Energy and Water Development:
FY2014 Appropriations

Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
January 13, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43121


Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects
of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.
FY2013 Energy and Water Development appropriations were considered in the context of the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits
for FY2012-FY2021. On March 26, 2013, the President signed H.R. 933, the FY2013 Defense
and Military Construction/VA, Full Year Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-6). The act funds
Energy and Water Development accounts at the FY2012 enacted level for the rest of FY2013,
with some exceptions. However, under BCA, an automatic spending reduction process, consisting
of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, went into effect March
1, 2013.
For FY2014, as in previous years, the level of overall spending has been a major issue. President
Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in April 2013.
The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 26 the House Appropriations Committee reported a
bill, H.R. 2609, with a total of $30.4 billion; the bill passed the House, with amendments, on July
10. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a bill, S. 1245, on June 27, with a total of
$34.4 billion. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014,
H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal programs, including Energy and Water
Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013 post-sequestration spending level. On
December 26 the President signed H.J.Res. 59 (P.L. 113-67), which contained the Bipartisan
Budget Act establishing less stringent spending caps for FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA and
potentially easing the way for an appropriations agreement.
In addition to funding levels, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs include
• the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II)
projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above
Administration requests;
• alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste
Disposal);
• proposed FY2014 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) programs (Title III) that are more than 50% higher in the
Administration’s request than the amount appropriated for FY2012; and,
• funding for the nuclear weapons program and other defense activities, which
make up half of the total Department of Energy budget.
Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Status ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development Appropriations for
FY2013 and FY2014 .............................................................................................................. 1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................................... 3
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................... 4
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 6
Project Backlog and New Starts .......................................................................................... 6
Navigation Trust Funds ....................................................................................................... 6
Ecosystem Restoration Projects .......................................................................................... 8
Continuing Authorities Program ......................................................................................... 9
Title II: Department of the Interior .................................................................................................. 9
Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project...................................................................... 9
Central Utah Project ................................................................................................................ 11
Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................................ 11
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations .......................................................................... 11
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ................................................................................. 12
WaterSMART Program ..................................................................................................... 13
Title III: Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 13
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy ............................................................................. 15
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) .......................................................... 15
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER) Program ......................................... 24
Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................. 24
Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................ 29
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 31
Science .............................................................................................................................. 32
ARPA-E ............................................................................................................................. 36
Nuclear Waste Disposal ..................................................................................................... 37
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans ................................................................................... 39
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship .......................................................................... 42
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs ............................................................ 52
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research Facilities ............................................................................................. 54
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 61
Title IV: Independent Agencies...................................................................................................... 62
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies ............................................................................. 63
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................... 63

Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2014.................................. 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007 to FY2014 .............................. 2
Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ............................................... 3
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers .......... 5
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project
Completion Account ................................................................................................................... 10
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation........... 10
Table 7. Reclamation WaterSMART Program ............................................................................... 13
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ........... 14
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 16
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development ..................................................................... 30
Table 11. Science ........................................................................................................................... 32
Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2013-FY2014 ....................................................... 43
Table 13. Weapons Activities: FY2014 Request and FY2015-FY2018 Plan ................................ 43
Table 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ........................................................ 52
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management ...................................... 58
Table 16. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies ......... 63

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 65

Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
President Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in
April 2013. The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 18, 2013, the House Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee approved a FY2014 bill totaling $30.4 billion. The bill, H.R. 2609,
passed the House with amendments on July 10. The Senate Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee reported out a bill June 25, totaling $34.4 billion, and the full Appropriations
Committee approved the bill, S. 1245, on June 27. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal
programs, including Energy and Water Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013
post-sequestration spending level. On December 26 the President signed H.J.Res. 59 (P.L. 113-
67), which contained the Bipartisan Budget Act establishing less stringent spending caps for
FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA and potentially easing the way for an appropriations
agreement.
Status
Table 1 indicates the status of the FY2014 funding legislation. Cells will be filled in as the
appropriations cycle progresses.
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2014
Subcommittee
Markup
Final Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/18/13 6/25/13 H.Rept.
7/10/13
S.Rept.





113-135
113-47

Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP)
and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC).
The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development
Appropriations for FY2013 and FY2014

FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021.
The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit
reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit
Congressional Research Service
1

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process
established by the BCA was triggered; this process consists of a combination of sequestration and
lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The “joint
committee” sequestration process for FY2013 required the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve
equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be
determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by the BCA. For further
information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), enacted on January 2, 2013, made a
number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that will take place during FY2013.
First, the date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two months,
until March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by
$24 billion. Third, the statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were
lowered. Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint
committee sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013.1 For further information on the changes
to BCA procedures made by ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act
of 2012: Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act
, by Bill
Heniff Jr.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2006 to FY2013.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2007 to FY2014
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014a
29.4 30.9 40.5b 33.4 31.7 34.4c 32.7d 34.9
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a. Requested budget authority.
b. Includes $7.5 billion for Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.
c. Includes $1.7 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
d. Total does not include sequestration requirements of the Budget Control Act which went into effect March
1, 2013.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles.

1 White House, President Obama, Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
FY2013
FY2014
Title
Approp.a
Request House Senate Conf.
Title I: Corps of Engineers
10,068.3b
4,726.0 4,898.0
5,272.0

Title II: CUP & Reclamation
1,014.1
1,049.6
990.0
1,099.6

Title III: Department of Energy
25,148.7 28,927.9 24,866.9
28,209.9

Title IV: Independent Agencies
252.2
243.8
249.3
253.8

Scorekeeping Adjustmentsc -565.5
-565.5
-565.5
-565.5
E&W Total
35,916.6b
34,381.8 30,438.7
34,269.8

Source: FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47.
a. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
b. Includes $5,350 billion in supplemental funding for the Corps of Engineers under the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
c. Includes offsetting revenues from various sources.

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
FY2012-FY2013, and proposed funding for FY2014. The FY2013 figures do not reflect the
March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25. Accompanying these tables is a discussion
of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers2
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding for the civil program of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), an agency in the Department of Defense with both military and
civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and
maintains a wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts congressional attention
because its projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and environmental
effects, in addition to their water resource development purposes.
A number of recent changes have affected Corps appropriations, including earmark moratoriums
in both houses in the 112th and 113th Congress and reductions for some projects and classes of
projects compared to previous years. Additionally, in recent years flooding events on the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers and in the northeastern United States affected a number of Corps
projects which received supplemental funds. In addition to the regular appropriation for the
Corps, Congress appropriated $1.724 billion in supplemental funding for response and recovery
related to 2012 flooding and $5.35 billion in supplemental funding related to Hurricane Sandy.3
(See Table 4.)

2 This section was prepared by Charles V. Stern.
3 Some of these funds were restricted to areas that were impacted by these storms.
Congressional Research Service
3

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps is below the agency’s enacted
appropriation.4 However, in FY2013 the final amount provided by Congress to the Corps was less
than the Administration’s request. Congress provided the Corps with $4.718 billion (post
sequestration, post rescission), or $13 million less than the $4.731 billion requested by the
Administration.5
The President’s FY2014 budget request for the Corps was $4.826 billion, not accounting for
proposed rescission of prior year funds. In its markup, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $4.876 billion for the Corps, or about $50 million more than the amount requested
by the Administration for FY2014. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5.272
billion for the Corps, or $546 million more than the Administration’s request.
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers
Corps funding is part of the debate over congressionally directed spending, or “earmarks.” Unlike
highways and municipal water infrastructure programs, federal funds for the Corps are not
distributed to states or projects based on a formula or delivered via competitive grants. Generally
about 85% of the appropriations for Corps civil works activities are directed to specific projects.
In addition to specific projects identified for funding in the President’s budget, in past years many
Corps projects have received additional funding from Congress in the appropriations process.6
Since the 112th Congress, site-specific project line items added by Congress (i.e., earmarks) have
been among those projects subject to House and Senate earmark moratoriums. As a result,
additional congressional funding at the project level has not been provided since FY2010. In lieu
of the traditional project-based increases, Congress has included additional funding for selected
categories of Corps projects (e.g., “ongoing navigation work”) that were not funded in the
President’s budget, and provided limited direction to the Corps for allocation of these funds.7 The
House and Senate both continued this practice in their FY2014 recommendations.

4 For instance, the FY2012 enacted appropriation for the Corps was $5.002 billion, or approximately $500 million more
than the President’s FY2012 request.
5 The final enacted Continuing Resolution for FY2013 extended FY2012 funding levels generally but did not provide
funding at the project level or outline post-sequestration funding. These totals were delineated in the Corps FY2013
Work Plan. These documents are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
6 While congressional 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 construction or operational
expenditures.
7 Congress provided additional funding and guidance for several broad categories of projects in the FY2012 conference
report (H.Rept. 112-331), and these allocations were carried over by reference in FY2013’s long term continuing
resolution. The FY2012 report instructed the Corps to make project level allocations in a “work plan” and report back
to Congress. Some of the categories to be funded in the work plan were designated by Congress as only being available
for projects which were not included in the Administration’s budget request. Recent Work Plan allocations are
available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
4

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2013
FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp.
Suppa
Suppb
Enactedc
Request House
Senate
Conf.
Investigations
and
Planning 117.0
- 50.0 118.5 90.0 90.0 120.0


Construction 1,617.0
- 3,461.0 1,586.6 1,350.0 1,343.0 1,542.0
Mississippi
River &
Tributaries
(MR&T)
252.0 802.0
- 238.8 200.0 249.0 300.0

Operation and
Maintenance
(O&M)
2,412.0 534.0 821.0 2,286.0 2,588.0 2,682.0 2,700.0

Regulatory
193.0
-
- 182.9 279.0 193.0 200.0

General

Expenses
185.0
-
- 175.3 182.0 182.0 182.0
FUSRAPd
109.0
-
- 99.9 104.0 104.0 195.0

Flood Control
& Coastal
Emergencies
(FC&CE)
112.0 388.0
1,008.0 25.6 28.0 28.0 28.0

Office of the
Asst. Secretary
of
the
Army
5.0 - 10.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0

5,002.0 1,724.0 5,350.0 4,718.3 4,726.0e 4,876.0 5,272.0

Total Title I
Source: FY2014 budget request, Corps FY2013 Work Plan, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes:
a. $1.724 billion in supplemental funding was provided under the FY2012 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act
(P.L. 112-77) for flooding in the Midwestern United States, among other things.
b. $5.35 billion in supplemental funding related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy was provided under
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
c. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
d. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
e. The Administration’s request included a $100 million rescission from formerly appropriated funds, which
was not included by the House or Senate.
Congressional Research Service
5

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers
Project Backlog and New Starts
The large number of authorized Corps projects that have not received appropriations to date, or
that are authorized and have received funding but are incomplete, is often referred to as the
“backlog” of authorized projects. Estimates of the backlog range 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.8
Recent budget requests by the Administration have included few new studies and construction
starts, and enacted appropriations for FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 barred any funding for new
projects (defined as projects or studies that have not received appropriations previously). For
FY2014, the Administration requested funding for four new construction starts and 10 new
studies.9 The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding for New Starts in
FY2014. The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration’s request and
recommended that the Corps produce a list of an additional five new studies and three new
construction starts in its Work Plan for FY2014.
Navigation Trust Funds
In addition to regular appropriations, two congressionally authorized “trust funds” are
administered by the Corps and require annual appropriations. The Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund support cost shared investments in federal navigation
infrastructure and have both received attention in recent years. While the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund has a surplus balance, the Inland Waterway Trust Fund currently faces a shortfall and
a curtailment of activities. Both trust funds are discussed below.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to recover operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs at U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors from maritime shippers. O&M
is mostly the dredging of harbor channels to their authorized depths and widths. The tax is levied
on importers and domestic shippers using coastal or Great Lakes ports. The tax revenues are
deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from which Congress appropriates
funds for harbor dredging.
In 1990, Congress increased the HMT rate from 4 cents per $100 of cargo value to 12.5 cents per
$100 of cargo value in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 101-508). In recent years,

