects. This is the first time since the early 1980s that DOE has proposed a
major wind demonstration project. The Cape Wind project off the Massachusetts coast would be
the first U.S. commercial offshore wind farm, but it has been delayed for several years. The
House Appropriations Committee report recommended $63.5 million less than the request ($4.0
million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The report stressed the Committee’s support for
offshore wind development, especially in deepwater locations.
DOE requested $53.2 million for a “new” activity entitled Strategic Programs, an increase of $8.2
million over the FY2010 appropriation ($21.2 million above the FY2011 appropriation). This is
actually a renaming of the existing activity entitled Program Support. The only significant change
requested is an increase of about $8.1 million for the Innovation and Deployment subprogram.
The House Appropriations Committee report recommends $28.0 million less than the request
($7.0 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). The report specifies that $8.0 million would go
to the International subprogram.
Key Program Decreases Proposed
The DOE request does not seek funding for Congressionally Directed Projects, which would
represent a cut of $292.1 million below the FY2010 appropriation (no change from the zero
FY2011 appropriation). The House Appropriations Committee report also does not request any
funds for Congressionally Directed Projects in FY2012.
For the Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Program, DOE requested $100.5 million, a cut of $69.8 million
below the FY2010 appropriation (an increase of $2.5 million above the FY2011 appropriation).
The cut is spread mostly over three subprograms. DOE explains that the funding cut would allow
most work to continue, but at a slower pace. First, the Fuel Cells subprogram would be cut by
$30.2 million. It is focused on development of innovative nano materials that can reduce the need
for expensive platinum group metals (PGM), development of PGM-free catalysts, development of
polymer electrolytes, and reduction of materials degradation. Second, the Market Transformation
subprogram would be eliminated by a cut of $15.0 million. DOE explains that this activity would
be put on hold, while performance and cost data are collected for past deployment efforts funded
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
by $42.0 million from the Recovery Act. Third, the Hydrogen Fuel R&D subprogram would be
cut by $10.8 million. It is focused on breakthrough technologies and materials to enable hydrogen
production, delivery, and storage for diverse fuel cell applications. DOE explains that the
proposed decrease reflects consolidation of the projects portfolio, completion of current
obligations, and limitations on new project starts for hydrogen storage and hydrogen production
from wind and solar energy. The House Appropriations Committee report recommends $9.0
million less than the request ($6.6 million less than the FY2011 appropriation).
For the Water Power Program, DOE requested $38.5 million, $10.2 million less than the FY2010
appropriation ($8.5 million less than the FY2011 appropriation). Water power technologies
employ marine and hydrokinetic (wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal) resources, and
conventional hydropower resources, to generate electricity. DOE’s request document does not
present specifics about the proposed cut. The House Appropriations Committee report
recommends $11.5 million more than the request ($20.0 million more than the FY2011
appropriation). The report recommends that $25.0 million go to marine and hydrokinetic
technology and $25.0 million go to conventional hydropower technology.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program
The FY2012 request would provide $237.7 million to the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, which would be a net increase of $65.7 million above the FY2010
appropriation ($96.7 million above the FY2011 appropriation). Under the R&D Program,
significant increases would be spread over three subprograms. First, the Energy Storage
subprogram is focused on key electric power infrastructure issues, including supply congestion,
rising penetration of variable renewable energy generation, increased power quality demands, and
concern over greenhouse gas emissions. The FY2012 requested increase of $43.4 million (above
the FY2010 appropriation) would aim to reduce system capital and life-cycle costs for lithium-
based batteries and support grid-scale demonstration projects. Second, the Clean Energy
subprogram would be increased by $23.4 million (above the FY2010 appropriation), of which
$19.4 million would support a new Innovation Hub for Smart Grid Technology and Systems.
Third, the Smart Grid subprogram would be increased by $13.5 million (above the FY2010
appropriation) to support a new power electronics effort (develop solid state devices to replace
electromechanical devices) and to study the impacts of electric vehicle charging on grid
performance.
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $98.2 million below the request ($1.5
million below the FY2011 appropriation). For Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability the
report includes $20.0 million, which is $40.8 million less than the request ($6.0 million less than
the FY2011 appropriation). For Smart Grid R&D the report includes 33.8 million, which is $11.2
million less than the request ($4.8 million more than the FY2011 appropriation). The Committee
directs DOE to report on the Grid Modeling subprogram by 180 days after bill enactment and to
report on grid cyber security and risk assessment measures by March 1, 2012.
Nuclear Energy
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 funding request for nuclear energy research and
development totaled $754 million. Including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and
infrastructure support, the total nuclear energy request was about $22 million above the FY2011
funding level approved by Congress on April 14, 2011. The FY2011 level is about $37 million
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
below the FY2010 appropriation. The House bill would cut the Administration request by about
$20 million, to $733.6 million. Those totals exclude funding provided under Other Defense
Activities for safeguards and security at DOE’s Idaho nuclear facilities, for which $98.5 million
was requested for FY2012. During House passage of H.R. 2354, an amendment was adopted to
cut the proposed funding for Nuclear Energy by $6 million.
Using reorganized budget categories established for FY2011, the Administration’s FY2012
nuclear R&D budget request was consistent with DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and
Development Roadmap issued in April 2010.21 The Roadmap lays out the following four main
goals for the program:
• Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain
the safety, and extend the life of current reactors;
• Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear
energy to help meet the Administration’s energy security and climate change
goals;
• Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and
• Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
Reactor Concepts
The Reactor Concepts program area includes the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)
demonstration project and research on other advanced reactors (often referred to as Generation IV
reactors). Funding in this area would also be provided for developing advanced small modular
reactors and to enhance the “sustainability” of existing commercial nuclear plants. The total
FY2012 funding request for this program was $125 million. The House bill would provide $137
million, $12 million above the request but $31.5 million below the FY2011 level.
NGNP is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05). The reactor is intended to produce high-temperature heat that
could be used to generate electricity, help separate hydrogen from water, or be used in other
industrial processes. DOE requested $49.6 million for the NGNP project for FY2012, down from
$103 million requested in FY2011. The House bill recommended $63.6 million. Under
EPACT05, the Secretary of Energy is to decide by the end of FY2011 whether to proceed toward
construction of a demonstration plant. Potential obstacles facing NGNP include low prices for
natural gas, the major competing fuel, and private-sector unwillingness to share the project’s costs
as required by EPACT05.22
The FY2012 funding request for the Advanced Reactor Concepts program was $21.9 million, the
same as the FY2011 request. The program was described by the FY2011 budget justification as
“an expanded version” of the previous Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program. “The
program will focus on reactors that could dramatically improve performance in sustainability,
safety, economics, security, and proliferation resistance,” according to the FY2011 and FY2012
21 Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, Washington, DC,
April 2010, http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf.
22 Yanmei Xie, “Cheap Natural Gas, Cost-Share Disagreement Jeopardize NGNP,” Nucleonics Week, April 28, 2011,
p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
justifications. Nuclear technology development under this program includes “fast reactors,” using
high-energy neutrons, and reactors that would use a variety of heat-transfer fluids, such as liquid
sodium and supercritical carbon dioxide. International research collaboration in this area would
continue under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF).
DOE’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program would receive $21.4 million, about $4.4
million below the FY2011 request. The House bill would provide $25 million. The program
conducts research on extending the life of existing commercial light water reactors beyond 60
years, the maximum operating period currently licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The program, which is to be cost-shared with the nuclear industry, is to study the aging of reactor
materials and analyze safety margins of aging plants. Other research under this program is to
focus on improving the efficiency of existing plants, through such measures as increasing plant
capacity and upgrading instrumentation and control systems. Research on longer-life LWR fuel is
aimed at eliminating fuel leakage and increasing safety and performance, according to the budget
justification.
Small Modular Light Water Reactors
Rising cost estimates for large conventional nuclear reactors—widely projected to be $6 billion or
more—have contributed to growing interest in proposals for small modular reactors (SMRs).
Ranging from about 40 to 350 megawatts of electrical capacity, such reactors would be only a
fraction of the size of current commercial reactors. Several modular reactors would be installed
together to make up a power block with a single control room, under most concepts. Current
SMR proposals would use a variety of technologies, including high-temperature gas technology
in the NGNP program and the light water (LWR) technology used by today’s commercial
reactors.
DOE requested $67 million for FY2012 to provide technical support for licensing small modular
LWRs, a substantial boost from the FY2011 request of $38.9 million. The House bill
recommended the full request. DOE plans to hold a competitive solicitation to award cost-shared
financial assistance to as many as two SMR LWR designs, according to the FY2012 budget
justification. The program would be similar to DOE’s support for larger commercial reactor
designs under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which ended in FY2010. DOE would provide
support for design certification, standards, and licensing. As with the Nuclear Power 2010
Program, at least half the costs of the LWR SMR program are to be covered by industry partners,
according to DOE.
An additional $28.7 million was requested under the Reactor Concepts program for SMR
advanced concepts R&D. The House bill recommended the same amount. Unlike the SMR
licensing support program, which focuses on conventional technology, the SMR advanced
concepts program would conduct research on technologies that might be deployed in the longer
term, according to the budget justification.
Small modular reactors would go against the overall trend in nuclear power technology toward
ever-larger reactors intended to spread construction costs over a greater output of electricity.
Proponents of small reactors contend that they would be economically viable despite their far
lower electrical output because modules could be assembled in factories and shipped to plant
sites, and because their smaller size would allow for simpler safety systems. In addition, although
modular plants might have similar or higher costs per kilowatt-hour than large conventional
Congressional Research Service
24
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
reactors, their ability to be constructed in smaller increments could reduce electric utilities’
financial commitment and risk.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development
The Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program conducts “long-term, science-based”
research on a wide variety of technologies for improving the management of spent nuclear fuel,
according to the DOE budget justification. The total FY2012 funding request for this program
was $155 million. The House bill recommended $132 million, $23 million below the request and
$55.6 million below the FY2011 level.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, when it was called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI), the program had focused on near-term development and deployment of a specific type of
spent fuel reprocessing technology, UREX, which was intended to recycle plutonium, uranium,
and other long-lived radioactive materials into new nuclear fuel. AFCI had constituted the
domestic portion of the Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
initiative, which had been intended to provide secure nuclear fuel services to discourage the
international spread of nuclear fuel cycle technology.
Under the Obama Administration, the program has been redirected toward development of
technology options for a wider range of nuclear fuel cycle approaches, including direct disposal
of spent fuel (the “once through” cycle) and partial and full recycling, according to the
justification. “Specifically, the program will research and develop a suite of technology options
that will enable future decision-makers to make informed decisions about how best to manage
nuclear waste and used fuel from reactors,” the justification says.
Much of the planned research on spent fuel management options has supported the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which is developing alternatives to the planned Yucca
Mountain, NV, spent fuel repository, which President Obama wants to terminate. Other major
research areas in the Fuel Cycle R&D Program include the development of advanced fuels for
existing commercial reactors and advanced reactors, improvements in nuclear waste
characteristics, modeling and simulation of fuel cycle options, and technology to increase nuclear
fuel resources, such as uranium extraction from seawater.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
Research under the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program is intended to
“contribute to a wide variety of existing and developing reactor and fuel cycle technologies,”
according to the FY2012 DOE budget justification. The funding request for the program was
$97.4 million, $46 million above the FY2011 level. The House bill would provide $95 million.
Under the category of Crosscutting Technology Development, which would receive $41.2
million, research is to be conducted on new types of reactor materials, the weapons proliferation
risks of fuel cycle options, advanced nuclear plant manufacturing methods, and advanced sensors
and instrumentation. The Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, created in
FY2010, had a request of $24.3 million, the same as in FY2011. The Modeling and Simulation
Hub is creating a computer model of an operating reactor to allow a better understanding of
nuclear technology, with the benefits of such modeling extending to other energy technologies in
the future, according to the justification.