8 For more information, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations,
Appropriations, and Activities
, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern
9 The FY2014 proposed new starts are Hamilton City, CA (Ecosystem Restoration); Lower Colorado River Basin, TX
(Flood Risk Management); Louisiana Coastal Area, LA (Ecosystem Restoration); Columbia River, OR and WA
(Navigation).
Congressional Research Service
6

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

HMTF annual expenditures have remained relatively flat while HMT collections have increased
due to rising import volume.10 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
(see H.R. 335 and S. 218). 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 FY2014 budget requested $890 million from the HMTF, leaving an
estimated-end-of-year balance of more than $8.9 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $1 billion for HMTF expenditures, or $110 million more than the Administration’s
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not specify an overall funding level for the
HMTF in its markup.
For more information on harbor maintenance funding, 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).11 IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax on
commercial vessels on designated waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.12 Since
FY2007, there has been a looming shortfall in the IWTF. In recent years Congress has taken
measures to ensure temporary solvency of the IWTF, either by appropriating federal funds
beyond the aforementioned 50% federal requirement (FY2009 and FY2010), or by limiting IWTF
expenditures to the amount available under current year fuel tax revenues (FY2011-FY2013). The
IWTF is expected to have a balance of approximately $70 million at the end of FY2013. Without
changes to the current system, needed funding for eligible work is expected to continue to exceed
available funding.
In the past multiple Administrations have proposed fees (e.g., lock user fees, congestion fees) that
would have increased IWTF revenues. These fees have been opposed by users and rejected by
Congress. In 2011, users endorsed a plan of their own that would increase the current fuel tax by
$0.06-$0.08 per gallon and alter the cost-share arrangement for some IWTF projects to increase
the portion paid for by the federal government. H.R. 1149 would authorize this proposal, which
has been opposed by the Obama Administration.
Recent estimates by the Corps indicate that one project, Olmsted Lock and Dam on the Ohio
River, is expected to use up the majority of IWTF revenues over the next 10 years.13 At the same

10 The exception was 2009, when collections declined along with import volume.
11 For more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and
Issues for Congress
, by Charles V. Stern.
12 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.
13 Currently the Olmsted Project accounts for almost all IWTF appropriations. The project was originally authorized at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

time, other navigation construction and major rehabilitation work is expected to stall. Without a
new source of revenue or some other change directed by Congress, the overall number of inland
waterway projects is expected to be extremely limited. Changes to IWTF policies have
historically been under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, but in recent years
appropriators have expressed frustration with the lack of action on this issue.
In FY2014, the Administration requested limited appropriations for IWTF projects based on
current-year fuel tax revenues.14 This is the same approach that was proposed and enacted in
FY2011-FY2013. The FY2014 Administration budget requested approximately $94 million in
inland waterway spending from the IWTF, with an equal amount to be drawn from the General
Fund of the Treasury. The Administration also assumed an additional $80 million in new revenues
from an unspecified user fee, presumably separate from the current fuel tax. The majority of
FY2014 requested IWTF funds were proposed for the Olmsted Project. The House
Appropriations Committee disagreed with the user fee approach, but continued to agree with the
approach of limiting appropriations to current year fuel revenue. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also disagreed with the user fee proposal, and proposed exempting the Olmsted
Project from IWTF cost sharing requirements in FY2014. This would allow other IWTF projects
to proceed using the trust fund revenues, but would fund Olmsted entirely out of the General
Fund of the Treasury.
For more information on inland waterways, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent
Proposals and Issues for Congress
, by Charles V. Stern.
Ecosystem Restoration Projects
The Corps portion of the Energy and Water bill typically includes funding for ecosystem
restoration projects, such as restoration of the Everglades in South Florida.15 Previously some in
Congress have criticized the fact that while the Corps has requested reductions for some
“traditional” activities in recent budgets, funding for Corps environmental business line activities,
which include ecosystem restoration projects, has largely remained the same. For FY2014, the
Administration requested $449 million (approximately 9% of the total FY2014 Corps request,
spread among several accounts) for ecosystem restoration projects. This amount is less than has
been appropriated for these activities in recent years. Everglades restoration was among the
ecosystem restoration projects proposed for reduction in the FY2014 request. The President’s
budget requested $88 million for Everglades restoration, or a significant reduction from the
FY2012 enacted level of $135 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$83.6 million for the project, and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the
Administration’s request.

(...continued)
a cost of $775 million (plus inflationary increases) but recently required an increase to its authorization ceiling in
accordance with Section 902(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. §2280).The FY2014
Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-46, increased the project’s authorization from $775 million to $2.92 billion.
14 Assuming annual fuel tax revenues of approximately $95 million, spending on inland waterways construction for
FY2014 would be approximately $190 million for each year (or approximately $60 million less than the average
funding provided from FY1992-2010).
15 Along with the Department of the Interior, the Corps typically receives funding for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Program, or CERP. For more information regarding Everglades restoration funding, see CRS Report
R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation Progress, by Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service
8

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Continuing Authorities Program
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.16 CAPs are referred to by the section number in
the bill where the CAP was first authorized. The Administration’s FY2014 budget requested $29
million in funding for five of the nine CAPs, or a significant decrease from previous enacted
levels.17 The Administration proposed no funding for four 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). The House
Appropriations Committee proposed $33 million in funding for eight CAPs, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $50 million in funding for eight CAPs.
Title II: Department of the Interior18
Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for two agencies within the Department
of the Interior: the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project (CUP). The total
discretionary FY2014 budget request for Title II funding for Reclamation and CUP was $1.049
billion. The House-passed bill recommended $964.8 million for these programs, and the Senate
recommended approximately $1.099 billion.
Reclamation has released an operating plan for FY2013 that accounts for sequestration’s effect on
FY2013 enacted level under the BCA and ATRA and allows for comparison to FY2014 proposed
spending levels.19 According to Reclamation, funding for both agencies (Reclamation and
CUPCA) under the FY2013 operating plan was $1.014 billion (post sequestration, post
rescission).20
The FY2014 request for the Bureau of Reclamation and CUP included an “offset” of $53.2
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 $996 million.21 As in previous years,
additional funding is estimated to be available for FY2014 via “permanent and other” funds, but
these funds are not included in net discretionary totals.

16 A summary of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program is provided on p. 11 of CRS Report R41243, Army
Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V.
Stern.
17 The FY2012 enacted total for these programs was $43 million.
18 This section was prepared by Charles V. Stern.
19 The operating plan is available at http://www.usbr.gov/budget/.
20 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to FY2013 amounts in this section are to FY2013 appropriated amounts
before taking into account the BCA and ATRA.
21 This offset is consistent with prior year appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
9

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp. Approp.
Requesta Housea Senatea
Conf.
Central Utah Water
26.7 19.8 — 7.7


Conservancy District
Mitigation and Conservation
2.0 1.2 — 1.0

Commission Activities
Total, Central Utah
28.7 20.9 8.7


Project
Source: FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes: : FY2013 enacted levels include sequestration and other related reductions. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
a. The FY2014 budget request proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project Completion Account to the
Bureau of Reclamation. See Table 6 below for Administration and Senate recommendations for this account
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Requesta Housea Senatea Conf.
Water and Related Resources
895.0
848.2
791.1
812.7
945.8

Policy and Administration
60.0
56.9
60.0
60.0
60.0

CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)
53.1
50.4
53.3
53.3
53.3

Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
39.7
37.6
37.0
30.0
37.0

San Joaquin Restoration Fundb
— — 26.0 — —
Indian Water Rights Settlementb — — 78.7 — —
Central Utah Project
Completiona
— — 3.5 — 3.5
Gross Current Reclamation
Authority

1,047.7 993.0 1,049.6 956.0
1,099.6
Total, Title II Current
Authority (CUP and

1,076.4 1,014.0 1,049.6 964.8 1,099.6

Reclamation)
Source: FY2014 budget request and FY2013 Bureau of Reclamation Work Plan.
Notes: FY2013 enacted levels include sequestration and other related reductions. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
a. The Administration proposed to transfer the Central Utah Project Completion Account to the Bureau of
Reclamation. To date, this proposal has not been enacted. See Table 5 above for House amounts.
b. As in previous requests, the Administration’s request includes funding for these items, which have in the
past been funded within Water and Related Resources, as new accounts.
Congressional Research Service
10

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Central Utah Project
The Obama Administration requested $3.5 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP)
Completion Account in FY2014, or $17.4 million less than the FY2013 enacted amount (post
sequestration, post rescission). In FY2014 the Administration once again proposed to make
Reclamation responsible for oversight and implementation of CUP (these responsibilities are
currently housed within a separate office in DOI). The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed
with the President’s request, but in its bill the House retained CUP as a separate account and
provided $8.7 million for this project.
Bureau of Reclamation
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the
assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds
of flood control and navigation projects, Reclamation’s mission was to develop water supplies,
primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, Reclamation manages hundreds
of dams and diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states.
These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and a population of
31 million. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the
second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation facilities also provide
substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Operations of Reclamation
facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife species and
conflicts among competing water users.
As with the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation budget is made up largely of individual project
funding lines and relatively few “programs.” Also similar to the Corps, previously these
Reclamation projects have often been subject to earmark disclosure rules. The current
moratorium on earmarks affects Congress’s ability to steer money toward specific Reclamation
projects, as it has done in the past.
Reclamation’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency’s
traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, dam
safety, and ecosystem restoration, among others. The Obama Administration requested $791
million for the Water and Related Resources account for FY2014, a decrease of $57 million from
the FY2013 enacted amount (post sequestration, post rescission). Most of this decrease was due
to shifting of funds to new accounts for Indian water rights settlements and San Joaquin
restoration. The House-passed bill provided $812 million for Water and Related Resources, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $946 million for this account in its
recommendation. Neither the House nor the Senate included the Administration’s proposed new
accounts for Indian water rights funding (although some of this funding was provided within
Water and Related Resources).
Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations
The CVP in California is one of Reclamation’s largest and most complex water projects, and
limited deliveries to CVP contractors are often the subject of appropriations and authorization
debates. In recent years, 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
Congressional Research Service
11

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

implementing Biological Opinions (BiOps), some of which restrict CVP operations because of
the project’s potential effects on certain fish species.22 Previous proposals to restrict
implementation of BiOps in the CVP, including amendments to appropriations bills, have not
been enacted. However, other measures to lessen the impact of these restrictions have been
enacted, and related legislation is currently under consideration.23
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.24 The Fund is supported through the combination of a reallocation of Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund receipts from the Friant Division water users and accelerated
payment of Friant water users’ capital repayment obligations, as well as other federal and non-
federal sources. The Settlement Act provided $88 million from the Restoration Fund to be
available without further appropriation. In recent years, some have proposed repealing the
settlement outright.25
Reclamation reports that in FY2014, the balance of the aforementioned mandatory appropriations
is expected to be exhausted. Separately, Reclamation has also proposed an allocation of $26
million in discretionary funding for FY2014 within a new account for San Joaquin River
restoration activities. The House Appropriations Committee provided no funding for these
activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee disagreed with the Administration’s request of
funding for these activities in a separate account, but provided $26 million in funding for San
Joaquin River restoration as a line item under the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project in
the Water and Related Resources account.

22 The two BiOps in question have found that continued operation of the projects under a plan developed and
implemented in 2004 (known as the Operations Criteria and Plan, or OCAP) would jeopardize the existence of 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. These and other restrictions have led to low water deliveries for certain water districts (e.g., those with
junior water rights).
23 Most prominently, H.R. 1837 in the 112th Congress would have, among other things, altered the current regime for
water deliveries in the Central Valley and repealed the San Joaquin River Restoration Act. For more information, see
CRS Report R42375, H.R. 1837—The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, by Betsy A. Cody.
24 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.
25 See footnote 23.
Congressional Research Service
12

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

WaterSMART Program
In recent years Reclamation has combined funding for several individual “bureau-wide”
programs that promote water conservation 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. In the FY2014
request the WaterSMART program included five components: WaterSMART Grants, Basin
Studies, Title XVI Projects, the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, and Water
Conservation Field Services.26 The FY2014 President’s budget request for all WaterSMART
programs was $35.4 million. The House bill recommended eliminating funding for two
components: WaterSMART Grants and Basin Studies. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended an increase of $8 million for WaterSMART grants and otherwise agreed with the
Administration’s request. Funding levels for WaterSMART programs are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Reclamation WaterSMART Program
(selected programs, $ millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Program Name
Approp.
Approp.
Request House Senate Conf.
WaterSMART
Grants
12.2 22.6 12.0 — 20.0

Basin Studies

4.9 6.0 4.7 — 4.7
Title XVI Projects

24.7 20.0 14.0 13.3 22.0
Cooperative Watershed

Management
Program
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25
Water Conservation

Field
Services
5.0 6.2 3.4 3.01 3.4
Total 47.1 52.0 35.4 16.5 50.39

Source: Bureau of Reclamation FY2014 Congressional Justifications, FY2013 Reclamation Work Plan.

Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE’s programs since FY2005. Major
DOE activities funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and development on
renewable energy and energy efficiency, nuclear power, fossil energy R&D, the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, energy statistics, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear
weapons programs.

26 Prior to FY2012, the Water Conservation Field Services program and the Cooperative Watershed Management
Program had been a “bureau-wide” program. For consistency, comparisons to prior year funding in this report include
this program within WaterSMART totals.
Congressional Research Service
13

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

The FY2012 appropriations act, P.L. 112-74, funded DOE programs at $26.4 billion. The FY2013
continuing resolution, P.L. 113-6, funded DOE programs at the FY2012 level, with some
exceptions, and subject to the sequestration requirements of the Budget Control Act that went into
effect March 1, 2013. The Administration’s request for DOE programs for FY2014 totaled $28.9
billion. H.R. 2609, as passed by the House July 10, 2013, totaled $24.9 billion for DOE
programs. S. 1245, as reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee June 27, would fund
DOE programs at $28.2 billion.
Table 8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp.a
Request House
Senate

ENERGY PROGRAMS





Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy
1,719.4
2,775.7
958.0
2,280.0
Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability
132.1
169.0
0.0b 149.0
Nuclear Energy
719.0
735.5
656.4
735.5

Race to the Top
0.0
200.0
0.0
0.0

Fossil Energy R&D
508.2
420.6
430.0
420.6

Naval Petrol. and Oil Shale Reserves
14.1
20.0
14.9
20.0

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
182.6
189.4
189.4
189.4

Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve 3.6
8.0
8.0
8.0

Energy Information Administration
99.5
117.0
100.0
117.0

Non-Defense Environmental

Cleanup 223.4
213.0
213.0
233.0
Uranium D&D Fund
448.2
554.8
545.0
554.9

Science
4,621.1
5,152.8
4,653.0
5,152.8

Energy Transformation Acceleration

Fund (ARPA-E)
250.6
379.0
70.0
379.0
Nuclear Waste Disposal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Departmental Admin. (net)
119.2
118.4
13.0
126.4

Office of Inspector General
39.8
42.1
42.0
42.1

Adv. Tech. Vehicles Manuf. Loan
5.7
6.0
6.0
6.0

Sec. 1705 Loan Guarantee
0.0
26.0
0.0
20.0

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS
9,086.5
11,101.2
7,898.7 10,434.5

DEFENSE ACTIVITIES





National Nuclear Security




Administration (NNSA)

Weapons Activities
6,970.8
7,868.4
7,675.0
7,868.4

Congressional Research Service
14

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp.a
Request House
Senate

Nuclear Nonproliferation
2,243.1
2,140.1
2,100.0
2,180.1

Naval Reactors
994.1
1,246.1
1,109.0
1,312.1

Office of Administrator
377.5
397.8
373.0
397.8

Total, NNSA
10,585.5
11,652.5
11,257.0 11,758.5

Defense Environmental Cleanup
4,619.2
5,316.9
4,773.0
5,146.5

Other Defense Activities
755.9
749.1
830.0
762.1

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

TOTAL, DEFENSE

ACTIVITIES 15,959.7
17,718.5
16,860.0
17,667.1
POWER MARKETING


ADMINISTRATION (PMAs)



Southeastern 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Southwestern 11.2
11.9
11.9
11.9

Western 90.9
95.9
95.9
95.9

Falcon & Amistad O&M
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4

TOTAL, PMAs
102.0
108.2
108.2
108.2

Total, Title III
25,148.7 28,927.9 24,866.9
28,209.9

Source: FY2014 budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47.
a. Source: DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Figures reflect the March 1, 2013,
sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
b. The House bill would merge EDER programs with EERE. H.Rept. 112-135 did not specify a particular
funding level for EDER.
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the
following pages, some of the most important programs are described and major issues are
identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 8.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)27
President Obama has declared energy efficiency and renewable energy to be a high priority,
stressing their importance to jobs, economic growth, and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
For example, the 2013 Economic Report of the President notes that “President Obama has set a
goal of once again doubling generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020.” But
Congress so far hasn’t supported his efforts to boost spending for these programs. His proposed
FY2011 budget for EERE of $2.4 billion was reduced to $1.8 billion, and his FY2012 proposal of
$3.2 billion was cut to $1.8 billion.

27 This section was prepared by Fred Sissine.
Congressional Research Service
15

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

For FY2014, DOE requested $2.78 billion for the EERE programs. Compared with the FY2013
appropriation, the FY2014 request would have increased EERE funding by about $1.06 billion, or
about 62%.
DOE requested an additional $169 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(EDER) programs. Table 9 gives the programmatic breakdown for EERE and EDER.
Table 9. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2013
FY2014
Program
Approp.a
Request House Senate
Conf.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cel Technologies
98.0
100.0
65.0
100.0

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
188.4
282.0
120.0
245.0

Solar Energy
273.2
356.5
65.3
310.0

—Concentrating Solar Power
—-
90.1
—- —-

(CSP)
—Photovoltaic (PV) Power
—-
79.1
—- —-

Wind Energy
88.2
144.0
24.0
110.0

Geothermal
Technology
35.8 60.0 12.0 60.0

Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
55.6
55.0
24.0
59.0

Subtotal, Renewable and
779.9 997.5 310.3 884.0

Hydrogen
Vehicle
Technologies
310.9 575.0 205.0 415.0

Building Technologies
207.3
300.0
65.3
230.0

Advanced
Manufacturing
109.3 365.0 120.0 216.0

Federal Energy Management
28.3
36.0
0.0
30.0

Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
—-
1,276.0 390.3 891.0

Facilities and Infrastructure
24.9
46.0
31.0
46.0

Program Direction
155.5
185.0
—-
185.0

Strategic Programs
23.6
36.0
2.0
28.0

R&D Subtotal
—- 2,540.5 810.5 2,034.0

Renewables Deployment
9.4
7.0
3.0
10.0

Subtotal, Demonstration
9.4 7.0 3.0 10.0

and Deployment
Weatherization Grants
64.1
184.0
77.1
184.0

State Energy Grants
47.1
57.0
12.0
53.0

Use of Prior Year Balances
-10.0
-12.8
0.0
0.0

Total EERE Appropriation
1,719.4 2,775.7 902.6 2,281.0

Electricity Delivery and
132.1 169.0 —- 149.0

Energy Reliability (EDER)
Sources: FY2015 statistical table; FY2014 budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47, P.L. 113-46.
Congressional Research Service
16

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

a. Estimates of the FY2013 enacted levels are taken from DOE, FY2015 Statistical Table by Appropriation, Dec. 6,
2013. Those amounts do reflect the 251A sequester. Also included is the House report recommendation
for $157 million in rescissions of prior-year unobligated balances.
EERE Active Project Management
The request emphasized that fiscal and budget constraints made it important that EERE use funds
as efficiently and carefully as possible. Thus, starting in FY2014, EERE stated that it will fully
and uniformly implement a regimen of Active Project Management. Under this regimen, every
competitive project awarded will take the form of a cooperative agreement, not a grant. This, said
DOE, would enable greater EERE oversight. Also, each project would be subject to aggressive,
annual go/no-go milestones, rigorous quarterly reviews, and early termination in the event of
insufficient technical performance. DOE said that this approach would ensure that EERE had the
correct tools and project oversight to maximize the taxpayer’s return on investment.
EERE-wide Cross-Cutting Initiatives
The request emphasized five broad initiatives that cut across multiple EERE programs:
(1) Grid Integration Initiative. Under this initiative, launched in 2012, EERE’s vehicles, solar, and
buildings programs would work in coordination with DOE’s Grid Tech Team28 to address electric
grid integration barriers and opportunities associated with variable, distributed renewable energy
generators, electric vehicle charging, and building efficiency and controls. EERE would
coordinate with DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER). EERE
would issue an $80 million project announcement, jointly funded by three programs: Solar ($30
million), Vehicles ($20 million), and Buildings ($30 million).
(2) EV Everywhere Grand Challenge. This DOE-wide initiative aims to make technology
breakthroughs that would enable the United States, by 2022, to become the first country in the
world to invent and produce plug-in electric vehicles that are as affordable and convenient as
gasoline-powered vehicles.
(3) SunShot Grand Challenge. This DOE-wide initiative seeks to achieve directly cost-
competitive solar power by 2020.
(4) Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative. This new EERE initiative would aim to dramatically
improve U.S. competitiveness in the manufacture of clean energy products (like solar modules,
LEDs, batteries, and wind blades) and to strengthen U.S. competitiveness across multiple
manufacturing industries through increased energy productivity.
(5) Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Clean Energy Initiative. Wide bandgap semiconductor
technology was initially developed for military and solid-state lighting uses. DOE believes it is a
key next-generation platform for semiconductor devices with the potential for developing high-
power-conversion electronics that are much more compact, more energy efficient, and able to
operate at much higher temperatures and voltages. DOE contends that this “revolutionary”

28 DOE created the Grid Tech Team to develop a stronger and more extensive network of effective public-private
partnerships needed to ease the transition to a more modern grid. DOE, EDER, DOE Grid Tech Team,
http://energy.gov/oe/services/doe-grid-tech-team.
Congressional Research Service
17

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

technology could be a platform for the next generation of electric drivetrains, solar inverters,
high-efficiency motors, solid-state transformers for the grid, and many other critical, clean energy
applications.
House Appropriations Committee Recommendation
Expressing concern about controlling budget expenses—and citing a need to focus EERE
programs on efforts to curb gasoline and electricity prices—the committee recommended cutting
overall EERE funding relative to the FY2013 level by half. Further, the committee report
proposed to merge EERE with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER).
The report also contained several management and program directives, which are noted below, in
the context of specific program areas.
Senate Appropriation Committee Recommendation
Urging EERE to apply more funding to near-term commercialization efforts in partnership with
the private sector, the committee recommended FY2014 funding at a level slightly higher than the
request.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Program
This program aims to reduce petroleum use, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria air pollutants,
while contributing to a more diverse and efficient energy infrastructure. The program supports
applied research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, as well as efforts to overcome economic and institutional barriers to commercial
deployment. DOE requested $100 million—about $2 million above the FY2013 final
appropriation—seeking to increase hydrogen R&D and manufacturing R&D slightly, while
reducing fuel cell R&D slightly. The House bill proposed a one-third cut below FY2013 to $65
million, while the Senate bill would have provided the full requested amount of $100 million.
Biomass and Biorefinery Program Initiatives
This program aims to foster a domestic bioenergy industry that produces renewable biofuels,
bioproducts, and biopower. The goals are to curb oil dependence, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and stimulate economic and job development—especially in the farms and forests of
rural areas. While biofuels and industrial bioproducts (plastics, solvents, alcohols) may soon be
price-competitive, swings in oil prices pose an ongoing challenge to achieve cost-
competitiveness. The program strategy addresses a feedstock collection barrier by focusing on
converting raw biomass to solid pellets or to “green crude” bio-oil that is easy to transport at large
scale.
Recent goals expand the program scope to include the development of biofuels that will
contribute to production targets of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These “drop-in” liquid
fuels are largely compatible with existing infrastructure to deliver, blend, and dispense fuels.
Examples include biomass-based hydrocarbon fuels (renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel),
hydrocarbons from algae, and biobutanol. The program aims to help the non-food “drop-in”
biofuels (renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) reach a wholesale finished-fuel cost under $3
per gasoline gallon-equivalent (gge) by 2017.
Congressional Research Service
18