Congressional Research Service
25
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Transformative Nuclear Concepts Research, with a request of $14.6 million, is to provide
competitive support to “investigator-initiated transformative projects that are high-risk, high-
reward concepts with the potential for making significant leaps forward in advanced nuclear
technology development,” according to the FY2012 justification. Awards are to be available to
national laboratories, universities, research institutions, and industry. DOE also requested $14.6
million for the National Science User Facility to support up to five university partnerships to
conduct experiments “at facilities not normally accessible.” Funding for the User Facility had
previously been provided under Idaho Facilities Management, according to the House report,
which approved the shift.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
The Obama Administration proposed a new budget structure for the FY2012 Fossil Energy
Research and Development (FER&D) program that emphasized coal with a focus on carbon
capture and storage (CC&S) technologies. The CC&S program intends to demonstrate advanced
clean coal technologies on a commercial-project scale, and build and operate near-zero
atmospheric emissions power plants that capture and store carbon dioxide (CO2). A Carbon
Capture sub-program focuses on separate CO2 in both pre-combustion and post-combustion
systems. The Carbon Storage sub-program focuses on long-term geologic storage of CO2,
including small- and large-scale CO2 injection tests. An Advanced Energy Systems sub-program
focuses on improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems to capture CO2. The Advanced
Energy Systems sub-program focuses on improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems,
enabling affordable CO2 capture, increasing plant availability, and maintaining the highest
environmental standards. The Cross-cutting Research activity serves as a bridge between basic
and applied research by fostering the development and deployment of innovative systems.
The Administration had proposed cutting Natural Gas, Unconventional Fossil Energy
Technologies, and Cooperative R&D for FY2011, and had requested $586.6 million for Fossil
Energy R&D. The restructured Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D)
program eliminated spending on Natural Gas, Unconventional Technologies, and Cooperative
R&D. For FY2012, the Administration requested $476 million and the use of $23 million in
prior-year balances, bringing spending on Fossil Energy R&D to $453 million.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $477 million for FER&D ($32.5 million
above FY2011 and $24 million above the budget request. The House Committee stated its
concern that the Administration’s budget request continues to shift the focus of FER&D towards
CC&S instead of investing in a broad array of research avenues and opportunities to use natural
resources more efficiently.
The Committee recommended $338.8 million for the CCS and Power Systems program ($47.4
million above the budget request). Under this program, $105 million applies to Advanced Energy
Systems ($40.8 million above the budget request), of which: $25 million applies to RD&D of
solid oxide fuel cell systems; $5 million applies to High Performance Materials ($4 million above
the request); $10 million applies to Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids program; $8 million
applies to Gasification Systems advanced air separation technologies; and $49.4 million for Cross
Cutting Research ($6,6 million above the budget request). For Natural Gas Technologies, the
Committee recommended $15 million ($13 million above FY2011 and $15 million above the
budget request), of which $10 million applies to gas hydrates R&D. Finally, the Committee
recommended $120.85 million for Program Direction ($30.9 million below FY2011 and $38.4
million below the budget request).
Congressional Research Service
26
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Program (FER&D)
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS
400.2
0.0
0.0
CCS DEMONSTRATION
Carbon Capture
0.0
68.9
68.9
Carbon Storage
0.0
115.5
115.5
Advanced Energy Systems
0.0
64.2
105.0
Cross Cutting Research
0.0 42.8 49.4
CCS Subtotal
0.0
291.4
338.8
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
2.0
0.0
15.0
PROGRAM DIRECTION
151.7
159.2
120.8
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies
0.0
0.0
0.0
Plant and Capital Equipment
20.0
16.8
16.8
Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration
10.0
7.9
7.9
Cooperative R&D
0.0
0.0
0.0
Special Recruitment Program
0.7
0.7
0.7
Congressionally Directed Projects
0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal
584.5 476.0 500.0
Prior-year balances
0.0
-23.0
-23.0
Rescission -140.0 0.0 0.0
Total
444.5 453.0 477.0
Source:. FY2012 Budget Request; H.Rept. 112-118.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in
Louisiana and Texas. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that
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. By
early 2010, the SPR was filled to its current capacity of 727 million barrels.
The federal government has not purchased oil for the SPR since 1994. Beginning in 2000,
additions to the SPR were made with royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil acquired by the Department of
Energy in lieu of cash royalties paid on production from federal offshore leases. The Procedures
for the Acquisition of Petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve include provisions for
acquiring crude oil through direct purchase, by transfer of royalty oil from the Department of the
Congressional Research Service
27
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Interior, and by receipt of premium barrels resulting from deferral of scheduled deliveries of
petroleum for the Reserve.23 In May 2008, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 110-232) ordering
DOE to suspend RIK fill for the balance of the calendar year unless the price of crude oil dropped
below $75/barrel. However, the sharp decline in crude oil prices since spiking to $147/barrel in
the summer of 2008 brought about a resumption of fill of the SPR. On January 2, 2009, the Bush
Administration announced plans that included the purchase of nearly 10.7 million barrels for the
SPR to replace oil that was sold after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. In May 2009, RIK fill
was resumed at an average volume of 26,000 barrels per day, totaling over 6.1 million barrels to
be delivered by January 2010. These activities have brought the SPR to capacity.
On September 16, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior announced a transitional phasing out of the
RIK Program.24 As RIK oil and natural gas sales contracts expire, the oil and natural gas
properties will revert to in-value status.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) required expansion of the SPR to its authorized
maximum of 1 billion barrels. DOE subsequently evaluated a site in Richton, MS, as a possible
location for an additional 160 million barrels of capacity. However, in its FY2011 request, the
Administration proposed suspending the SPR’s expansion. Instead, it proposed redirecting $71
million in balances previously appropriated for expansion to “partially fund SPR non-Expansion
operations and maintenance activities.25 In support of its proposal, the Administration cited EIA
projections that “U.S. petroleum consumption and dependence on imports will decline in the
future and the current Reserve’s projection [of import replacement capacity] will gradually
increase to 90 days by 2025.” The Administration consequently reduced the FY2011 request for
the SPR to $138.9 million, sharply down from the $243.8 million appropriated for FY2010.
Under the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1473) the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $209.9 million for the SPR, and rescinded $14.5 million appropriated under P.L.
110-161, $31.5 under P.L. 110-329, and $25 million under P.L. 111-85 (a total $71 million) for
new site expansion activities (the Richton, MS, SPR site). For FY2012, the Administration
requested $197.2 million to be offset by the $71 million rescinded in FY2011 for a total request of
$121.7 million. The Administration also proposed a sale of $500 million in petroleum from the
SPR, to be completed not later than March 1, 2012, for deposit in the General Fund of the
Treasury. The House Committee recommended the $500 million sale provided that the quantity
sold is replaced during FY2012 under paragraph (a)1 or 3 of Section 160 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C 6240 (a)(1) or (3)), which authorizes acquisition of crude oil
produced from federal lands, or through purchase or exchange, respectively. Both
recommendations preceded the Administration’s June 24, 2011 announced sale of $30 million
barrels.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $192.7 million for FY2012 ($69.5 million
above FY2011 and $71 million above the budget request). The recommendation does not include
the $71 million rescission as requested by the Administration. After accounting for the one-time
FY2011 rescission, the Committee’s recommendation is $16.7 million below FY2011.
23 Final Rule, 65376 Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 216 , November 8, 2006; Rules and Regulations.
24 Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation and Enforcement. http://www.mrm.boemre.gov/AssetManagement/
default.htm.
25 $14.5 million appropriated under P.L. 110-161, $31.5 under P.L. 110-329, and $25 million under P.L. 111-85.
Congressional Research Service
28
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Science
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences,
high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, advanced scientific
computing research, and fusion energy sciences. Through these programs, DOE is the third-
largest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.26 For FY2012, DOE requested $5.416 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of
12% from the FY2011 appropriation of $4.843 billion. The House committee recommended
$4.800 billion. (See Table 10.)
The Administration’s stated goal is to double the funding of the Office of Science. This continues
a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January 2006. The original target under both
Administrations was to achieve the doubling goal in the decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The
current policy no longer specifies a completion date. The FY2012 request was 49% more than the
FY2006 baseline. The House committee’s recommendation was 32% above the baseline.
The FY2012 request for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, was $1.985
billion. This included $24 million for the existing Innovation Hub on Fuels from Sunlight,
currently funded by EERE, and $34 million for a new Energy Innovation Hub on Materials for
Batteries and Energy Storage.27 The House committee recommended $1.668 billion for basic
energy sciences. It directed DOE to rank all ongoing multi-year research projects in this program
by performance and then terminate the lowest-ranking $25 million. It recommended the requested
amount for the existing Hub on Fuels from Sunlight and $20 million for the new Hub on Batteries
and Energy Storage.
For high-energy physics, the request was $797 million. Operations at the Tevatron facility in
Illinois are scheduled to end during 2011. The House committee recommended the requested
amount.
The request for biological and environmental research was $718 million. Within this total, the
$103 million requested for foundational genomics research was more than triple the FY2010
level. The House committee recommended $547 million. The committee asserted that a majority
of the program’s activities in climate and environmental sciences, which accounted for nearly half
of its requested budget, is “not directly related to the core mandate of ... research leading to
energy innovations” and that climate research may be better carried out by other federal agencies
rather than DOE.
For nuclear physics, the request was $605 million. As previously planned, this request included
$66 million for continued construction of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) upgrade. The House committee recommended $552 million.
26 Based on preliminary FY2009 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2007-09, NSF 10-305 (May 2010).
27 The Administration proposed to initiate eight energy innovation hubs in FY2010, but Congress funded only three.
The FY2012 budget request proposed funding for six hubs. The topics for the three proposed new hubs were batteries
and energy storage, critical materials, and Smart Grid technologies and systems. The aim of the hubs is “to address
basic science and technology hindering the nation’s secure and sustainable energy future” by assembling
multidisciplinary teams of researchers “spanning science, engineering, and other disciplines, but focused on a single
critical national need identified by the Department.” (DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 86).
Congressional Research Service
29
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
The request for advanced scientific computing research was $466 million. The House committee
recommended $427 million.
The request for fusion energy sciences was $400 million. The proposed U.S. contribution to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility under construction in
France, was $105 million. Despite a slip of several years in the expected start-up date for ITER,
DOE stated in February 2011 that “the costs associated with the schedule delays to date ... are
manageable within the existing ... cost range” of $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion.28 Damage to
component test facilities in Japan, caused by the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami in March
2011, may result in additional delays.29 The House committee recommended $406 million for
fusion energy sciences, including the requested amount for ITER. The committee expressed
concern about ITER’s future impact on funding for domestic fusion science and directed DOE to
submit a 10-year plan that considers fusion priorities under various budget scenarios.
Table 10. Science
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Request
House Senate
Basic Energy Sciences
$1,678.2
$1,985.0
$1,688.1
High Energy Physics
795.4
797.2
797.2
Biological and Environmental Research
611.8
717.9
547.1
Nuclear Physics
540.1
605.3
552.0
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
422.0
465.6
427.1
Fusion Energy Sciences
375.5
399.7
406.0
Science Program Direction
202.5
216.9
180.0
Science Laboratories Infrastructure
125.7
111.8
103.5
Safeguards and Security
83.8
83.9
83.9
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
22.6
35.6
17.8
Use of Prior-Year Balances
—
(2.7)
(2.7)
Total 4,842.7
5,416.1
4,800.0
Sources: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118.