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

DOE requested $282 million in FY2014 for Bioenergy (Biomass and Biorefinery) programs, a
$94 million increase over the $188 million appropriation for FY2013. The largest requested
subprogram increase would go to conversion technologies. That increase would include $20
million for the low cost carbon fiber initiative. Another large increase would go to the integrated
biorefineries subprogram. The increase would include $45 million (justified under the Defense
Production Act) to support commercial demonstration-scale, military-grade fuel production from
biomass through DOE collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This
would be partially offset by a $14 million cut for algae and advanced feedstocks.
The House bill recommended about 8% more than the FY2013 appropriation, while the Senate
proposed about 30% more than FY2013.
Solar Energy
For the Solar Program, DOE requested $356 million, an increase of $83 million over the FY2013
appropriation. The concentrating solar power (CSP) subprogram would increase, mainly for work
on thermal storage to improve grid integration. The balance of systems subprogram would grow
to enable work with state and local governments to reduce permitting, interconnection,
inspection, and other soft costs. Funding for the systems integration subprogram would rise as
well, with a focus mainly on power electronics and other means to improve integration of solar
power with the grid. Those increases would be partially offset by a cut to the innovations in
manufacturing competitiveness subprogram. Overall, the House bill recommended a cut of $118
million (43%) from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $37 million
(14%) over FY2013.
Wind Energy
For the Wind Program, DOE requested a $56 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation.
Nearly half of that increase would go to the technology development and testing subprogram,
mainly for wind power plant optimization modeling. The increase would support analysis of new
technology, advanced manufacturing, and a technology incubator. Funding for offshore wind
would grow by about more than $10 million. Also, the technology application subprogram would
increase by nearly $20 million. That increase would cover resource characterization to better
assess wind plant capacity factor performance, activities to optimize grid integration, and analysis
of market barriers arising from impacts on radar and birds and from environmental impacts of the
first installed offshore projects. Overall, the House bill recommended a cut of $18 million (21%)
from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $22 million (25%) over
FY2013.
Geothermal Technologies
The program aims to lower the risk of resource exploration and cut power production costs to six
cents/per kilowatt-hour (kwh) for hydrothermal power by 2020 and for newly developed
technologies by 2030. For the Geothermal Program, DOE requested $60 million, an increase of
$24 million over the FY2013 appropriation. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) would get an
increase of more than $25 million to establish a field lab and to support strategic R&D. This
increase would be partially offset by about a $3 million cut for activities involving low
temperature co-produced resources. Overall, the House bill recommended a $6 million (16%) cut
Congressional Research Service
19

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

from the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $24 million (68%) over
FY2013.
Water Power
Water power technologies employ marine and hydrokinetic (wave, tidal, current, and ocean
thermal) resources—and conventional hydropower resources—to generate electricity.
Hydropower technology is well established, but the fledgling industry for marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK) power facilities is still looking to develop a clear technology theme. For the
Water Power Program, DOE requested $55 million, a cut of $1 million below the FY2013
appropriation. The budget request would add several million for MHK RD&D, demonstration
infrastructure development, and light-weight materials in manufacturing. Hydropower funding
would be cut by nearly $10 million. The House bill recommended a $11 million (19%) cut from
the FY2013 amount, while the Senate bill proposed to maintain the FY2013 level.
Vehicle Technologies
This program is driven by the 10-year EV-Everywhere Challenge (launched in 2012), which aims
to achieve parity for plug-in electric vehicle (EV) affordability and convenience by 2022. The EV
Challenge focuses on advanced battery technology, power electronics, and advanced charging
technology—with the goal of assuring U.S. leadership in the global market for next generation
electric vehicle technology. A key supporting technology goal is to cut 2008 battery production
cost 70% by 2015 (and 88% by 2022). Further, the program seeks to achieve (1) a cut of 1.8
million barrels per day (16%) in the national oil use trend by 2020, (2) a fuel economy of 62
miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2025, and (3) a 50% increase in heavy duty truck fuel
economy by 2015. Also, the program participates in the Grid Integration Initiative.
To help achieve those goals and support the EV Everywhere initiative, DOE sought the largest
EERE FY2014 program increase—$264 million over the appropriation for FY2013. The
subprogram on batteries and electric drives would increase by more than $120 million, including
about $70 million more for battery cost reduction through innovative manufacturing R&D, scale-
up of advanced battery component materials, and next-generation “beyond lithium” research. An
increase of nearly $40 million would go to advanced power electronics R&D (on wide bandgap
semiconductors) to support higher performance electric drive systems. Under the materials
subprogram, R&D on lightweight materials (carbon fiber composites, aluminum parts,
magnesium alloys) would grow by more than $20 million to support the EV Everywhere
initiative.
The deployment subprogram would get an increase of $90 million for a new initiative to establish
“Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner Projects.” Competitive (and cost-shared) awards
(up to 9 awards of $10 million each) would be made for state and local community-based projects
that would last three to four years. The objective would be the creation of replicable “model
communities” that develop policies, procedures, and infrastructure to successfully displace on-
road vehicle petroleum use with alternatives such as natural gas, electricity (e.g., plug-in EVs), or
biofuels.
Overall, the House bill recommended a $24 million (8%) increase over the FY2013 level, while
the Senate bill proposed an increase of $104 million (34%) over FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
20

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Building Technologies
This program develops energy efficiency measures to curb building-related energy costs, with a
goal of reducing energy use 50% by 2030. The program strategy is designed with three linked
paths: improve building components (envelope/windows, HVAC, lighting, and sensors/controls),
strengthen market pull (through cooperation with private industry), and raise energy efficiency
levels for new equipment (via standards) and new buildings (via model codes).
DOE requested $300 million for FY2014, an increase of $93 million over the FY2013
appropriation. Most of the requested increase, more than $70 million, would go to the emerging
technologies subprogram. From that amount, about $40 million would support competitive (and
cost-shared) demonstration projects to accelerate commercialization of technologies that are
within three years or less of market-readiness. Specific areas include advanced building controls
and “next generation” air conditioning technologies. Also, about $30 million requested for the
Grid Integration Initiative would address R&D on how building energy control systems transact
(provide status, availability, identity) with each other and with the electric grid. Projects would
likely cover predictive data analytics, sensors, and energy control systems.
The request also sought $24 million for another year of funding for the Building Energy
Efficiency Innovation Hub. Additionally, about $15 million of the increase would support EERE
efforts to accelerate the development of energy efficiency equipment standards and building
codes.
The House bill recommended a $82 million (40%) cut from the FY2013 level, while the Senate
bill proposed an increase of $23 million (11%) over FY2013.
Advanced Manufacturing
Domestic manufacturers face increasing challenges in the global marketplace. The Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) was designed to focus on national interests—especially concerns
about jobs, critical materials, and international competitiveness. The general goal for AMO
programs is to reduce the energy use of manufactured goods across targeted product life-cycles
by 50% over 10 years. More specific objectives include (1) 50% energy savings through
advanced materials and industrial processes, (2) help leading companies cut energy intensity by
25% over 10 years, and (3) facilitate installation of 40 GW (million kilowatts) of combined heat
and power equipment by 2020.29
To meet the above-noted goals and objectives DOE requested $365 million, a net increase of
$256 million over the FY2013 appropriation. Most of the requested increase (more than $180
million) would go to the subprogram on Advanced Manufacturing R&D Facilities, with the
remainder split between Next Generation Manufacturing R&D Projects (about $60 million) and
Industrial Technical Assistance (about $10 million).
The proposed $180 million plus increase for Advanced R&D Facilities would include about $177
million more for clean energy manufacturing R&D facilities. That additional funding would allow
the program to support the creation of at least three new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation

29 DOE, EERE-Advanced Manufacturing Office, FY14 Budget At-a-Glance, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
pdfs/budget/manufacturing_ataglance_2014.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

(CEMI) Institutes, consistent with the President’s vision for a larger, multi-agency National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).30
CEMI is a new cross-cutting activity that would be anchored by AMO and would incorporate
activities under many of EERE’s other programs.31 The main goal is to improve U.S.
competitiveness in the manufacturing of clean energy products, such as solar photovoltaic
modules, LEDs, batteries, and wind turbine blades. The CEMI institutes would provide small-
and medium-sized enterprises affordable access to cutting-edge physical and virtual
manufacturing capabilities (e.g., 3-D printing equipment) and facilitate technology use in the U.S.
manufacturing sector to bolster its global competitiveness. DOE plans to invest $70 million-$120
million into each CEMI institute, to be used over a five- to seven-year period. For each institute,
DOE plans to provide up-front funding to the greatest extent possible.
Another R&D facility, the Critical Materials Hub, was created in FY2012 to focus on
technologies that enable manufacturers to make better use of critical materials (e.g., rare earth
elements) and to eliminate the need for materials that are vulnerable to supply disruptions. Many
rare earth elements are essential to technologies of the clean energy industry.32 Examples include
wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient lighting. DOE
requested $25 million to extend the Hub’s operation for a third year.
Under the Next Generation Manufacturing Projects subprogram, advanced R&D projects focus
on technology areas with the greatest potential impact on clean energy manufacturing and energy
productivity-related competitiveness. DOE requested an increase of about $60 million over
FY2013. The increase would support at least three new project competitions—in specific
technology areas—of about $20 million to $40 million each. Previously identified and approved
technology areas include additive manufacturing (3-D printing), wide bandgap semiconductors
(efficient power conversion), low-cost carbon fiber (lightweight) materials, and other
technologies that would benefit multiple clean energy sectors. Also, one of the three competitions
would be established as an “incubator activity” project. It would get up to $20 million in support
for a new technology area that might not be included among the above-referenced list of
approved technology areas.
For Industrial Technical Assistance, the requested increase of about $10 million would expand
combined heat & power (CHP) partnerships to provide greater technical assistance and market
development for critical infrastructure facilities (e.g., hospitals, military bases, wastewater
treatment facilities) and to support other applications.
Overall, the House bill recommended a $41 million (37%) increase over the FY2013 level, while
the Senate bill proposed an increase of $107 million (98%) over FY2013.