ARPA-E
The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was authorized by the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to support transformational energy technology research projects.30
It received its first funding in FY2009, mostly through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), and announced its first round of contract awards in October 2009. DOE
28 DOE FY2012 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 234.
29 Geoff Brumfiel, “Japan Quake Rocks Fusion Project: Damaged Facilities Force Further Delay to ITER Experiment,”
Nature, May 31, 2011.
30 For more information, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E):
Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
Congressional Research Service
30
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk technological
barriers to the development of energy technologies. The request for ARPA-E in FY2012 was $550
million, more than triple the FY2011 appropriation of $180 million.31 In addition, the
Administration proposed to allocate $100 million in mandatory funding to ARPA-E from a
proposed Wireless Innovation Fund that would be supported by the proceeds of spectrum
auctions. The House committee recommended $100 million. During House passage of H.R. 2354,
funding for ARPA-E was increased by $79.6 million.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
President Obama’s FY2012 budget included no funding for DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management (OCRWM), which was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) to dispose of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power
plants and defense facilities. OCRWM had been developing a permanent nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain, NV, as specified by an NWPA amendment in 1987. No funding was requested
or provided for OCRWM in FY2011, so the office has been closed and activities at the Yucca
Mountain site halted.
The Obama Administration “has determined that developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not
a workable option and the Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal,”
according to the DOE FY2011 budget justification.
The House Appropriations Committee “rejects the Administration’s wasteful, partisan attempts to
shutter the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program,” according to a Committee news
release.32 DOE filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 but then filed a motion to withdraw the
application on March 3, 2010. The FY2012 House bill included $25 million for DOE to continue
work on the program and $10 million for NRC “to continue the Yucca Mountain license
application.”
An NRC licensing panel rejected DOE’s withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, on the grounds that
NWPA requires full consideration of the license application by NRC. The full NRC commission
is now considering the withdrawal, which is strongly opposed by states that have defense-related
waste awaiting permanent disposal. NRC was appropriated $10 million in FY2011 for nuclear
waste licensing, the same as the request, which had specified that the funding would be used to
close down the licensing process. The FY2012 House bill would prohibit NRC funds from being
used to halt the licensing process unless NRC approves DOE’s license withdrawal motion.
Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are being evaluated by the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future, which was formally established by DOE on March 1, 2010. The
Commission is to recommend options for temporary storage, treatment, and permanent disposal
of highly radioactive nuclear waste, along with an evaluation of nuclear waste research and
31 Some budget documents show the ARPA-E account as the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund.
32 House Committee on Appropriations, “Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill,” press release, June 1, 2011, http://www.appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=320.
Congressional Research Service
31
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
development programs and the need for legislation.33 A draft report is to be issued by the end of
July 2011 and a final report six months later.
The Commission’s three subcommittees presented their preliminary recommendations May 13,
2011.34 The subcommittee on disposal options called for the United States to “proceed
expeditiously to develop one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of
high-level nuclear waste.” A new waste management organization should be established to
develop the repository, along with associated transportation and storage systems, according to the
subcommittee. The new organization should have “assured access” to the Nuclear Waste Fund,
which holds fees collected from nuclear power plant operators to pay for waste disposal. Under
NWPA, DOE could not spend those funds without congressional appropriations. Siting of waste
facilities should be “consent-based” and the roles of local, state, and tribal governments in facility
siting should be negotiated by the federal government, the subcommittee recommended.35
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is taking over the remaining functions of OCRWM and
will “lead all future waste management activities,” according to the FY2011 budget justification.
Substantial funding has been requested for NE to conduct research on nuclear waste disposal
technologies and options and to provide support for the Blue Ribbon Commission (see “Nuclear
Energy” section for more details).
NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January 31, 1998. Nuclear
utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that 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.
DOE estimates that liability payments would eventually total $11 billion if DOE were to begin
removing waste from reactor sites by 2020, the previous target for opening Yucca Mountain.36
(For more information, see CRS Report R40202, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca
Mountain, by Mark Holt; CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt;
and CRS Report R40996, Contract Liability Arising from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)
of 1982, by Todd Garvey.)
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans
DOE’s loan guarantee program for energy technology deployment is authorized by Title XVII of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). Two major loan guarantee programs are
currently conducted by the DOE Loan Programs Office:
• Section 1703 innovative clean energy technology loan guarantees. Loan
guarantees are provided for “new or significantly improved technologies as
compared to commercial technologies” currently in service that “avoid, reduce,
or sequester” air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Eligible technology
33 Department of Energy, Advisory Committee Charter, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, March
1, 2010, http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/BRC_Charter.pdf.
34 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, http://brc.gov.
35 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Disposal Subcommittee, “Draft Recommendations,” May
13, 2011, http://brc.gov/pdfFiles/May2011_Meeting/Disposal%20Slides-1-00PM.pdf.
36 Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Before the
House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
32
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
categories include renewable energy, advanced fossil energy, advanced nuclear
energy, energy efficiency, and pollution control.
• Section 1705 renewable energy, electric transmission, and advanced biofuels
loan guarantees. Established by Section 406 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), the Section 1705 program was designed
as a temporary economic stimulus measure to be available through the end of
FY2011. Unlike the Section 1703 program, which is limited to innovative
technologies, loan guarantees are available to already-commercialized renewable
energy and electric transmission technologies.
Title XVII allows DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 80% of construction costs for eligible
energy projects. Under such loan guarantee agreements, the federal government would repay all
covered loans if the borrower defaulted. This would reduce the risk to lenders and allow them to
provide financing at low interest rates. DOE reports that it has made conditional loan guarantee
commitments to four projects under Section 1703, totaling $10.65 billion for nuclear power,
nuclear fuel, and energy efficiency projects. Under Section 1705, final loan guarantees have been
issued for 11 projects, totaling $6.85 billion. Twenty-one other projects have conditional
commitments under Section 1705, totaling $14.6 billion.37
DOE issued final rules for the program October 4, 2007.38 DOE’s proposed loan guarantee rules,
published May 16, 2007, had faced sharp criticism for limiting the guarantees to 90% of a
project’s debt. The industry contended that EPACT05 allows all of a project’s debt to be covered,
as long as debt does not exceed 80% of total construction costs. In its explanation of the proposed
rules, DOE expressed concern that guaranteeing 100% of a project’s debt could reduce lenders’
incentive to perform adequate due diligence and therefore increase default risks. In the final rule,
however, DOE agreed to guarantee up to 100% of debt, but only for loans issued by the Federal
Financing Bank.
Title XVII requires the estimated future government costs resulting from defaults on guaranteed
loans to be covered up-front by appropriations or by payments from project sponsors (borrowers).
These “subsidy costs” are calculated as the present value of the average possible future net costs
to the government for each loan guarantee, on a case-by-case basis. If those calculations are
accurate, the subsidy cost payments for all the guaranteed projects together should cover the
future costs of the program. However, the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the up-
front subsidy cost payments will prove too low by at least 1% and is scoring bills accordingly.39
As a result, appropriations bills that provide loan guarantee authorizations include an adjustment
totaling 1% of the loan guarantee ceiling.
Subsidy costs for Section 1703 loan guarantees must usually be paid by project sponsors, because
no appropriations for that program were provided before FY2011 (as described below). However,
ARRA appropriated $6 billion to cover the subsidy costs of Section 1705 loan guarantees, so
subsidy cost payments are not required from project sponsors under that program. The total loan
guarantee amounts that could be provided under ARRA depend on the level of subsidy costs that
37 U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
38 Published October 23, 2007 (72 Federal Register 60116).
39 Congressional Budget Office, S. 1321, Energy Savings Act of 2007, CBO Cost Estimate, Washington, DC, June 11,
2007, pp. 7-9, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8206/s1321.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
33
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
would be charged. For example, if the subsidy costs averaged 10% of the total guaranteed loans,
then $6 billion in subsidy cost appropriations would support $60 billion in loan guarantees.
However, $2 billion of Section 1705 subsidy cost appropriation was subsequently transferred to
the “cash for clunkers” automobile trade-in program by P.L. 111-47, and another $1.5 billion was
rescinded to help pay for the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (P.L. 111-226), leaving
$2.5 billion.
Under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), federal loan guarantees cannot be provided
without an authorized level in an appropriations act. The Senate-passed version of omnibus
energy legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 6) would have explicitly eliminated FCRA’s
applicability to DOE’s planned loan guarantees under EPACT05 (Section 124(b)). That provision
would have given DOE essentially unlimited loan guarantee authority for guarantees whose
subsidy costs were paid by project sponsors, but it was dropped from the final legislation (P.L.
110-140). Similar language has been included in subsequent legislative proposals, but not
enacted.
Pursuant to FCRA, the FY2007 continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) established an initial cap of $4
billion on loan guarantees under the program, without allocating that amount among the various
eligible technologies. The explanatory statement for the FY2008 omnibus funding act (P.L. 110-
161) increased the loan guarantee ceiling to $38.5 billion through FY2009, including $18.5
billion specifically for nuclear power plants and $2 billion for uranium enrichment plants.40
The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) increased DOE’s total loan guarantee
authority under Section 1703 to $47 billion, in addition to the $4 billion authorized in FY2007,
half of which DOE has designated for uranium enrichment. Of the $47 billion, $18.5 billion
continued to be reserved for nuclear power, $18.5 was for energy efficiency and renewables, $6
billion was for coal, $2 billion was for carbon capture and sequestration, and $2 billion was for
uranium enrichment. The time limits on the Section 1703 loan guarantee authority were
eliminated. The FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act
(P.L. 112-10) reduced the previous loan guarantee authority for Section 1703 non-nuclear
technologies to $8.3 billion but added new authority for a total of $9.5 billion. Including the $2
billion in FY2007 authority that has not been designated for uranium enrichment, the Section
1703 non-nuclear loan guarantee ceiling stands at about $11.5 billion. Nuclear loan guarantees
remain at $18.5 billion, and uranium enrichment totals $4 billion.
Remaining appropriations for subsidy cost payments under the Section 1705 loan guarantee
program are to expire at the end of FY2011, as noted above. However, the FY2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act provides $170 million, with no expiration, to pay subsidy costs for renewable
energy and efficiency projects under the Section 1703 program. The act also provides authority
for up to $1.183 billion in loan guarantees for those renewable energy and efficiency projects, in
addition to the $32.8 billion in Section 1703 authority remaining from earlier appropriations acts
for all technologies. The additional loan guarantee authority and subsidy cost appropriation
provided by the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act is available to projects that applied under
the expiring Section 1705 before February 24, 2011.
Following is a summary of the various elements of the current DOE loan guarantee program, as
modified by the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act (CR):
40 Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H15585.
Congressional Research Service
34
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
• $8.3 billion ceiling in CR on non-nuclear technologies under Section 1703 ($317
million conditionally committed), reduced from ceilings set in FY2009.
• $2 billion for unspecified projects from FY2007 under Section 1703, not affected
by CR.
• $18.5 billion ceiling for nuclear power plants ($8.3 billion conditionally
committed).
• $4 billion allocated for loan guarantees for uranium enrichment plants ($2 billion
conditionally committed).
• $1.183 billion ceiling for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under
Section 1703, in addition to other ceiling amounts, which can include pending
applications under Section 1705.
• An appropriation of $170 million for subsidy costs for renewable energy and
energy efficiency loan guarantees under Section 1703. If the subsidy costs
averaged 10% of the loan guarantees, this funding could support loan guarantees
totaling $1.7 billion.