30 The NNMI model was designed to induce collaboration and spread risk, complement university research, and focus
national manufacturing policy. For more about NNMI, see http://manufacturing.gov/nnmi.html and
http://www.manufacturing.gov/docs/nnmi_prelim_design.pdf.
31 Going forward, DOE expects to establish CEMIs as an alternative to the concept of “manufacturing demonstration
facilities” (MDFs), which it implemented in FY2012 with the establishment of the Critical Materials Hub (discussed in
the next paragraph). DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the home for AMO’s first MDF focused on additive
manufacturing and low-cost carbon fiber. For more on MDFs, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/rd/m/
mdf.html.
32 The Hub also supports materials needs for defense and other strategic industries.
Congressional Research Service
22

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
FEMP provides expertise, training, and other services to help federal agencies achieve
congressionally mandated energy efficiency and renewable energy goals. DOE requested $36
million, which would be about $8 million more than the FY2013 appropriation. A new
subprogram, the Federal Energy Efficiency Fund, would get about $10 million to provide
leverage for cost sharing of capital improvement projects at federal agencies. The House bill
recommended $18 million, a cut of $10 million. The Senate bill proposed $30 million, an increase
of $2 million over FY2013.
Program Direction
This administrative program funds federal employees, contract support, and operational costs.
DOE requested $185 million, about a $30 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation. The
increase would cover an EERE reorganization that would consolidate information technology and
establish an active project management (APM) system to oversee competitive grants and
cooperative agreements. The House bill recommended a $41 million (26%) cut from the FY2013
level, while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $30 million (19%) over FY2013.
Strategic Programs
For this program (formerly Program Support), DOE sought $36 million, an increase of $12
million over the FY2013 appropriation. Of that amount, about $7 million would go to a new
effort to increase the rate of clean energy technology commercialization from the national labs.
Another $4 million of the increase would expand efforts to evaluate EERE’s impacts and returns
on investment. The House bill recommended a $14 million (58%) cut from the FY2013 level,
while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $4 million (19%) over FY2013.
Weatherization Grant Program
This program addresses regulatory, financial, and planning barriers faced by state and local
governments. The goal is to foster technologies, practices, and policies that support state and
local governments in providing home energy services to low-income families that help them
reduce energy costs and save money. DOE requested $184 million, a $120 million increase over
the FY2013 appropriation. DOE stated that many states have expended leftover Recovery Act
funds and now need new funds to avoid cutting core programs and services.33 The House bill
recommended a $10 million (15%) cut below the FY2013 level, while the Senate bill proposed an
increase of $120 million (187%) over FY2013.
State Energy Grant Program
This program supports both administrative and program activities at many state energy offices.
DOE requested $57 million, a $10 million increase over the FY2013 appropriation. The increase

33 Also, in FY2014, collection and analysis of data from ARRA projects would enable updated estimates of program
energy savings, cost savings, leveraged funds, and other impacts. For more details about the program see CRS Report
R42147, DOE Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies, by Fred
Sissine.
Congressional Research Service
23

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

would support competitive projects that address barriers to an effort that aims to cut state energy
use by 1% annually. The House bill recommended a $22 million (47%) cut from the FY2013
level, while the Senate bill proposed a small increase of $6 million (13%) over FY2013.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER) Program34
DOE requested $169 million—a net increase of $37 million over the FY2013 DOE estimate—
which included $20 million for a new Electricity Systems Hub. The Hub would address the
growing need for the grid to accommodate renewables, the impact of electric vehicles and
distributed generation, and the advent of smart grid equipment. The Hub funding would be mostly
offset by cuts to other programs. Also, notable increases were sought for three subprograms:
infrastructure security (about $10 million), cybersecurity (about $9 million), and clean energy
transmission (about $7 million). Offsetting reductions would come from two subprograms: smart
grid (a cut of about $9 million) and energy storage (a cut of about $4 million). The House bill
recommended a cut of $9 million (7%), while the Senate bill proposed an increase of $17 million
(13%) over FY2013.
Nuclear Energy35
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 funding request for nuclear energy research and
development totals $735.5 million. Including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology,
infrastructure support, and safeguards and security, the total nuclear energy request is $22.0
million (3%) below the FY2013 funding level. Funding for safeguards and security at DOE’s
Idaho facilities in FY2013 was provided under a separate appropriations account, Other Defense
Activities, but it is included under the Nuclear Energy account in the FY2014 request. In contrast,
funding for space and defense infrastructure, totaling $64.1 million in the FY2013 nuclear energy
appropriation, would be shifted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by
the Administration’s request. The largest proposed reductions for FY2014 are Reactor Concepts (-
34.5%), Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (-12.6%), and Fuel Cycle R&D (-8.8%). A 4.5%
increase is requested for Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.
The House-passed bill would provide $656.4 million for nuclear energy. That total excludes the
Administration’s proposed shift of $94.0 million for Idaho safeguards and security from Other
Defense Activities and includes the space and defense funding transfer to NASA. For the
programs that would remain in nuclear energy, therefore, the House bill would provide an
increase of $14.9 million from the Administration request and a decrease of $37 million from
FY2013. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same total as the
Administration request, including the proposed funding transfers.
The Administration’s FY2014 nuclear R&D budget request is consistent with DOE’s Nuclear
Energy Research and Development Roadmap
issued in April 2010.36 The Roadmap lays out the
following four main goals for the program:

34 This section was prepared by Fred Sissine.
35 This section was prepared by Mark Holt.
36 Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, Washington, DC,
April 2010, http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

• 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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee directed DOE to update the Roadmap within 180 days
after enactment to reflect lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident, advances in small
modular reactors, and the Administration’s new nuclear waste strategy.
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). This area also includes funding for developing advanced small modular reactors
(discussed in the next section) and to enhance the “sustainability” of existing commercial light
water reactors. The total FY2014 funding request for this program is $72.5 million, a reduction of
$41.6 million from FY2013. The House voted to provide $86.5 million, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved the Administration’s funding level.
Most of the Administration’s proposed reduction in Reactor Concepts would be for NGNP, a
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project authorized by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). 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 is not requesting any funding specifically for the NGNP project in
FY2014. Under EPACT05, the Secretary of Energy was to decide by the end of FY2011 whether
to proceed toward construction of a demonstration plant. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
informed Congress on October 17, 2011, that DOE would not proceed with a demonstration plant
design “at this time” but would continue research on the technology.37 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 EPACT05.38 According to the DOE
budget justification, some research activities now conducted under the NGNP program will be
shifted to the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram in FY2014.
Funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts subprogram would be increased by the
Administration request to $31.0 million in FY2014, up from $21.7 million in FY2012. The
increase would cover research on high-temperature gas reactors previously conducted under the
NGNP Program. Reactor concepts being developed by the Advanced Reactor Concepts
subprogram are generally classified as “Generation IV” reactors, as opposed to the existing fleet
of commercial light water reactors, which are generally classified as generations II and III. Such
advanced reactors “could dramatically improve nuclear power performance including

37 Idaho National Laboratory, NGNP Project 2011 Status and Path Forward, INL/EXT-11-23907, December 2011.
38 Yanmei Xie, “Cheap Natural Gas, Cost-Share Disagreement Jeopardize NGNP,” Nucleonics Week, April 28, 2011,
p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
25

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

sustainability, economics, and safety and proliferation resistance,” according to the FY2014
justification. 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). The House bill would boost
Advanced Reactor Concepts funding to $45 million, with the increase focused on high-
temperature gas reactor fuel development formerly conducted under the NGNP program.
DOE’s FY2014 request for the Light Water Reactor Sustainability subprogram is $21.5 million,
$3.3 million below the FY2012 appropriation. 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
radioactive leakage from nuclear fuel and increasing its accident tolerance, along with other
“post-Fukushima lessons learned,” according to the budget justification. The House approved the
Administration funding level, as did the Senate committee.
Small Modular 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 300 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 the high-temperature gas
technology described above and the light water (LWR) technology used by today’s commercial
reactors.
DOE requested $70.0 million for FY2014 to provide technical support for licensing small
modular reactors, about $3 million above the FY2013 funding level. This program has focused on
LWR designs because they are believed most likely to be deployed in the near term, according to
DOE. The FY2014 budget justification states that the SMR licensing and technical support
program will last six years and cost DOE a total of $452 million. The program is similar to
DOE’s support for larger commercial reactor designs under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program,
which ended in FY2010. DOE will provide support for design certification, standards, and
licensing. As with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, at least half the costs of the SMR design and
licensing program are to be covered by industry partners, according to DOE.
A consortium led by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) was announced by DOE in November 2012 as
the first award recipient under the program.39 DOE and the B&W consortium signed a
cooperative agreement in April 2013 to implement the award, allowing for federal payments of
around $226 million over five years to design and license a commercial demonstration plant that

39 DOE, “Energy Department Announces New Investment in U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design and
Commercialization,” news release, November 20, 2012, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-
investment-us-small-modular-reactor-design-and.
Congressional Research Service
26

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

could open by 2022.40 DOE announced a second award solicitation in March 2013 for innovative
SMR designs that could begin commercial operation around 2025.41
The House bill would increase funding for SMR design and licensing support to $110.0 million,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the Administration level.
An additional $20.0 million for FY2014 was requested by DOE under the Reactor Concepts
program (described in the section above) for SMR advanced concepts R&D—$4.5 million below
the FY2012 funding level. Unlike the SMR licensing support program, which focuses on near-
term technology, the SMR advanced concepts program would conduct research on technologies
that might be deployed in the longer term, according to the budget justification. The House
approved the Administration funding level, as did the Senate panel.
Small modular reactors would go against the overall trend in nuclear power technology toward
ever-larger reactors intended to spread construction costs over a greater output of electricity.
Proponents of small reactors contend that they would be economically viable despite their far
lower electrical output because modules could be assembled in factories and shipped to plant
sites, with minimal on-site fabrication, and because their smaller size would allow for simpler
safety systems. In addition, although modular plants might have similar or higher costs per
kilowatt-hour than conventional large reactors, their ability to be constructed in smaller
increments could reduce electric utilities’ financial commitment and risk.
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 FY2014 funding request for this program is
$165.1 million, $10.1 million below the FY2013 appropriation. The House bill would provide
$91.1 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $175.1 million.
The range of fuel cycle technologies being studied by the program includes direct disposal of
spent fuel (the “once through” cycle) and partial and full recycling, according to the FY2014
budget justification. The Fuel Cycle R&D 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 budget justification says.
Much of the Administration’s planned research on spent fuel management options would address
the near-term recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,
which issued its final report on January 26, 2012.42 The commission was chartered to develop
alternatives to the planned Yucca Mountain, NV, spent fuel repository, which President Obama

40 B&W, “B&W, DOE Sign Cooperative Agreement for Small Modular Reactor Funding,” news release, April 15,
2013, http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2013/20130415a.html.
41 DOE, “Energy Department Announces New Funding Opportunity for Innovative Small Modular Reactors,” news
release, March 11, 2013, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-funding-opportunity-innovative-
small-modular-reactors.
42 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
Issues Final Report to Secretary of Energy,” press release, January 26, 2012, http://brc.gov/index.php?q=
announcement/brc-releases-their-final-report.
Congressional Research Service
27

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

wants to terminate. DOE released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
in January 2013 in response to the Blue Ribbon
Commission report. Funding to begin implementing the strategy is included in the Used Nuclear
Fuel Disposition subprogram, with a request of $60.0 million, $2.1 million above the FY2012
funding level. Activities in that area include developing plans for a “consent-based siting process”
for nuclear storage and disposal facilities, waste transportation analyses, and research on potential
waste repositories, including salt caverns and deep boreholes. (See the “Nuclear Waste Disposal”
section, below, for more details.)
Other major research areas in the Fuel Cycle R&D Program include the development of accident-
tolerant fuels for existing commercial reactors, evaluation of fuel cycle options, development of
improved technologies to prevent diversion of nuclear materials for weapons, and technology to
increase nuclear fuel resources, such as uranium extraction from seawater. The Senate
Appropriations Committee increased the Administration’s request for the Advanced Fuels
subprogram by $20 million, to $57.1 million, with an emphasis on developing “meltdown-
resistant nuclear fuels” that could be tested and made available within 10 years.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
The Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program “is designed to conduct research
and development (R&D) in crosscutting technologies that directly support and enable the
development of new and advanced reactor designs and fuel cycle technologies,” according to the
FY2014 DOE budget justification. The DOE funding request for the program is $62.3 million,
$11.6 million below the FY2013 level. The House bill includes $66.7 million for the program,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the level sought by the Administration.
DOE’s proposed funding cuts would come from the categories of Crosscutting Technology
Development, for which $13.9 million was requested, $5.9 million below FY2012, and Nuclear
Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, which would be reduced from $13.9 million to $9.5
million. According to the budget justification, the cuts result from reducing research on
manufacturing methods and shifting proliferation and terrorism risk assessments to the Fuel Cycle
R&D Program. Continuing crosscutting research activities are to include development of
innovative materials, harsh environment sensors, and fully digital reactor control systems.
The Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation (separate from the Nuclear Energy
Advanced Modeling and Simulation subprogram), has a request of $24.3 million, slightly below
the FY2012 appropriation. 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 budget
justification.
DOE requested $14.6 million for the National Scientific User Facility, $500,000 above the
FY2012 appropriation, to support partnerships by universities and other research organizations to
conduct experiments “at facilities not normally accessible to these organizations,” according to
the justification. In addition to previously awarded projects, one new long-term project is
expected to be fully funded in FY2014, under the budget request.
Congressional Research Service
28

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Fossil Energy Research and Development43
For FY2014, the Obama Administration requested $420.575 million for the Fossil Energy
Research and Development Program with the provision that it remain available until expended
and that $115.753 million remain available until September 30, 2015, for program direction. The
request represents a 17% decrease from the FY2013 Appropriation (Table 10).
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 (CCS) technologies. The FY2012 appropriations bill adopted the new
structure. The CCS 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
separating 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.
For FY2014, the House bill would appropriate $450.0 million for Fossil Energy Research and
Development, $29.4 million above the President’s budget request. The bill directs DOE to use
$8.7 million in prior-year balances, as proposed in the budget request. The bill breaks out:
• $315.9 million for Coal with $68.9 million applied to Carbon Capture (under
which no funding shall be applied to a Natural Gas Capture Prize) and $79.3
million applied to Carbon Storage (to include $7.5 million for additional support
of Enhanced Oil Recovery).
• $91.7 million for Advanced Energy Systems, with $25.0 million applied to solid
oxide fuel cell systems, $5.0 million to coal-biomass to liquids activities, $5.0
million to High Performance Materials within Advanced Combustion Systems,
and $8.0 million to Gasification Systems.
• $30.9 million for Cross Cutting Research, with $5.0 million applied to Advanced
Ultra Super Critical Program.
• $45.0 million for NETL Coal Research and Development with $10 million
applied to research in recovering rare earth elements from coal.
• $115.8 million for Program Direction.
• $7.2 million for Natural Gas Technologies, with no new funding applied to the
proposed joint research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of the Interior into hydraulic fracturing technologies, $5.0 million for
research into the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates,
and $2.2 million for continuing the Risk Based Data Management System.

43 This section was prepared by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
29

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

For FY2014, the Senate committee recommends $420.6 million for Fossil Energy Research and
Development, the same as the President’s request. The committee recommendation breaks out:
• $268.6 million for CCS and Power Systems, with $40.0 million applied to
Advanced Energy Systems and $8.0 million to continue Gasification Systems
activities.
• $115.8 million for Program Direction.
• $13.3 million for Plant and Capital Equipment.
• $5.9 million for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.
• $0.7 million for Special Recruitment Programs.
• Within available funds, the committee directs the department to continue the Risk
Based Data Management System.
The committee recommended $20 million for Natural Gas Technologies, including $12.0 million
for interagency research and development initiatives and $8.0 million for ongoing methane
hydrates research and development.
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development
($ millions)
FY2013
FY2014

Approp.a
Request House Senate Conf.
Coal





Carbon Capture
65.6
112.0
68.9
112.0

Carbon Storage
109.9
61.1
79.3
61.1

Advanced Energy Systems
95.2
48.0
91.7
40.0

Cross Cutting Research
46.8
20.5
30.9
20.5

National Energy Tech. Lab
33.3
35.0
45.0
35.0

Coal R&D
Coal Subtotal
350.8
276.6
315.8 268.6







Natural Gas Technologies
14.3
17.0
7.2
20.0

Unconventional Fossil
4.8 5.0
Energy
Program
Direction
114.0 115.8 115.8 115.8

Plant and Capital
16.0 13.3 13.3 13.3
Equipment
F E Environmental
7.5 5.9 5.9 5.9
Restoration
Special Recruitment
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Program
Subtotal
508.1 429.3 458.7 429.3

Use of Prior Year
-8.7
-8.7
-8.7
Balance
Congressional Research Service
30

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

FY2013
FY2014

Approp.a
Request House Senate Conf.
Total
508.1 420.6 450.0 420.6

Source: FY2014 Budget Request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes: Coal was formerly Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration.
a. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, FY2015 Statistical Table by Appropriation, personal communication.
Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve44
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in
Louisiana and Texas. The SPR provides strategic and economic security against foreign and
domestic disruptions in U.S. oil supplies via an emergency stockpile of crude oil. The program
fulfills U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program, which avails the United States of
International Energy Agency (IEA) assistance through its coordinated energy emergency response
plans, and provides a deterrent against energy supply disruptions.
By early 2010, the SPR’s maximum capacity reached 727 million barrels.45 The federal
government has not purchased oil for the SPR since 1994. Beginning in 2000, additions to the
SPR were made with royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil acquired by the Department of Energy in lieu of
cash royalties paid on production from federal offshore leases. In September 2009 the Secretary
of the Interior announced a transitional phasing out of the RIK Program.46
In its FY2012 request, the Obama Administration 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. In summer 2011, the President ordered an SPR sale in coordination with an
International Energy Administration sale under treaty obligation. The U.S. sale of 30.6 million
barrels reduced the SPR inventory to 695.9 million barrels.
For FY2014, the Administration requested $189.4 million to operate the SPR, a decrease from the
$192.7 million enacted in for FY2012.
The House committee recommended $189.4 million for operating the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, the same as the budget request.
The Senate committee recommended $189.4 million for the operating the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.

44 This section was prepared by Anthony Andrews.
45 For details on the SPR see CRS Report R41687, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Refined Product Reserves:
Authorization and Drawdown Policy
, by Anthony Andrews and Robert Pirog.
46 Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation and Enforcement. http://www.mrm.boemre.gov/AssetManagement/
default.htm.
Congressional Research Service
31

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Science47
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: advanced scientific
computing research, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy
sciences, high-energy physics, and nuclear physics. Through these programs, DOE is the third-
largest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.48 Table 11 includes the FY2012 current plan, FY2014 request, and House and Senate
appropriations committee recommendations for Office of Science accounts.
For FY2014, DOE requests $5.153 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of 5.9% ($287
million) from the FY2013 current plan amount of $4.866 billion.49 As passed by the House, H.R.
2609 (Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would
provide $4.653 billion to the Office of Science in FY2014. This amount is $500 million (9.7%)
less than the Administration’s request. The amount recommended by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations ($5.153 billion) is the same as the request.50 H.Rept. 113-135, which accompanied
H.R. 2609 when it was reported from the House Committee on Appropriations, raises general
concerns about the percentage of Office of Science funding committed to ongoing projects each
year.51 The House report52 and bill include language designed to limit this practice.
Table 11. Science
($ millions)
FY2013
Current
FY2014
Program
Plana
Request House Senate Conf.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
417.8
465.6
432.4
493.8

Basic
Energy
Sciences
1,596.2 1,862.4 1,583.1 1,805.2

Biological and Environmental Research
578.3
625.3
494.1
625.3

Fusion
Energy
Sciences

385.1 458.3 506.1 458.3

High
Energy
Physics
748.3 776.5 772.5 806.6

Nuclear
Physics
519.9 569.9 551.9 569.9

Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
17.5
16.5
16.5
16.5


47 This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez.
48 Based on preliminary FY2012 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009-11, NSF 13-326
(July 2013).
49 FY2013 current plan funding levels reflect the effects of sequestration and applicable rescissions.
50 S. 1245 (Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) and S.Rept. 113-47,
which accompanied S. 1245 when it was reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This section refers to
S.Rept. 113-47 as the “Senate report.”
51 On page 10, H.Rept. 113-135, the House Committee on Appropriations states, “Most of its [Office of Science] new
multi-year awards continue to be mortgaged against out-year funding. Most of the new awards are small and should be
fully funded. In fiscal year 2013, more than 70 percent of Science’s multi-year awards were valued at less than
$1,500,000. In a nearly $5,000,000,000 account, this practice of carrying mortgages for smaller awards is avoidable
and should be terminated.” The House Committee on Appropriations raised similar concerns about various Department
of Energy accounts in FY2013 (see H.Rept. 112-462) and FY2012 (see H.Rept. 112-118).
52 This section refers to H.Rept. 113-135 as the “House report.”
Congressional Research Service
32

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

FY2013
Current
FY2014
Program
Plana
Request House Senate Conf.
Science
Laboratories
Infrastructure
105.7 97.8 46.6 97.8

Safeguards
and
Security
77.5 87.0 85.0 87.0

Science
Program
Direction
174.9 193.3 174.9 192.3

Use of Prior Year Funds
0.0
0.0
-10.0
0.0

Total
4,866.2 5,152.8 4,653.0 5,152.8

Source: FY2014 DOE budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47; Department of Energy, Office of
Science, “FY2012-2014 Appropriations Summary,” August 19, 2013, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/
pdf/sc-congressional-appropriations/fy-2014/FY-2012_FY_2014_Request_Science_Stat_Table.pdf.
a. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds and applicable rescissions.
Since FY2006, overall increases in the Office of Science budget have been at least partially
driven by the so-called “doubling path” policy. Under this policy, Congress and successive
Administrations sought to double the combined funding for the Office of Science, the National
Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core laboratory and
construction accounts (collectively “the targeted accounts”).53 However, actual funding for the
targeted accounts has not typically reached annual authorized levels. The current authorization
ends in FY2013. It is unclear whether policymakers will continue the doubling path policy in
FY2014. In FY2013 some legislators raised concerns about the doubling effort given the nation’s
fiscal challenges.54 On the other hand, some analysts believe that without the doubling path policy
in place, funding levels for targeted accounts might have fallen over the past half-decade.55
The FY2014 request for the largest Office of Science program, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is
$1.862 billion. This amount is $266 million (16.7%) more than the FY2013 current plan funding
level of $1.596 million. Most of the BES increase would fund scientific user facilities (59%) and
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC)/Energy Innovation Hubs (32%). The FY2014 BES
request for scientific user facilities includes, among other things, increased operations funding for
synchrotron radiation light sources, high-flux neutron sources, and Nanoscale Science Research
Centers. As planned, construction funding for the LINAC Coherent Light Source-II (LCLS-II)
would increase by $65 million,56 and funding for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II
(NSLS-II) would decrease by $125 million compared to FY2012 funding levels. DOE indicates
that it will issue a solicitation for new and existing EFRCs in FY2014.
The House would provide $1.583 billion for BES in FY2014. This amount is $279 million
(15.0%) less than the Administration’s FY2014 request, $13 million (0.8%) less than the FY2013
current plan funding level, and $222 million (12.3%) less than the Senate Committee on

53 For further analysis of the doubling effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal
Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research
, by John F. Sargent Jr.
54 For example, see Opening Statement of Ranking Member Dan Lipinski, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, “The National Science
Foundation’s FY2013 Budget Request,” hearings, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 2012.
55 For example, see testimony of Dr. Jeffrey L. Furman, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, “Five Years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps,” hearings,
112th Cong., 2nd sess., September 19, 2012.
56 DOE’s FY2012 budget included $30 million in Major Items of Equipment funding for the LCLS-II.
Congressional Research Service
33