• $2.5 billion for Section 1705 subsidy costs appropriated by ARRA. This funding
has been used to pay the subsidy costs for about $6.8 billion in loan guarantees
with final commitments under Section 1705 (plus conditional commitments of
about $14.6 billion for loan guarantees that are intended to be finalized by
September 30, 2011).41
DOE requested an additional appropriation of $200 million in FY2012 to cover the subsidy costs
of innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under Section 1703. That funding
would support about $1-2 billion in loan guarantees, according to the budget justification. DOE
also repeated its unsuccessful request from FY2011 to nearly triple the ceiling on loan guarantees
for nuclear power projects, from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion. The FY2012 House bill would
appropriate $160 million for subsidy costs under Section 1703 and for projects that applied for
support under Section 1705 before February 24, 2011. The House bill does not include the
proposed $36 billion increase in the nuclear loan guarantee ceiling.
DOE also administers the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program
established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140). The FY2009
Continuing Resolution appropriated $7.5 billion to allow DOE to issue up to $25 billion in direct
loans. The program was designed to provide loans to eligible automobile manufacturers and parts
suppliers for making investments in their plant capacity to produce vehicles with improved fuel
economy. Along with the EPACT loan guarantee programs, the ATVM Loan Program is
administered by the DOE Loan Programs Office. DOE reports that five ATVM loans have been
issued, totaling $8.4 billion, plus a conditional commitment of $730 million.42 DOE did not
request any funding for subsidy costs for new loans in FY2012.
41 DOE Loan Programs Office, Our Projects, https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
42 U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
Congressional Research Service
35
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
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 FY2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, P.L. 111-84, section 3111, amended this language to state that the program is
to ensure “(1) the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United
States in nuclear weapons, including weapons design, system integration, manufacturing, security,
use control, reliability assessment, and certification; and (2) that the nuclear weapons stockpile is
safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing.” The program
is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency
within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
106-65, Title XXXII).
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account, as
described below. Table 11 presents Weapons Activities funding. NNSA manages two programs
outside of that account: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and
Naval Reactors.
P.L. 111-84, section 3113, established a “stockpile management” program “to provide for the
effective management of the weapons in the nuclear weapons stockpile, including the extension
of the effective life of such weapons.” Objectives for the program include increasing the
reliability, safety, and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile and further reducing the
likelihood of nuclear testing. Section 3113 required that any changes to the stockpile shall be
made to further the objectives set for the program and shall “remain consistent with the basic
design parameters by including, to the maximum extent feasible, components that are well
understood or are certifiable without the need to resume underground nuclear weapons testing.”
The stockpile management program is to support the stockpile stewardship program.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex (the “Complex”), which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites
(Kansas City 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 11. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approps.
Approps.
Request
House
Senate
DSW
1,564.3 1,885.4 1,963.6 1,909.8
Campaigns
1,574.5 1,690.6 1,796.7 1,605.9
RTBF
1,810.3 1,837.3 2,326.1 2,011.3
Othera
1,437.3 1,483.1 1,543.3 1,564.6
Total 6,386.4
6,896.4
7,629.7
7,091.7
Source: DOE, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 45; and House Appropriations
Committee, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. H.Rept. 112-118.
Congressional Research Service
36
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities.
a. FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 include Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident
Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security,
and Cyber Security. In addition, FY2010 includes Congressional y Directed Projects and Use of Prior Year
Balances, FY2011 includes Science, Technology and Engineering Capability and a Rescission, and FY2012
includes National Security Applications, Legacy Contractor Pensions, and a Rescission.
The FY2012 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program, which projects the budget and components for FY2013-FY2016 (see Table 12).
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
DSW
2,111.4 2,327.9 2,530.0 2,630.7
Campaigns 1,809.9 1,812.7 1,815.8 1,852.3
RTBF
2,484.3 2,742.5 2,729.7 2,734.9
Othera
1,543.1 1,535.4 1,608.1 1,687.7
Total
7,948.7 8,418.5 8,683.5 8,905.6
Source: DOE, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 46.
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, and
National Security Applications.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration
Although the “Complex” currently consists of eight sites, it was much larger during the Cold War
in terms of number of sites, budgets, and personnel. Despite the post-Cold War reductions, many
in Congress have for years wanted the Complex to change further, in various ways: fewer
personnel, lower cost, greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and the
like. In response, in January 2007 NNSA submitted a report to Congress on its plan for
transforming the Complex, “Complex 2030.”
The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2008 report, expressed displeasure with this plan
and demanded “a comprehensive nuclear defense and nonproliferation strategy,” a detailed
description translating that strategy into a “specific nuclear stockpile,” and “a comprehensive,
long-term expenditure plan, from FY2008 through FY2030” before considering further funding
for Complex 2030 and a nuclear weapon program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). It
stated that “NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding and modernizing the entire complex
in situ without any thought given to a sensible strategy for long-term efficiency and
consolidation.” The Senate Appropriations Committee saw an inadequate linkage between
warheads, the Complex, and strategy, and “rejects the Department’s premature deployment of the
NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation effort.” The joint explanatory statement accompanying the
consolidated appropriations bill said, “The Congress agrees to the direction contained in the
House and Senate reports requiring the Administration ... to develop and submit to the Congress a
comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21st century.”
Congressional Research Service
37
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
On December 18, 2007, NNSA announced its plan, Complex Transformation, a name change
from Complex 2030. It would retain existing sites, reduce the weapons program footprint by as
much as one-third, close or transfer from weapons activities about 600 structures, reduce the
number of weapons workers by 20%-30%, dismantle weapons more rapidly, and build several
major new facilities, such as a Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 Plant, a Weapons Surveillance
Facility at Pantex Plant, and a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility
at Los Alamos National Laboratory.43 For details, see the Final Complex Transformation
Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2008, along
with two Records of Decision of December 2008.44
The House Appropriations Committee reiterated its FY2008 views in its FY2009 report:
Before the Committee will consider funding for most new programs, substantial changes
to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for the RRW [Reliable Replacement
Warhead], the Committee insists that the following sequence be completed:
(1) replacement of Cold War strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy
sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats, and capable of serving the national
security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without need for nuclear
testing;
(2) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that
strategy;
(3) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to
support that future stockpile.45
In keeping with this approach, the committee recommended eliminating funds for RRW and for
several programs described below. In its FY2009 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee
also recommended eliminating RRW funds and made some changes to individual programs. It did
not provide general comments on Complex transformation. P.L. 111-8, the FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, provided no RRW funds. Neither the FY2010 nor the FY2011 budgets
requested RRW funds. A FY2010 budget document stated, “The Administration proposes to
cancel development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)—a new design warhead
intended to replace the current inventory of nuclear weapons—because it is not consistent with
Presidential commitments to move towards a nuclear-free world.”46
The FY2011 budget request for Weapons Activities was $7,008.8 million, vs. FY2010 actual
appropriations of $6,386.4 million. The Department of Defense submitted its Nuclear Posture
Review Report in April 2010, which set forth the role of U.S. nuclear forces and plans for
43 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA Releases Draft Plan to Transform
Nuclear Weapons Complex.” Press release, December 18, 2007, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2007/
PR_2007-12-18_NA-07-64.htm; National Nuclear Security Administration, “Nuclear Weapons Complex
Transformation,” with links to plans for each site, at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/complextransformation.htm; and Walter
Pincus, “Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program,” Washington Post, December 19, 2007, p. 1.
44 For the full text of the supplemental programmatic environmental impact statement (SPEIS) and supporting
documents, see U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “Complex Transformation
SPEIS,” at http://www.complextransformationspeis.com/project.html.
45 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2009,
unnumbered committee print, June 2008, pp. 123-124.
46 U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget, Terminations, Reductions, and Savings:
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010, 2009, p. 55, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/
trs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
38
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
sustaining the nuclear arsenal.47 According to a White House document of May 2010, the
President provided Congress with a classified report required by the FY2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, Section 1251, “on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms
[that is, bombers and missiles that deliver nuclear weapons]; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and
reliable U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex.”48
According to that document, “the Administration intends to invest $80 billion in the next decade
to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex.” The Administration submitted a revised
1251 report in November 2010; its projections for weapons stockpile and infrastructure costs
(billions of dollars) were: FY2011, 7.0; FY2012, 7.6; FY2013, 7.9; FY2014, 8.4; FY2015, 8.7;
FY2016, 8.9; FY2017, 8.9-9.0; FY2018, 9.2-9.3; FY2019, 9.4-9.6; and FY2020, 9.4-9.8. NNSA
issued a new Strategic Plan in May 2011.49 The FY2011 enacted figure, as presented in the
FY2012 House Appropriations Committee report on energy-water appropriations, was $6,896.4
million.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $7,589.4 million for Weapons Activities. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $7,091.7 million for this account.
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; conducting R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. Specific
items under DSW include the following:
• Life Extension Programs (LEPs). These programs aim to extend the life of
existing warheads through design, certification, manufacture, and replacement of
components. An LEP for the B61 mods 7 and 11 bombs was completed in
FY2009. An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched
ballistic missile is ongoing; the life-extended warhead is termed the W76-1. The
FY2010 actual appropriation was $231.9 million and the FY2011 enacted figure
was $248.2 million. The FY2012 request was $257.0 million for the W76 LEP
and $223.6 million for the B61 LEP. The latter represents a shift “from a
feasibility study to a full LEP”; no funds were requested in FY2010 or FY2011
for the B61 LEP. This LEP is intended to extend the service life of B61 mods 3,
4, and 7 nuclear bombs for another 30 years, with the first production unit to be
completed in FY2017. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$278.6 million for the B61 in order to begin the LEP. It allowed NNSA to spend
up to half that amount until it meets certain reporting requirements, such as “a
cost-benefit analysis of any warhead enhancements.” For the W76 LEP, the
committee recommended $255.0 million.
47 U.S. Department of Defense. Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/
2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf.
48 U.S. White House. “The New START Treaty—Maintaining a Strong Nuclear Deterrent,” fact sheet, May 13, 2010,
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/May/20100514114003xjsnommis0.6300318.html.
49 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security
Administration Strategic Plan, May 2011, http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/
2011_NNSA_Strat_Plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
• Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of
limited-life components, ongoing assessment, and the like for all weapon types in
the stockpile. The FY2010 actual appropriation was $385.2 million. The FY2011
enacted figure was $646.2 million. For FY2012, the request was $497.6 million
and the House Appropriations Committee recommended $487.6 million to fully
support “core maintenance activities of the stockpile” while including “an
adjustment to account for delays in starting the W78 conceptual study.”
• Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD). The President and Congress
have agreed on the desirability of reducing the stockpile to the lowest level
consistent with national security, and numbers of warheads have fallen sharply
since the end of the Cold War. Because of the large number of warheads being
retired, there is a need to dismantle some warheads and to further break down
some components to “prevent storage problems across the [nuclear weapons]
enterprise.” WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be dismantled;
dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components
and materials). The FY2010 actual appropriation was $95.8 million and the
FY2011 enacted figure was $57.9 million. The FY2012 request was $56.8
million and the House Appropriations Committee recommended providing that
amount.
Several components of WDD have been moved to different organizations within DOE or
to different budget categories within Weapons Activities in the last several years. Within
WDD, the major activity for FY2009 was the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
(PDCF), which was moved to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account for
FY2010. The “pit” is the fissile component (usually plutonium) of a nuclear warhead that
initiates a thermonuclear explosion. As warheads are dismantled, pits may be stored, but
for permanent disposition PDCF would convert the plutonium in pits to plutonium oxide
for use in a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), where it would become fuel
for commercial light-water nuclear reactors. In FY2008, MFFF was transferred from
NNSA to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. WDD includes a Waste Solidification
Building (WSB) to convert liquid wastes from PDCF and MFFF into solids for disposal
off-site. For FY2010, the WSB account was moved to the Fissile Materials Disposition
Program within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
• Stockpile Services. This category includes Production Support; R&D Support;
R&D Certification and Safety; Management, Technology, and Production; and
Plutonium Sustainment. NNSA states, “Stockpile Services provides the
foundation for the production capability and capacity within the nuclear security
enterprise. All enduring systems, LEPs, and dismantlements rely on Stockpile
Services to provide the base development, production and logistics capability
needed to meet program requirements. In addition, Stockpile Services funds
research, development and production activities that support two or more
weapons-types, and work that is not identified or allocated to a specific weapon-
type.” The FY2010 actual appropriation was $851.4 million and the FY2011
enacted figure was $933.0 million. The FY2012 request was $928.6 million and
the House Appropriations Committee recommended $831.8 million. The latter
figure includes a reduction of $54.1 million to Production Support on grounds
that that category provides base manufacturing capabilities for weapons
production, and that these costs “are relatively insensitive to reductions in the
stockpile.” Since the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) did not specify “a large
Congressional Research Service
40
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
growth in the base production support overhead ... the recommendation provides
funding consistent with the pre-NPR level.”
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.” Many
campaigns have significance for policy decisions. For example, the Science Campaign’s goals
include improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving
readiness to conduct nuclear tests should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Campaigns also fund some large experimental
facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The
FY2012 request included five campaigns:
• Science Campaign. According to NNSA, this campaign “develops our nation’s
scientific capabilities and experimental infrastructure used to assess the safety,
security, reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosives package (NEP)
[the explosive component of a nuclear weapon] without reliance on further
underground testing.” The FY2010 actual appropriation was $294.5 million; the
FY2011 enacted figure was $362.5 million; and the FY2012 request was $405.9
million. Advanced Certification, the element showing the largest increase in this
campaign, would go from $19.3 million actual appropriation in FY2010 to $94.9
million requested for FY2012. This program “integrates scientific and
technological advances from stockpile stewardship with input from continuing
studies in order to: improve the weapons certification process; refine
computational tools and methods; advance the physical understanding of surety
mechanisms; understand failure modes; assess new manufacturing processes; and
anticipate technological surprise.” The proposed FY2012 program would include
experiments to address weapon failure modes, examining options to modernize
surety (sometimes defined as safety, security, and use control), and study of
factors that affect the ability to certify a warhead’s surety and performance. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $312.1 million for the Science
Campaign. The largest reduction was $75.5 million to Advanced Certification,
for a total of $19.4 million. The committee stated that this subprogram had
originally focused on addressing concerns about the ability to certify the Reliable
Replacement Warhead. However, that program has been canceled and the
Administration does not intend to produce a new warhead, so “it is unclear why
such large increases are being requested.”
• Engineering Campaign. This campaign “provides the modern tools and
capabilities needed to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of
the United States nuclear weapons stockpile …[It] funds activities that assess and
improve fielded nuclear and non-nuclear engineering components without further
underground testing.” The FY2010 actual appropriation was $149.7 million and
the FY2011 enacted figure was $140.9 million. For FY2012, the request was
$143.1 million and the House Appropriations Committee recommended
providing the requested amount.
• Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign. This campaign
is developing the tools to create extremely high temperatures and pressures in the
laboratory—approaching those of a nuclear explosion—to support weapons-
Congressional Research Service
41
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
related research and to attract scientific talent to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. NNSA states, “Virtually all of the energy from a nuclear weapon is
generated while in the high energy density (HED) state. High-energy density
physics (HEDP) experiments conducted at ICF facilities are required to validate
the advanced theoretical models used to assess and certify the stockpile without
nuclear testing. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) extends HEDP experiments
to include access to thermonuclear burn conditions in the laboratory, a unique
and unprecedented scientific achievement.” The centerpiece of this campaign is
NIF, the world’s largest laser. While NIF was controversial in Congress for many
years and had significant cost growth and technical problems, controversy waned
as the program progressed. The facility was dedicated in May 2009.50 Between
February 20, 2011, and March 20, 2011, NIF personnel conducted 34 “successful
target shots … in support of HEDSS [High Energy Density Stockpile
Stewardship].”51 The FY2010 actual appropriation was $457.5 million and the
FY2011 enacted figure was $477.6 million. For FY2012, the request was $476.3
million and the House Appropriations Committee recommended providing
$471.2 million.
• Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign. This campaign develops
computation-based models of nuclear weapons that integrate data from other
campaigns, past test data, laboratory experiments, and elsewhere to create what
NNSA calls “the computational surrogate for nuclear testing to determine
weapon behavior.” In addition, “ASC plays an important role in supporting
nonproliferation, emergency response, nuclear forensics and attribution
activities.” Some analysts doubt that simulation can be relied upon to provide the
confidence needed to certify the safety, security, and reliability of warheads, and
advocate a return to testing. The campaign includes funds for hardware and
operations as well as for software. The FY2010 actual appropriation was $566.1
million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $611.0 million. For FY2012, the
request was $628.9 million and the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $616.0 million. The reduction concerns a new initiative,
“exascale” computing, which represents a thousand-fold increase above current
capability. The Committee stated that “undertaking such a major initiative will
require considerable funding, and the NNSA has yet to tie the need for this level
of computing to any specific requirements of the stockpile in its 20-year plan.”
• Readiness Campaign. This campaign “operates the capability for producing
tritium to maintain the national inventory needed for the nuclear weapons
stockpile and selects and matures production technologies that are required for
manufacturing components to meet … requirements.” The FY2010 actual
appropriation was $106.7 million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $98.6
million. The FY2012 request was $142.5 million; the House Appropriations
Committee recommended $63.6 million. The major reduction, $65.0 million, was
to eliminate funds for the B61 bomb “and has provided the funding requested for
these activities within the B61 Life Extension Program.”
50 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Dedication of World’s Largest Laser Marks the Dawn of a New Era,”
press release, May 29, 2009, https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2009/NR-09-05-05.html.
51 “A Banner Month for NIF High Energy Density (HED) Experiments,” Project Status—2011, March, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/2011/march.php.
Congressional Research Service
42
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
This program funds infrastructure and operations at Complex sites. The FY2010 actual
appropriation was $1,810.3 million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $1,837.3 million. For
FY2012, the request was $2,326.1 million and the House Appropriations Committee
recommendation was $2,011.3 million. RTBF has six subprograms. The largest is Operations of
Facilities (FY2010 actual appropriation, $1,336.4.million; FY2011 enacted figure, $1,248.2
million; FY2012 request, $1,485.3 million; FY2012 House Appropriations Committee
recommendation, $1,295.6 million). Others include Program Readiness, which supports activities
at multiple sites or in multiple programs (FY2010 actual appropriation, $72.9 million; FY2011
enacted figure, $69.2 million; FY2012 request, $74.2 million; FY2012 House Appropriations
Committee recommendation, $69.2 million); Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly (FY2010
actual appropriation, $69.2 million; FY2011 enacted figure, $69.9 million; FY2012 request, $85.9
million; FY2012 House Appropriations Committee recommendation, $75.6 million); and
Construction (FY2010 actual appropriation, $283.9 million; FY2011 enacted figure, $398.2
million; FY2012 request, $620.5 million; FY2012 House Appropriations Committee
recommendation, $510.6 million).
The most costly item in Construction, and among the most controversial in the Weapons
Activities account, is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (FY2010 actual appropriation, $97.0 million; FY2011 enacted
figure, $224.6 million; FY2012 request, $300.0 million; FY2012 House Appropriations
Committee recommendation, $200.0 million). It would replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research (CMR) building, which is over 50 years old. Among other things, CMR houses research
into plutonium and supports pit production at Los Alamos. In considering the FY2008 budget, the
House Appropriations Committee stated, “Proceeding with the CMRR project as currently
designed will strongly prejudice any nuclear complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility
has no coherent mission to justify it unless the decision is made to begin an aggressive new
nuclear warhead design and pit production mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory.” The
Senate Appropriations Committee stated, “The current authorization basis for the existing CMR
[facility] lasts only through 2010, as it does not provide adequate worker safety or containment
precautions. However, deep spending cuts ... will likely result in delays that will require the
laboratory to continue operations in the existing CMR facility.”
In its FY2009 report, the House Appropriations Committee stated, regarding CMRR and another
facility at Los Alamos (the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility), “In the absence of
critical decisions on the nature and size of the stockpile, which in turn generate requirements for
the nature and capacity of the nuclear weapons complex, it is impossible to determine the
capacity required of either of these facilities. It would be imprudent to design and construct on the
basis of a guess at their required capacity.” It recommended no funds for either project. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $125.0 million, an increase of $24.8 million, for
CMRR “to make up for [previous] funding shortfalls.”
Several documents supported CMRR. In 2009, a congressional commission found conditions at
the existing CMR to be “genuinely decrepit” and recommended proceeding with CMRR to
replace it.52 The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) recommended proceeding with CMRR as
52 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, America’s Strategic Posture, Washington,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
43
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
one of several “key investments … required to sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
arsenal.”53 An Administration report to Congress of November 2010 said that CMRR and another
facility, the Uranium Processing Facility, “are required to ensure the United States can maintain a
safe, secure and effective arsenal over the long-term. The NPR concluded that the United States
needed to build these facilities; the Administration remains committed to their construction.”54
And the resolution of ratification for the New START Treaty required the President to certify to
the Senate that the President intends to “accelerate to the extent possible the design and
engineering phase of” CMRR and to request full funding for it when the design and engineering
phase is complete.55 On the other hand, critics argue that CMRR is not needed for its stated
purposes, is very expensive, is “managerially risky,” and lacks clarity regarding purpose, need,
design concept, cost, safety performance standards, etc.56
For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $200.0 million, a $100.0
million reduction from the request. The committee stated that it is “seriously concerned with the
recent cost growth reported for construction” of CMRR and another facility. Further,
“Modernization will take several years and the considerable number of variable still at play
argues against an excessively aggressive funding curve. The construction of the new major
facilities must not force out available modernization funding for the rest of the nuclear security
enterprise. Therefore, the Committee supports the adoption of cost reduction strategies to make
construction more affordable and to curb continued cost escalation.”
Other Programs
Weapons Activities includes several smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, and
RTBF. Among them:
• Secure Transportation Asset provides for safe and secure transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials. It includes special vehicles for this purpose,
communications and other supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The
FY2010 actual appropriation was $240.7 million and the FY2011 enacted figure
was $247.5 million. For FY2012, the request was $251.3 million and the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $243.3 million. “The recommendation
recoups savings from the federal employee pay freeze and the modernization of
federal aircraft.”
• Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response “responds to and mitigates nuclear
and radiological incidents worldwide and has a lead role in defending the Nation
from the threat of nuclear terrorism.” The FY2010 actual appropriation was
(...continued)
United States Institute of Peace Press, 2009, pp. 50-51.
53 U.S. Department of Defense. Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, p. 42.
54 U.S. “November 2010 Update to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2010 Section 1251 Report: New
START Treaty Framework and Nuclear Force Structure Plans,” p. 5. http://www.lasg.org/CMRR/
Sect1251_update_17Nov2010.pdf.
55 “Treaty with Russia on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,” U.S. Congress.
Congressional Record, December 22, 2010, p. S10984.
56 Memorandum from Greg Mello with help from Trish Williams-Mello, Los Alamos Study Group, to interested
parties, “The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) should not be built …,” May 22, 2011, pp. 1-4.
Congressional Research Service
44
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
$223.4 million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $231.0 million. For FY2012,
the request was $222.1 million and the House Appropriations Committee
recommended providing that amount. Regarding a request for funds for a third
aircraft for incident response, the committee directed NNSA to submit a report on
air transportation capabilities needed for this purpose.
• Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) “continues its
mission to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear
security enterprise.” It focuses on “elimination of legacy deferred maintenance.”