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Appropriations’ recommendation of $1.805 billion. Both appropriations committees recommend
the requested level ($24 million each) for the Fuels from Sunlight and Battery and Energy Storage
Energy Innovation Hubs. The committees differ on funding for the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)—which the Senate committee would fund ($20
million) and the House committee would not—and on funding for EFRCs. The Senate report
recommends $100 million for EFRCs in FY2014. The House would provide $60 million. Neither
committee appears to provide requested one-time funds for EFRCs.57 The House report cautions
the department against assuming BES budget growth in future years and provides funding for
certain BES activities, including the NSLS-II Experimental Tools ($25 million) as well as an
unspecified amount for the first year of funding for the LCLS-II two-tunnel upgrade.
In percentage terms, the largest increase in the FY2014 Office of Science budget request is for the
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program. The FY2014 FES request for $458 million is $73 million
(19%) more than the FY2013 current plan funding level of $385 million. Most of the requested
increase would fund facilities (as opposed to scientific research). The requested increase for FES
facilities is driven by the request for the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER). ITER is a fusion research facility currently under construction in
France. The FY2014 request for the U.S. contribution to ITER is $225 million, an increase of
$120 million over the FY2012 level.58 Funding for domestic fusion activities would decrease;
including funding for the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, a fusion reactor that the Administration
planned to shut down in FY2013. Policymakers and fusion researchers have long been concerned
about the impact of ITER’s funding needs on the availability of resources for the domestic fusion
program.
The House would provide $506 million for FES in FY2014. This amount is $121 million (31.4%)
more than the FY2013 current plan funding level, as well as $48 million (10.4%) more than both
the Administration’s request and the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ recommendation for
$458 million. The House would include $22 million for the Alcator C-Mod; the Senate report
specifically excludes funding for this project. The Senate report recommends $75 million for the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, $77 million for the DIII-D fusion reactor, $15 million for
High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas, and $12 million for the Fusion Simulation program.
With respect to ITER, both the House and Senate appropriations committee reports include
language seeking an updated project baseline and cost schedule for ITER. The Senate report
further states that funds shall not be available for the U.S. contribution to ITER until the DOE
submits these materials. The House would provide $218 million for ITER in FY2014; the Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends $184 million. Both appropriations committees direct
DOE to submit a 10-year plan for the FES program.
For High Energy Physics (HEP), the request is $777 million, an increase of $28 million (3.8%)
from the FY2013 current plan funding level of $748 million. The FY2014 HEP budget request

57 H.Rept. 113-135 specifically states that the recommendation does not include $68.7 million in one-time funding.
S.Rept. 113-47 does not specifically exclude one-time funding, but the amount provided ($100.0 million) is $68.7
million less than the total FY2014 request for $168.7 million, which includes $68.7 million in one-time funding.
58 In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion. Schedule
delays, design and scope changes, and other factors have placed upward pressure of ITER costs and delayed formal
approval of a revised cost estimate. Pending a new official estimate, DOE asserts that funding of $225 million per year
will allow it to meet international obligations—up to the achievement of ITR’s “first plasma” milestone—for a total
cost of $2.4 billion.
Congressional Research Service
34

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

has been restructured from prior years.59 According to the request, in FY2014 HEP seeks to shift
funding from research categories to support full operations of existing facilities and experiments,
the planned construction funding profile of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e),
and fabrication of an experiment to measure the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Funding is
also requested to support the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope camera—a joint activity with the
National Science Foundation—and U.S. contributions to the upgrade of the Belle detector in
Japan.
The House would provide $773 million for HEP in FY2014. This amount is $24 million (3.2%)
more than the FY2013 current plan funding level and $4 million less than the Administration’s
request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends increasing HEP funding by $30
million over the requested level (to $807 million). Both committees recommend $35 million for
Mu2e. The House would include $8 million for Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE)
project engineering and design, but would exclude funding for long-lead procurement and
construction. The Senate report recommends $20 million for LBNE project engineering and
design as well as $10 million for research and development.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) is $625 million, an increase of
$47 million (8.1%) over the FY2013 current plan funding level of $578 million. About two-thirds
of the increase would go to Foundational Genomics Research (40%), Terrestrial Ecosystem
Science (15%), and the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility (10%).
The FY2014 budget request reduces funding in Radiological Sciences and establishes a new
Mesoscale to Molecules program. Other Biological Systems Science programs are generally near
FY2012 levels. The Administration seeks a 7% reduction from the FY2012 level for the
Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory funding. Most other Climate and Environmental
Sciences programs are near FY2012 levels.
The House would reduce BER funding (compared to the FY2013 current plan) by $84 million
(14.6%) in FY2014. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends the requested level of
$625 million. The House report expresses support for biomass research and recommends the
requested level ($75 million) for BioEnergy Research Centers. Among other things, the Senate
report recommends the requested levels of $321 million and $304 million, respectively, for
Biological Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences.
For Nuclear Physics (NP), the request is $570 million, up $50 million (9.6%) from the FY2013
current plan funding level of $520 million. Medium Energy Nuclear Physics (MENP) operations
and the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University (FRIB) would receive most
of the proposed increase. The FY2014 budget request for MENP includes funding for, among
other things, initiation of beam development and commissioning activities at the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF). The FY2104 request indicates that these increases
in CEBAF operations funding are at least partially offset by planned construction funding
decreases for the 12GeV CEBAF Upgrade. Funding increases for the FRIB would support the
continuation of planned construction activities and major procurements.

59 For more information about these changes, see U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer,
FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 4, April 2013, p. SC-210. The Office of Science FY2014 budget request
states that the HEP budget restructuring is consistent with the long-range plan published in U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Science, and National Science Foundation, Particle Physics Prioritization Panel, U.S. Particle Physics:
Scientific Opportunities for the Next Ten Years
, May 29, 2008, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/
p5_report_06022008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

The House would provide $552 million ($18 million below the requested level and $32 million
more than the FY2013 current plan funding level) for NP in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommends the requested level of $570 million. Both committee reports
recommend $55 million for FRIB construction, $26 million in construction funds for the 12 GeV
CEBAF Upgrade, and $165 million to support approximately 22 weeks of operations for the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). (These amounts are equal to requested levels for these
activities.) Additionally, the Senate report recommends $17 million for the Argonne Tandem
Linac Accelerator System.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) is $466 million, an increase of
$48 million (11.4%) over the FY2013 current plan funding level. The FY2014 request seeks
increases in funding for most ASCR programs. Two ASCR programs—Leadership Computing
Facilities and High Performance Network Facilities and Testbeds (ESNet)—would receive
decreases.
The House would provide $432 million—$33 million below the request and $15 million over the
FY2013 current plan funding level—to ASCR in FY2014. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommends $494 million—$28 million or 6.0% more than the request. Almost
half of the increase over requested levels ($12.5 million) in the Senate report is driven by
increased funding for exascale computing. The Senate report recommends a total of $150 million,
$81 million of which would come from the ACSR account, for exascale computing in FY2014.
The House would provide $69 million in ACSR funding for exascale computing (the requested
level) in FY2014. For Leadership Computing Facilities the House would provide $149 million
(slightly more than the request) while the Senate report recommends $160 million, or $13 million
more than the request. The Senate report recommends $66 million, equal to the request, for High
Performance Production Computing. The House would provide $62 million. The House would
also provide the requested level ($33 million) for ESNet. The Senate report recommends $6
million for the Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF), which the Administration
had proposed terminating and funding through the National Science Foundation instead.60 The
House implicitly accepts the termination of the CSGF program..61
ARPA-E62
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. 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
budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk technological
barriers to the development of energy technologies. The FY2014 request for ARPA-E is $379

60 The Obama Administration seeks to reorganize and consolidate federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education programs in FY2014. As part of this effort, the Administration proposed the transfer
and consolidation of certain federal fellowships (including the CSGF) within the National Science Foundation’s
Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRF).
61 H.Rept. 113-135 contains general provisions that prohibit the department from funding fellowships and scholarships
unless those programs are specifically provided for in either the department’s budget justification or H.Rept. 113-135.
Neither document provided funding for the CSGF in FY2014.
62 This section was prepared by Heather Gonzalez. Previous versions of this section were prepared by Daniel Morgan.
Congressional Research Service
36

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

million, an increase of $128 million over the FY2013 current plan funding level.63 As in FY2013,
the FY2014 ARPA-E request includes two research thrust areas: Transportation Systems ($197
million requested) and Stationary Power Systems ($148 million requested).
As amended on the floor of the House, H.R. 2609 (Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would provide $70 million for ARPA-E in FY2014. As
reported by the Senate Appropriations committee, S. 1245 (Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) would provide $379 million for ARPA-E. S.Rept.
113-47 directs ARPA-E to evaluate the success of the first set of projects and report to the
Appropriations Committee on the findings of the evaluation.
Nuclear Waste Disposal64
The Administration’s FY2014 budget includes 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. Funding
for OCWRM ended after FY2010, 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. To develop alternative waste management
strategies, the Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future, which issued its final report to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012.65 The Blue
Ribbon Commission recommended that future efforts to develop nuclear waste facilities follow a
“consent based” approach and be carried out by a new organization, rather than DOE. The
commission said the new nuclear waste entity should have “assured access” to the Nuclear Waste
Fund, which holds fees collected from nuclear power plant operators to pay for waste disposal.
Under NWPA, those funds cannot be spent without congressional appropriations.
DOE released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Radioactive Waste
in January 2013 in response to the Blue Ribbon Commission report. The
strategy calls for a pilot interim storage facility for spent fuel from closed nuclear reactors to open
by 2021 and a larger storage facility, possibly at the same site, to open by 2025. A site for a
permanent underground waste repository would be selected by 2026, and the repository would
open by 2048. Storage and disposal sites would be selected by a new waste management
organization through a consent-based process, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon
Commission.66

63 FY2013 current plan funding levels reflect the effects of sequestration and applicable rescissions.
64 This section was prepared by Mark Holt.
65 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012,
http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf.
66 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%20Fuel%20and%20High
%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
37

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

With the dismantlement of OCRWM, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) was given the
responsibility to “lead all future waste management activities,” according to the FY2011 budget
justification. NE’s Fuel Cycle R&D Program (discussed in the Nuclear Energy section above)
includes funding under the Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition subprogram to begin implementing the
DOE waste management strategy. DOE is seeking $60.0 million for the Used Fuel subprogram in
FY2014, $2.1 million above the FY2012 funding level.
The House Appropriations Committee excoriated the Obama Administration’s termination of the
Yucca Mountain project as “blatant political maneuverings.” The House bill would eliminate
DOE’s $60 million request to implement its new nuclear waste policy and add $25 million for
Yucca Mountain. It would also authorize funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund to be transferred
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Yucca Mountain licensing.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Administration’s proposed funding level for
Used Fuel and did not mention Yucca Mountain. The committee-passed bill includes a provision
from the previous year that would authorize DOE to conduct a pilot program to develop one or
more high level radioactive waste storage facilities, with the consent of state, local, and tribal
governments.
The FY2014 budget request includes a proposal to change the nuclear waste funding system
along the lines proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission. Discretionary funding (annual
appropriations by Congress) would continue to pay for “regular and recurring” expenses of the
nuclear waste program. In the past, discretionary appropriations for the program have come from
both the Nuclear Waste Fund, to pay for disposal of commercial reactor waste, and from the
General Fund, to pay for defense waste disposal. Beginning in FY2017, under the Administration
proposal, the discretionary appropriations would be supplemented by mandatory appropriations,
first from incoming nuclear waste fee revenues and eventually from past fees and interest that
have accumulated in the Waste Fund. If Congress enacted such mandatory appropriations, the
specified funding would be automatically provided to the waste program without the need for
annual congressional approval. Neither the House nor Senate bill included the proposed change.
DOE had filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 but filed a motion to withdraw the application
on March 3, 2010. 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 deadlocked on the issue September 9, 2011, leaving the licensing panel’s
decision in place and prohibiting DOE from withdrawing the Yucca Mountain application.
However, the commission ordered at the same time that the licensing process be halted because of
“budgetary limitations.”67 No funding was provided in FY2012 or FY2013 or requested for
FY2014 to continue Yucca Mountain licensing activities. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue work on the
Yucca Mountain license application as long as funding is available. The Court determined that
NRC has at least $11.1 million in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.68

67 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),”
CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-
07cli.pdf.
68 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
38

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

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 exceed $20 billion if DOE were to begin
removing waste from reactor sites by 2020, the previous target for opening Yucca Mountain.69
(For more information, see CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D.
Werner; 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 Loans70
DOE’s Loan Programs Office provides loan guarantees for projects that deploy specified energy
technologies, as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-
58), and direct loans for advanced vehicle manufacturing technologies. No funding for additional
loans and loan guarantees was requested for FY2014. However, $48 million for loan guarantee
administrative expenses, $10 million above FY2012, would be offset by fees. An additional $6
million was requested for administrative expenses for the vehicle manufacturing loan program,
the same as FY2012. The House bill would limit the loan guarantee program’s administrative
expenses to $22 million, equal to CBO’s estimated offset from fees, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $42 million. Both the House bill and the Senate
committee recommendation would provide the full $6 million Administration request for the
vehicle manufacturing loan program.
Two major loan guarantee programs are currently administered 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 existing commercial technologies, that “avoid, reduce, or sequester”
air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Eligible technology 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. P.L. 111-5), the Section 1705 program was
designed as a temporary economic stimulus measure 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.