The FY2010 actual appropriation was $95.6 million and the FY2011 enacted
figure was $93.3 million. For FY2012, the request was $96.4 million and the
House Appropriations Committee recommended providing that amount.
• Site Stewardship seeks to “ensure environmental compliance and energy and
operational efficiency throughout the nuclear security enterprise.” It was a new
program for FY2010, consolidating several earlier programs. The FY2010 actual
appropriation was $63.3 million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $104.6
million. For FY2012, the request was $104.0 million and the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $78.7 million. The Committee
eliminated funds for the Energy Modernization and Investment Program: “NNSA
should integrate its sustainability and energy conservation goals into its overall
infrastructure recapitalization efforts.” The Committee found the Site
Stewardship mission to be “unfocused” and the five-year plan to show “a large
and unjustified growth for this activity.”
• Safeguards and Security consists of two elements: (1) Defense Nuclear Security
provides operations, maintenance, and construction funds for protective forces,
physical security systems, personnel security, and the like. It “provides protection
from a full spectrum of threats, especially terrorism, for NNSA personnel,
facilities, nuclear weapons, and information.” Its FY2010 actual appropriation
was $769.8 million and the FY2011 enacted figure was $713.5 million. For
FY2012, the request was $722.9 million and the House Appropriations
Committee recommended $690.9 million. Savings result from “completion of
major construction funding requirements.” The committee asked NNSA for “a
multi-year plan for upgrading the physical security infrastructure.” (2) Cyber
Security “provides the requisite guidance needed to ensure that sufficient
information management security safeguards are implemented throughout the
NNSA enterprise.” The FY2010 actual appropriation was $123.3 million and the
FY2011 enacted figure was $123.3 million. For FY2012, the request was $126.6
million and the House Appropriations Committee recommended providing that
amount.
• Legacy contractor pensions: Certain employees at Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories had defined-benefit pension plans through the
University of California (UC), which had been the contractor for these
laboratories. However, the current contracts for the laboratories are between DOE
and a consortium of contractors, one of which is UC. The current contracts (one
for each laboratory) gave employees hired while UC was the sole contractor a
choice between the equivalent of the UC pension plan and another plan. Many
employees chose the former. The House Appropriations Committee noted that
“the pensions of legacy national laboratory employees are an ongoing
stewardship cost of the nuclear weapons complex”; that funding for these
Congressional Research Service
45
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
pensions was requested through RTBF and a program within Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, another component of NNSA; and that its recommendation
“provides funding for these multiple requests in a single funding line as a
simplified and more transparent solution to managing these costs.” This is a new
line item in the budget, for which the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $147.0 million for FY2012.
• National Security Applications: For FY2012, NNSA requested $20.0 million for
this program, which the agency said “makes strategic investments in the national
security science, technology and engineering capabilities and infrastructure base
that are necessary to address current and future global security issues.” For
FY2011, the enacted figure (labeled Science, Technology, and Engineering
Capability) was $19.8 million. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended eliminating funds for this program: “There is no clear requirement
for these investments and no criteria provided whereby technologies would be
considered appropriate for funding under this program. No performance
measures have been developed to support a particular investment strategy.”
Rescissions: For FY2011, the enacted figure was a rescission of $50.0 million. For FY2012, the
Administration’s request included a rescission of $40.3 million of prior year balances; the House
Appropriations Committee recommended rescinding that amount.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
nonproliferation and national security programs are included in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
$391.0
$417.6
$346.2
Nonproliferation and International Security
147.5
161.8
161.8
International Materials Protection, Control and
572.0 571.6 496.5
Accounting (MPC&A)
Fissile Materials Disposition
802.2
890.2
694.1
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
436.0
508.3
386.8
Rescissions -45.0
-30.0
-30.0
Total 2,273.7
2,519.5
2,056.8a
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118 .
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. The House-passed version of H.R. 2354 was amended on the floor to increase Nuclear Nonproliferation
funding by $35 million.
Congressional Research Service
46
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Funding for these programs in FY2011 was $2.274 billion, up from $2.137 billion for FY2010.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was funded at $391.0 million for FY2011.
The request for FY2012 was $417.6 million; the House Appropriations Committee recommended
$346.2 million. Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international
safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. The FY2012 request for these programs
was $161.8 million, compared with $147.5 million appropriated for FY2011. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount.
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A), which is concerned with
reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, was
funded at $572.0 million in FY2011; the FY2012 request is $571.6 million. The House bill would
appropriate $496.5 million.
The goal of the Fissile Materials Disposition program 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 “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC,
and a similar program in Russia. Funding for the U.S. side of the program was controversial for
several years, because of lack of progress on the program to dispose of Russian plutonium.
However, for FY2010 the Obama Administration requested and got a total of $701.9 million for
Fissile Materials Disposition, noting that “DOE and its Russian counterpart agency, Rosatom,
agreed on a financially and technically credible program to dispose of Russian surplus weapon-
grade plutonium in November 2007.” The program would rely on Russian fast reactors “operating
under certain nonproliferation restrictions,” according to the budget document. The FY2011
appropriation for this program was $802.2 million. The FY2012 request was $892.2 million. The
House bill would appropriate $694.1 million.
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is aimed at converting research reactors around the world
from using highly enriched uranium, removing and disposing of excess nuclear materials, and
protecting nuclear materials from theft or sabotage. The FY2011 appropriation for this program
was $436.0 million. The FY2012 request was $508.3 million. The House bill would appropriate
$386.8 million.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian
Nuclear Energy Research Facilities
The development and production of nuclear weapons for national defense purposes for over half a
century since the beginning of the Manhattan Project resulted in a legacy of wastes and
contamination that continues to present substantial challenges today. In 1989, DOE established
what is now the Office of Environmental Management to consolidate the cleanup of former
nuclear weapons production facilities that had been administered under multiple offices.57 These
cleanup efforts are broad in scope and include the disposal of large quantities of radioactive and
other hazardous wastes generated over decades; management and disposal of surplus nuclear
materials; remediation of extensive contamination in soil and groundwater; decontamination and
decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities; and safeguarding, securing, and maintaining
facilities while cleanup is underway. Some facilities also were involved in civilian nuclear energy
57 In 1989, DOE created the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, which later was renamed the
Office of Environmental Management.
Congressional Research Service
47
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
research, which generated wastes and contamination. The Office of Environmental Management
administers the cleanup of these research facilities, adding a non-defense component to its
mission, albeit smaller in terms of scope and funding.58
Efforts to clean up the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy
research represent the single largest environmental liability of the United States, exceeding the
cleanup liability of Department of Defense facilities. The need for annual appropriations of
several billion dollars to clean up nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research
facilities has generated ongoing interest within Congress about the long-term financial liability of
the United States to address potential risks at these sites. How to ensure the protection of public
safety, human health, and the environment in the most expedient and cost-effective manner has
been a perennial issue in the appropriations debate.
DOE has identified in excess of 100 facilities in over 30 states59 that historically were involved in
the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research, covering approximately 2 million
acres of land combined.60 Cleanup remedies are in place at the majority of these facilities, and
they have been transferred to the Office of Legacy Management and other offices within DOE for
long-term stewardship to maintain and monitor them.61 See the “Office of Legacy Management”
section of this report. Some of the smaller facilities also have been transferred to the Army Corps
of Engineers under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), and are
now funded within the civil works budget of the Corps.62 (See Table 4.) Much work remains to
be done at the larger and more complex facilities that are still administered by the Office of
Environmental Management. DOE expects cleanup to continue for several years or even decades
at some of these facilities, necessitating billions of dollars.
As of the beginning of FY2011, the Office of Environmental Management administered 18
facilities in 11 states at which planned cleanup actions were not yet complete.63 DOE estimated
that the costs to complete these actions could range between $185 billion and $218 billion,
exceeding past costs already incurred.64 DOE periodically revises these estimates as project
58 For additional information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Environmental Management, see
DOE’s website: http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/EMHome.aspx.
59 For a geographic listing of each facility, see DOE’s Office of Environmental Management website:
http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/siteslocations.aspx.
60 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, February 2011,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 10: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/Volume5.pdf.
61 The Office of Legacy Management administers the long-stewardship of DOE facilities that do not have a continuing
mission once cleanup remedies are in place. Facilities that have a continuing mission are transferred to the DOE offices
that administer those missions, which are responsible for their long-term stewardship.
62 The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-62) directed DOE to transfer the
cleanup of 21 FUSRAP sites to the Army Corps of Engineers. DOE has remained responsible for determining the
eligibility of additional sites, and Congress has designated certain sites in legislation. DOE is responsible for the long-
term stewardship of FUSRAP sites once the Corps completes the cleanup.
63 For a listing of each facility, see Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2012 Congressional
Budget Request, February 2011, Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 18. One of the facilities, the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, is not a cleanup site, but is a permanent, geologic repository for “transuranic”
wastes that are removed from other DOE facilities for disposal.
64 Ibid., p. 10. Including the $90 billion in past costs incurred from FY1997 through FY2010, DOE estimated total
“life-cycle” costs ranging from $275 billion to $308 billion. DOE consistently has used FY1997 as the baseline, or
starting point, for the time frame of these life-cycle estimates. DOE also has reported $35 billion in past costs incurred
since the establishment of the Office of Environmental Management in 1989 through FY1996, for a total of $125
billion in past costs incurred through FY2010. Comprehensive information on past costs incurred prior to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
48
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
baselines and assumptions change. The estimates have varied widely over time by many billions
of dollars. DOE typically estimates a range of costs, rather than a single dollar amount, to reflect
uncertainties in the cleanup process. For example, final decisions have yet to be made at some
facilities to determine the actions that will be necessary to remediate contamination. Methods to
dispose of vast quantities of wastes, and the scheduling of these actions, also could affect cleanup
costs and time frames. The costs of long-term stewardship also are uncertain, considering the
lengthy time frames of maintenance and monitoring once cleanup remedies are in place.
Office of Environmental Management
Three appropriations accounts fund the Office of Environmental Management: Defense
Environmental Cleanup, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund. The Defense Environmental Cleanup
account constitutes the vast majority of the funding for the Office of Environmental Management
and is devoted to the cleanup of former nuclear weapons production facilities. The Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup accounts funds the cleanup of wastes and contamination resulting from
civilian nuclear energy research, and the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account funds the
cleanup of facilities that enriched uranium for national defense and civilian purposes.
For the net total of these three accounts combined, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $5.60 billion. The committee’s recommendation is $530.3 million less than the
President’s request of $6.13 billion, and $66.9 million less than the FY2011 enacted
appropriations of $5.67 billion. The committee also highlighted numerous oversight issues in its
report on H.R. 2354 that pertain to the Office of Environmental Management, such as challenges
in constructing facilities to process high-level wastes at the Hanford site in Washington state,
potential uses of the H-Canyon site at the Savannah River site in South Carolina, efficiencies
learned from projects funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5),
cleanup progress and remaining liabilities at certain “small” non-defense sites, and the use of
proceeds from the barter or sale of federal uranium stockpiles to augment cleanup resources.65
As the President proposed, the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation does not
include any funding within the Defense Environmental Cleanup account to continue the federal
payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. This payment historically has been treated as an
offset to the total program funding for the Office of Environmental Management because the
funding actually does not become available to DOE until Congress subsequently appropriates it
out of the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.66 The amount of the federal payment has been an
issue in the debate over the reauthorization of receipts to support this fund. See the “Uranium
Enrichment Facilities” section of this report.
(...continued)
establishment of the Office of Environmental Management is not readily available.
65 See H.Rept. 112-118, p. 9-11, p. 105-107, and p. 142-147.
66 However, the House Appropriations Committee’s comparison of its recommendation for the Office of Environmental
Management program total in FY2012 to the FY2011 enacted level did not appear to treat the FY2011 federal payment
of $33.6 million as an offset, stating its recommendation as being $100.5 million below FY2011, instead of $66.9
million when accounting for the offset. See H.Rept. 112-118, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
49
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 14 presents a breakout of funding for each of the three appropriations accounts that fund
DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, comparing proposals for FY2012 to the level of
appropriations enacted in FY2011. The table also presents the net total program funding level for
the Office of Environmental Management, after offsets and rescissions. A discussion of selected
issues that have received ongoing congressional attention follows, including DOE’s compliance
with cleanup “milestones” (i.e., deadlines), the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, and
cleanup of federal uranium enrichment facilities.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management
($ millions)
Account/Site or Activity
FY2011 Enacted FY2012 Request FY2012 House
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure Sites
0.2
5.4
5.4
Hanford
Richland Operations
966.0
913.7
933.7
Office of River Protection
1,135.6
1,361.4
1,148.0
Hanford Subtotal
2,101.6
2,275.1
2,081.7
Idaho National Laboratory
398.7
382.8
382.8
NNSA Sites and Nevada Off-Sites
309.0
423.7
248.8
Oak Ridge Reservation
152.1
176.1
156.1
Savannah River Site
1,172.4
1,224.1
1,180.7
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
215.7
228.9
220.0
Program Direction
320.0
321.6
316.9
Program Support
21.1
0.0
0.0
Community, Regulatory, and Program Support
0.0
91.3
89.8
Safeguards and Security
247.8
248.8
248.8
Technology Development
19.4
32.3
10.0
Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
33.6
0.0
0.0
Use of Prior Year Balances
0.0
-3.4
-3.4
Rescission -11.9
0.0
0.0
Defense Environmental Cleanup Subtotal
4,979.7
5,406.8
4,937.6
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility
3.7
2.7
2.7
Gaseous Diffusion Plants
99.3
100.6
97.6
Smal Sites
63.7
57.4
55.9
West Val ey Demonstration Project
57.7
58.4
56.9
Rescission -0.9
0.0
0.0
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Subtotal
223.5 219.1
213.1a
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant
0.0
182.7
182.7
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
0.0
77.8
77.8
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
0.0
243.6
188.5
Congressional Research Service
50
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Account/Site or Activity
FY2011 Enacted FY2012 Request FY2012 House
Undistributed Fundsb 507.0
0.0
0.0
Rescission -9.9
0.0
0.0
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Subtotal
497.1
504.2
449.0
Offset for Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D Fundc -33.6 0.0 0.0
Office of Environmental Management Total
5,666.7
6,130.1
5,599.7
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the House Appropriations
Committee report on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bil , 2012, H.R. 2354 (H.Rept. 112-118), p.
159-160, p. 176-180. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. During House passage of H.R. 2354 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup funding was increased by $41 million.
b. For FY2012, a breakout is presented within the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account for the individual
uranium enrichment facilities (gaseous diffusion plants). The amounts for FY2011 were not broken out, but were
presented in terms of the total “undistributed” funds for all of these facilities combined.
c. The federal payment transferred from the Defense Environmental Cleanup account to the Uranium Enrichment
D&D Fund historically has been treated as an offset to the total program funding for the Office of Environmental
Management, because the funding is not actual y available to DOE for obligation until Congress subsequently
appropriates it out of the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. The House Appropriations Committee’s comparison
of its recommendation for the program total in FY2012 to the FY2011 enacted level did not appear to treat the
FY2011 federal payment of $33.6 million as an offset, stating its recommendation as being $100.5 million below
FY2011, instead of a $66.9 million reduction when accounting for the offset. See H.Rept. 112-118, p. 5.
Cleanup Milestones
The adequacy of funding for the Office of Environmental Management to ensure compliance with
cleanup “milestones” has been a recurring issue in the appropriations debate.67 DOE’s attainment
of these milestones often is used as a measure to gauge overall cleanup progress at individual
facilities. Cleanup milestones establish time frames for the completion of specific actions or steps
within the cleanup process. Compliance with these milestones is intended to satisfy applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements. Each milestone is identified in written agreements
negotiated among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the states in which the
facilities are located.68
Although cleanup milestones are legally binding, the ability to meet specified deadlines depends
upon the availability of funding to carry out necessary actions, the technical feasibility of those
actions, and in some cases, the resolution of other regulatory issues upon which a milestone may
be based. Consequently, the availability of funds is not the sole factor that may determine whether
DOE is capable of attaining a cleanup deadline. Furthermore, not all of the Office of
Environmental Management’s annual budget is available for attaining cleanup milestones, as
funding also is needed for safeguarding, securing, and maintaining facilities while cleanup is
underway. According to DOE, the President’s FY2012 request for the Office of Environmental
67 Most federal environmental laws specify the applicability of the requirements of those laws to federal facilities.
However, the Anti-Deficiency Act generally prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending funds in excess of
appropriations, unless authorized by law. The prohibition under this act may limit an agency’s ability to comply with an
environmental requirement if appropriations are insufficient. However, the act allows exceptions for emergencies
involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.
68 Compliance agreements for individual facilities are available on DOE’s Office of Environmental Management
website: http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/compagreements.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
51
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Management would support the completion of all enforceable cleanup milestones with deadlines
that fall within the fiscal year.69 Whether and to what extent the House Appropriations
Committee’s proposed reduction of $530.3 million below the President’s request for the Office of
Environmental Management as a whole would affect the attainment of cleanup milestones at
individual sites in FY2012 is unclear.
Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes
Cleanup progress especially has been a concern at DOE’s largest nuclear weapons production
facilities where high-level radioactive wastes are stored.70 These facilities include the Hanford
site in Washington, the Savannah River site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
According to a DOE estimate in 2009, there are 54 million gallons of high-level wastes stored in
177 tanks at Hanford, 33 million gallons in 49 tanks at the Savannah River site, and nearly 1
million gallons in 4 tanks at the Idaho National Laboratory.71 These high-level wastes are
intended to be permanently disposed of in a geologic repository, but the need to first remove and
treat the wastes to prepare them for permanent disposal has presented many technical difficulties.
The availability of a geologic repository could present additional challenges that may delay
permanent disposal and thereby lengthen cleanup time frames and affect costs. See the “Nuclear
Waste Disposal” section of this report.
The management of high-level wastes and other cleanup needs at Hanford, the Savannah River
site, and the Idaho National Laboratory present some of the most complex challenges resulting
from decades of nuclear weapons production. In recent years, funding for these three facilities
combined has represented over one-half of the annual appropriations for the Office of
Environmental Management. For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a
total of $3.65 billion for these three facilities combined, constituting 65% of the total program
funding level that the committee proposed for the Office of Environmental Management. The
committee’s recommendation would be a reduction below the President’s request of $3.88 billion,
and the FY2011 enacted appropriations of $3.67 billion.
Of the $3.65 billion that the committee recommended, $2.08 billion would be allocated to
Hanford; $1.18 billion to the Savannah River site; and $383 million for the Idaho National
Laboratory. See Table 14. Most of the reduction below the President’s request for these three
facilities is attributed to Hanford, with a smaller reduction for the Savannah River site, and no
reduction below the request for the Idaho National Laboratory. In particular, the committee
highlighted its concerns about various timing, planning, cost, and safety issues involved in the
construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford, which would process
the high-level wastes that are removed from the tanks to prepare them for permanent disposal.
The adequacy and pace of the construction of this facility has been a long-standing issue at
Hanford. Of the amount for Hanford, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $740.0
69 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, February 2011,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 12.
70 The storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel presents additional challenges.
71 Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Report to Congress: Status of Environmental
Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of
the Cold War, January 2009, p. 23-24, available on DOE’s Office of Environmental Management website:
http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/NDAA%20Report-(01-15-09)a.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
52
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
million for this waste plant, $100 million less than the President’s request of $840.0 million, but
an increase of $1.3 million above the FY2011 enacted appropriations of $738.7 million.
Long-term funding needs are expected to continue at these three facilities for decades. DOE
estimates that cleanup may not be complete at Hanford until as late as 2062, at the Savannah
River site until 2040, and at the Idaho National Laboratory until 2044.72 These lengthy horizons
in part are due to the time estimated for the treatment and disposal of the substantial volumes of
high-level wastes stored at these facilities.
Uranium Enrichment Facilities
The source and availability of funding for the cleanup of three uranium enrichment facilities also
has been a recurring issue in the appropriations debate. These facilities enriched uranium both for
national defense purposes and the generation of electricity by commercial nuclear utilities. These
facilities are located in Paducah, Kentucky; Piketon, Ohio (Portsmouth plant); and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) established the Uranium
Enrichment D&D Fund to pay for the cleanup of these facilities, and to reimburse uranium and
thorium licensees for their costs of cleaning up sites that supported the enrichment facilities.73 To
finance this fund, Congress originally authorized the collection of special assessments from
nuclear utilities based on the portion of enrichment services each utility purchased from the
federal government.74 Congress also authorized payments by the federal government to the
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund out of the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, subject to annual
appropriations. 75
The original requirement for both the federal government, and the nuclear utilities that purchased
enrichment services, to contribute to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund was based on the
premise that both the United States and the nuclear utilities benefitted from the production of
enriched uranium and therefore should share in the liability for cleanup of facilities involved in
these activities. The authority to collect the utility assessments, and the authorization of
appropriations for the federal payment, expired on October 24, 2007. Since that time, Congress
has continued federal payments to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund through the annual
appropriations process, without enacting separate reauthorizing legislation. The federal payment
has been made through a transfer from the Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
Whether to reauthorize the utility assessments and the federal payment has been an issue, as the
balance of the fund does not appear sufficient to pay the estimated costs to complete the cleanup
of the federal uranium enrichment facilities in the future. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reported that $4.5 billion remained available in the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund for
appropriation by Congress, as of the beginning of FY2011.76 However, this amount is far less
72 Ibid., p. 18.
73 42 U.S.C. § 2297g.
74 42 U.S.C. § 2297g-1(c).
75 42 U.S.C. § 2297g-1(d).
76 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2012, February 2011, Appendix,
p. 415, available on OMB’s website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/doe.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
53
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
than DOE’s estimated cost range of $13.3 billion to $27.0 billion to meet all remaining cleanup
needs at these facilities over the long-term.77
The President’s FY2012 budget request includes a proposal to reinstate the nuclear utility
assessments to increase resources in the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund that would be available
for appropriation by Congress.78 The proposal would cap the assessments at $200 million for the
first fiscal year in which the assessments are reinstated, and the $200 million initial cap would be
annually adjusted for inflation thereafter. The authority for the federal government to resume
collection of the assessments would be subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation by
Congress. In the 111th Congress, at least two bills were introduced, but not enacted, to reauthorize
the nuclear utility assessments (H.R. 2471 and S. 1061).
As presented in Table 14, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $449.0 million in
appropriations out of the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund in FY2012, $55.2 million less than the
President’s request of $504.2 million, and $48.0 million less than the FY2011 enacted
appropriations of $497.1 million. As reported, H.R. 2354 also would authorize an additional $150
million for cleanup through the barter, transfer, or sale of federal stockpiles of uranium, and
would make this funding subject to appropriations. The committee noted that DOE had used this
funding mechanism in recent years to enhance cleanup resources without a specific discretionary
appropriation of these receipts for this purpose, and highlighted DOE’s intention to use $200
million in projected receipts in FY2012. The committee also expressed its continuing concern as
to whether the sale of federal uranium stockpiles could destabilize uranium markets.79
Neither the House Appropriations Committee nor the President proposed to continue the federal
payment into the Uranium D&D Enrichment Fund in FY2012, as the FY2011 payment of $33.6
million was intended to fulfill the remaining balance of the required federal contribution to the
fund, as originally authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.80 However, the 1992 law still
requires DOE to pay the costs of cleanup even if the remaining balance of the Uranium
Enrichment D&D Fund is expended, subject to annual appropriations.81 In effect, federal monies
in excess of the remaining balance in the fund still may be necessary in the future to ensure that
the cleanup of federal uranium enrichment facilities is completed in accordance with existing law.
In the 112th Congress, legislation has been introduced, H.R. 2054 and S. 1135, which would
involve an alternative approach to increasing resources for the cleanup of federal uranium
enrichment facilities. The legislation would authorize a pilot program to re-enrich depleted
uranium owned by the federal government, and would direct certain proceeds from the sale of the
77 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2012 Congressional Budget Request, February 2011,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 32, p. 35, and p. 37. CRS calculated these estimates by adding DOE’s
estimates for the individual projects at the Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth facilities funded out of the Uranium
Enrichment D&D Fund, and the estimates of the remaining reimbursements to uranium and thorium licensees for their
cleanup costs. The comprehensive estimates that DOE presented for the Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth facilities
include projects that are funded out of the Non-Defense and Defense Environmental Cleanup Accounts. CRS separated
the project estimates for the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund to identify the estimated needs for this particular fund.
78 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2012, February 2011, Analytical
Perspectives, p. 230-231, available on OMB’s website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
Analytical_Perspectives.
79 See H.Rept. 112-118, p. 106-107.
80 42 U.S.C. § 2297g-1.
81 42 U.S.C. § 2297g-2(c).
Congressional Research Service
54
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
re-enriched uranium into the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. These proceeds would be
authorized as mandatory funds that would be available to DOE for cleanup purposes, without
being subject to discretionary appropriations.
Office of Legacy Management
The Office of Legacy Management administers the long-term stewardship of DOE facilities that
do not have a continuing mission once cleanup remedies are in place, including facilities that had
been transferred from DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers under the FUSRAP program. Once
the Corps completes the cleanup of a facility under this program, it is responsible for the initial
two years of operations and maintenance, after which time the facility is transferred back to DOE
for long-term stewardship. The Office of Legacy Management also manages the payment of
pensions and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked at DOE
facilities that do not have a continuing mission,82 among other supporting activities.83 The Office
of Legacy Management is funded within DOE’s Other Defense Activities Account.84 The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $167.1 million within this account for the Office of
Legacy Management in FY2012, $3.0 million less than the President’s request of $170.1 million,
and $4.5 million less than the FY2011 enacted appropriations of $171.6 million.
Funding needs for the Office of Legacy Management are likely to rise over time, as more
facilities are cleaned up and transferred for long-term stewardship. Over the next 10 years, DOE
projects that the number of facilities administered by the Office of Legacy Management will rise
from 91 in FY2011 to 129 in FY2020.85 Estimating the funding needs is challenging because of
the lengthy time horizons that are involved. For example, actions may be necessary for many
decades to operate and maintain cleanup remedies and monitor contaminant levels to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedies over time. At sites where the cleanup entails the permanent
containment of radioactive wastes, long-term stewardship may continue indefinitely because of
the time required for radioactivity to decay to acceptable levels. Enforcement of land use
restrictions or other institutional controls may be necessary in perpetuity at facilities that are not
cleaned up for unrestricted use, in order to prevent potentially harmful exposure. These and other
factors make it difficult to reliably estimate the financial liability for long-term stewardship.86
82 Similar to long-term stewardship responsibilities, the payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits of workers at
facilities with a continuing DOE mission is assigned to the program office within DOE that is responsible for
administering that mission, rather than the Office of Legacy Management.
83 For more information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Legacy Management, see DOE’s website:
http://www.lm.doe.gov.
84 Congress began to fund the Office of Legacy Management entirely within the Other Defense Activities Account in
FY2009. The majority of the facilities administered by this office were involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons program,
but some of the facilities were contaminated by civilian nuclear energy research activities. Prior to FY2009, Congress
appropriated funding for the relatively small number of non-defense facilities administered by the Office of Legacy
Management within a stand-alone account.
85 Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 2011-2020 Strategic Plan, DOE/LM-0512, January 2011, p.
5, available on DOE’s Office of Legacy Management website: http://www.lm.doe.gov.
86 DOE annually estimates the financial liabilities of long-term stewardship as a portion of other environmental
liabilities of the Department, but does not report a separate estimate just for long-term stewardship alone. Furthermore,
DOE estimates these liabilities only for the first 75 years and acknowledges that costs are likely to be incurred beyond
this time frame that “cannot reasonably be estimated.” See Department of Energy, Fiscal Year 2010 Agency Financial
Report, November 2010, “Environmental Cleanup and Disposal Liabilities,” p. 61-63, available on DOE’s website:
http://www.energy.gov/media/2010parAFR.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
55
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Power Marketing Administrations
DOE’s four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)—were established to sell the power
generated by the dams operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
In many cases, conservation and management of water resources—including irrigation, flood
control, recreation or other objectives—were the primary purpose of federal projects. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS22564, Power Marketing Administrations: Background and
Current Issues, by Richard J. Campbell.)
Priority for PMA power is extended to “preference customers,” which include municipal utilities,
cooperatives, and other “public” bodies. The PMAs sell power to these entities “at the lowest
possible rates” consistent with what they describe as “sound business practice.” The PMAs are
responsible for covering their expenses and for repaying debt and the federal investment in the
generating facilities.
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 request for the PMAs was $108 million. This is an overall
decrease of $10 million (4%) compared with the FY2011 appropriation. The FY2012 budget
request continues a change enacted in FY2010 that reclassified receipts from the PMAs from
mandatory to discretionary. This change offsets many of the expenses of WAPA, SWPA, and
SEPA that were previously paid for with discretionary appropriations. As a result of the change,
two PMAs require discretionary funding in addition to their receipts: SWPA requests $11.8
million and WAPA requests $95.9 million. Receipts for SEPA are expected to offset all operating
costs in FY2011. In addition, $220,000 is requested for Falcon and Amistad operations and
maintenance, and collections of $23 million from Colorado River basins score as an additional
offset toward the net discretionary appropriation. The House bill would appropriate the requested
amounts.
BPA is a self-funded agency under authority granted by P.L. 93-454 (16 U.S.C. §838), the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, and receives no appropriations. However, it
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). ARRA further increased the amount
of borrowing that BPA conducts under the Transmission System Act by $3.25 billion to the
current authority for $7.7 billion in bonds outstanding to the Treasury. The FY2011 budget
proposes Bonneville accrue expenditures of $3.195 billion for operating expenses, $52 million for
Projects Funded in Advance, $937 million for capital investments, and $383 million for capital
transfers.
ARRA also provided WAPA borrowing authority for the purpose of planning, financing or
building new or upgraded electric power transmission lines to facilitate the delivery of renewable
energy resources constructed by or expected to be constructed after the date of enactment. The
authority to borrow from the United States Treasury had not previously been available to WAPA.
It is now available on a permanent, indefinite basis, with the amount of borrowing outstanding
not to exceed $3.25 billion. WAPA has established a new Transmission Infrastructure Program for
this purpose and through FY2010 reported spending $333 million on these projects.
Congressional Research Service
56
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water Development bill include
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and
the Denali Commission.
Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
FY2011
FY2012
Program
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Appalachian Regional Commission
$68.2
$76.0
$68.4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1,041.4
1,038.1
1,037.1
(Revenues)
-904.5
-909.5
-890.7
Net NRC (including Inspector General)
137.0
128.6
146.5
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
23.2
29.1
29.1
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
3.9
3.4
3.4
Denali Commission
-4.3
12.0
10.7
Delta Regional Authority
11.7
13.0
11.7
Northern Border Regional Commission
1.5
1.5
1.4
Southern Crescent Regional Commission
0.3
0.0
0.3
Fed. Coord. Alaska Gas Projects
4.5
4.0
4.0
Total 247.0
267.6
276.5
Source: FY2012 budget request, H.Rept. 112-118, H.R. 2354 as passed.
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested $1.038 billion for FY2012 (including
$10.9 million for the inspector general’s office), nearly the same as the FY2011 funding level.
The House FY2012 energy and water bill would provide the full request. Major activities
conducted by NRC include safety regulation and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors and
oversight of nuclear materials users.
The NRC budget request includes $279.5 million for new reactor activities, a $12.5 million
increase from FY2010, largely to handle new nuclear power plant license applications. Until
2007, no new commercial reactor construction applications had been submitted to NRC since the
1970s. However, volatile fossil fuel prices, the possibility of controls on carbon emissions, and
incentives provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prompted electric utilities and other
generating companies to apply for licenses for 30 new reactors, although several license
applicants have suspended work on their projects.
Congressional Research Service
57
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
NRC’s proposed FY2012 budget included no funds for licensing DOE’s previously planned
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Because the Obama Administration wants to cancel the
Yucca Mountain project and filed a motion to withdraw the license application on March 3, 2010,
the NRC’s FY2011 appropriation is being used to close out its licensing activities. The House bill
includes $10 million for NRC “to continue the Yucca Mountain license application” and would
prohibit NRC funds from being used to halt the licensing process unless NRC approves DOE’s
license withdrawal motion.
For regulation of operating reactors, NRC’s FY2012 budget request includes $521.3 million,
$20.5 million below the FY2010 level. Those activities include reactor safety inspections, license
renewals and modifications, collection and analysis of reactor performance data, and oversight of
security exercises. The Fukushima accident, which occurred about a month after the FY2012
budget request was submitted, increased congressional and public concern about the safety of
U.S. nuclear power plants. NRC established a task force 10 days after the accident to conduct
short- and long-term reviews of NRC’s regulatory system and report to the commission every 30
days for three months with recommendations for improvement.87
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permanently extended a requirement that 90% of NRC’s budget
be offset by fees on licensees. Not subject to the offset are expenditures from the Nuclear Waste
Fund to pay for waste repository licensing, spending on general homeland security, and DOE
defense waste oversight. The offsets in the FY2012 request would result in a net appropriation of
$128.6 million, an $8.4 million decrease from FY2011. Offsets in the House bill would result in a
net appropriation of $137.6 million.
Author Contact Information
Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator
Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy
Specialist in Energy Policy
cbehrens@crs.loc.gov, 7-8303
mholt@crs.loc.gov, 7-1704
Anthony Andrews
Jonathan Medalia
Specialist in Energy and Defense Policy
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
aandrews@crs.loc.gov, 7-6843
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov, 7-7632
David M. Bearden
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
Carol Glover
Charles V. Stern
Information Research Specialist
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
cglover@crs.loc.gov, 7-7353
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
87 Written Statement by Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Water, March 30, 2011, p. 9, http://www.nrc.gov/japan/
japan-testimony.html.
Congressional Research Service
58
Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
General Carl
Behrens
7-8303
cbehrens@crs.loc.gov
Carol Glover
7-7353
cglover@crs.loc.gov
Corps of Engineers
Charles V. Stern Nicole
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Carter
7-0854
ncarter@crs.loc.gov
Bureau of Reclamation
Charles V. Stern Betsy
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Cody
7-7229
bcody@crs.loc.gov
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
7-7039
fsissine@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
7-1704
mholt@crs.loc.gov
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
7-5849
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Nonproliferation Carl
Behrens
7-8303
cbehrens@crs.loc.gov
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
7-2390
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Power Marketing Administrations
Charles V. Stern
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Bonneville Power Administration
Charles V. Stern
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Fossil Energy Research
Anthony Andrews
7-6843
aandrews@crs.loc.gov
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Anthony Andrews
7-6843
aandrews@crs.loc.gov
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
7-7039
fsissine@crs.loc.gov
Budget Data
Carol Glover
7-7353
cglover@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
59