(...continued)
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
69 Ibid., p. 80.
70 This section was prepared by Mark Holt. For more details on loan guarantees, see CRS Report R42152, Loan
Guarantees for Clean Energy Technologies: Goals, Concerns, and Policy Options
, by Phillip Brown.
Congressional Research Service
39

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

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 below-market interest rates. DOE currently has two conditional loan
guarantee commitments pending under Section 1703, totaling $10.33 billion for nuclear power
and nuclear fuel projects. Under Section 1705, final loan guarantees have been issued for 26
projects, totaling $16 billion.71
DOE’s first loan guarantee under Section 1705 was issued in September 2009 to Solyndra Inc., a
manufacturer of photovoltaic equipment. Solyndra’s bankruptcy announcement on August 31,
2011, prompted strong congressional criticism of the Administration’s management of the loan
guarantee program.72 Solyndra’s DOE loan guarantee totaled $535 million, and the company’s
bankruptcy placed most or all of that amount at risk. (For details, see CRS Report R42058,
Market Dynamics That May Have Contributed to Solyndra’s Bankruptcy, by Phillip Brown.)
Subsidy Costs
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.73
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 were not required from project sponsors under that program. 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.
Of the $2.5 billion available for subsidy costs, $1.9 billion was obligated by the end of FY2011.74

71 U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45. For a critique of the loan guarantee process, see U.S. Government
Accountability Office, DOE Loan Guarantees: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve Tracking and Review of
Applications
, GAO-12-157, March 2012, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-157.
72 Opening Statement of the Honorable Cliff Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“Solyndra and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program,” September 14, 2011,
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Stearns.pdf.
73 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; and CBO, Fair-Value Accounting for Federal
Credit Programs, Issue Brief, March 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43027.
74 DOE Weekly Financial and Activity Report, September 30, 2011, http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/agency/
reporting/agency_reporting2.aspx?agency_code=89&dt=09/30/2011.
Congressional Research Service
40

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Authorized Loan Guarantee Amounts
Under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), federal loan guarantees cannot be provided
without an authorized level in an appropriations act or an appropriation for the subsidy costs.
Pursuant to FCRA, the FY2007 continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) established an initial cap of $4
billion on loan guarantees under the Section 1703 program, without allocating that amount among
the various eligible technologies. That authority has been amended and several times, to increase,
cut, and/or further specify the authority. Currently, loan authority stands at $18.5 billion for
nuclear loan guarantees, $4 billion for uranium enrichment, and $11.5 billion for non-nuclear
projects.
Unobligated appropriations for subsidy cost payments under the Section 1705 loan guarantee
program were no longer available after FY2011, as noted above. However, the FY2011
Continuing Appropriations Act provided $170 million, with no expiration, to pay subsidy costs
for renewable energy and efficiency projects under the Section 1703 program. The act also
provided 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):
• $8.3 billion ceiling in CR on non-nuclear technologies under Section 1703,
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. As noted
above, about $1.9 billion of this funding was used to pay the subsidy costs for
$16 billion in loan guarantees with final commitments under Section 1705, for
which the deadline was September 30, 2011.75 Therefore, the remainder is not
currently available to the program.

75 DOE Loan Programs Office, “Our Projects,” http://lpo.energy.gov/our-projects.
Congressional Research Service
41

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans
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).76 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.77
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship78
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160). The goal of the program, as amended by the FY2010 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84, §3111), is to ensure “that the nuclear weapons stockpile
is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing.” The
program is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous
agency within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII).
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account, as
described below. Table 12 presents Weapons Activities funding. NNSA manages two programs
outside of that account: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and
Naval Reactors.
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 National Security
Complex, TN); and the Nevada National Security Site (formerly Nevada Test Site). NNSA
manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.

76 For more details, see CRS Report R42064, The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan
Program: Status and Issues
, by Brent D. Yacobucci and Bill Canis.
77 U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, “The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy
Economy,” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
78 This section was prepared by Jonathan Medalia.
Congressional Research Service
42

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2013-FY2014
($ millions)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
Program
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
DSW
1,946.6 2428.5 2718.4 2258.5

Campaigns
1,556.7 1710.9 1626.1 1847.4

RTBFa 1,972.6
0
1909.7
0

Nuclear Programs
0.0
744.5
0
688.0

Site Stewardship
72.8
1706.0
154.8
0

Site Ops & Maint
0.0
0
0
1535.9

Otherb 1,422.1
1,278.5
1266.1
1538.7

Total
6,970.8 7,868.4 7,675.0 7,868.4

Source: FY2013 enacted: provided by National Nuclear Security Administration, December 17, 2013, per P.L.
113-6. FY2014 Budget Request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF: Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities.
a. For FY2014, NNSA eliminated RTBF and split its functions between Nuclear Programs (a new program) and
Site Stewardship. Also for FY2014, NNSA shifted Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and
National Security Applications from Weapons Activities to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. See text for
further details.
b. For FY2013, “other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response,
NNSA CIO Activities, Defense Nuclear Security, Legacy Contractor Pensions, and National Security
Applications. For FY2014, “other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security,
Information Technology and Cyber Security (House and Senate Appropriations Committees), Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response (Senate Appropriations Committee), NNSA CIO Activities (request),
Legacy Contractor Pensions, and use of prior year balances.
Table 13. Weapons Activities: FY2014 Request and FY2015-FY2018 Plan
($ millions, except bottom row: $ billions)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
DSW 2,428.5
2,539.7
2,586.3
2,732.4
3.045.5
Campaigns 1,710.9
1,918.6
1,948.6
1,911,3
1,924.1
Nuclear Programs
744.5
994.1
1,191.6
1,208.5
1,333.2
Site
Stewardship 1,706.0
1,745.4 1,729.2 1,775.7
1,705.6
Othera 1,278.5
1,351.9
1,329.7
1,304.8
1,284.4
Total 7,868.4
8,549.7
8,785.4
8,932.8
9,292.9
Nov. 2010 “1251
8.4 8.7 8.9 8.9-9.0
9.2-9.3
report” projection
Source: FY2014 NNSA Budget Request for rows through Total; bottom row, U.S. White House. “November
2010 Update to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2010 Section 1251 Report: New START Treaty
Framework and Nuclear Force Structure Plans,” p. 9, http://www.lasg.org/CMRR/
Sect1251_update_17Nov2010.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work.
Congressional Research Service
43

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

a. “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, NNSA CIO
Activities, and Legacy Contractor Pensions. For FY2014, Other also includes use of prior year balances.
NNSA proposed many changes to the budget structure for FY2014. It would create an Office of
Infrastructure and Operations to be the landlord of the nuclear weapons complex sites, with
program offices as tenants. As a result, NNSA proposed to eliminate Readiness in Technical Base
and Facilities and split its functions between a greatly increased Site Stewardship program and a
new Nuclear Programs, as described below. NNSA also proposed moving Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response and National Security Applications to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, an appropriations account separate from Weapons Activities.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration
Although the nuclear weapons complex currently consists of eight sites, it was much larger
during the Cold War in terms of number of sites 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, greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and
the like. After numerous exchanges between DOE and the appropriating and authorizing
committees, such issues still remain.
According to a White House document of May 2010, the President provided Congress with a
classified report (the “1251 report”) required by the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act,
Section 1251, “on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms [that is, bombers,
missiles, and submarines that deliver nuclear weapons]; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and reliable
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex.”79 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 Section
1251 report in November 2010, projecting weapons stockpile and infrastructure costs for
FY2011-FY2020 at between $85.4 billion and $86.2 billion. Its estimate for FY2013 was $7.9
billion.
For FY2013, the Administration requested $7,577.3 million for Weapons Activities, less than the
amount in the November 2010 1251 report. The request brought criticism from some Members,
but the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended the amount requested. The
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2013 (P.L. 113-6) funded
Weapons Activities at a rate equivalent to an annual $7,577.3 million, the amount requested by
the Administration for FY2013. However, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25)
mandated a sequester unless Congress took certain actions. Since Congress did not take those
actions, the Office of Management and Budget calculated sequester amounts for programs,
projects, and activities. The FY2013 amounts used in this section reflect both the sequester and an
across-the-board rescission. They do not, however, include adjustments made during execution
such as reprogrammings and international contributions.
In contrast to the FY2013 request, the FY2014 request included out-year figures. As Table 13
shows, the projected Weapons Activities requests for FY2015-FY2018 are within 2% of the
amounts projected in the November 2010 1251 report update.

79 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.
Congressional Research Service
44

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

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. (A “mod” is a modification or version of a
bomb or warhead type.) An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched
ballistic missile is ongoing, as is an LEP for the B61 mod 12. The FY2013 appropriation was
$218.3 million for the W76 LEP and $324.4 million for the B61 LEP.
The FY2014 request for Life Extension Programs (which NNSA proposed renaming Life
Extension Programs and Major Alterations), contains four elements.
• The request for the B61-12 LEP is $537.0 million to continue development
engineering and ramp up system development testing. NNSA’s plan is to make
the first production unit in FY2019. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $560.7 million; the increase was to address a funding gap resulting
from “efficiencies” in the program that NNSA did not specify. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $369.0 million. It expressed concern
that the LEP option proposed “is not the lowest cost, lowest risk option that
meets military requirements and replaces aging components before they affect
weapon performance.”
• NNSA requests $235.4 million for the W76-1 LEP. NNSA intends to complete
W76-1 production by FY2019. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $248.5 million. The increase addressed several issues:
“inadequately fund[ed] activities that are essential to meet production needs of
the W76,” a proposed reduction in the number of W76s, and estimated cost
efficiencies that “are unlikely to be realized.” The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the requested amount.
• NNSA requests $72.7 million for the W78/W88-1 LEP. The W78 is a warhead
for a land-based intercontinental ballistic missile, while the W88 is a warhead for
a submarine-launched ballistic missile. The LEP would produce a common
interoperable warhead. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$50.0 million. This amount funds a study of W78 life extension and “permits
continued consideration of an integrated warhead [i.e., the W78/W88-1], but only
as part of a continued study of alternatives.” The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the requested amount. It expressed concern about the
cost for the LEP, which NNSA projects at $14 billion, and directed NNSA not to
preclude a separate LEP for the W78.
• NNSA requests $169.5 million for the W88 Alteration (Alt) 370, which includes
development engineering to support replacement of the arming, fusing, and firing
system and other components, with a first production unit in FY2019. The House
and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended the requested amount.
Congressional Research Service
45

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of limited-life
components, surveillance, assessment, and the like for all weapon types in the stockpile. The
FY2013 appropriation was $518.8 million. For 2014, the W78/W88 study and the Alt 370 have
advanced sufficiently to move to Life Extension Programs. As a result, Stockpile Systems funding
requested declined to $454.5 million for FY2014. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$282.8 million. It provided a lump sum rather than a weapon-by-weapon amount, and moved
funds requested under Stockpile Systems for warhead surveillance to a new Surveillance budget
line, for which it recommended $234.6 million.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD). The number of warheads has fallen sharply
since the end of the Cold War, and continues to decline. WDD involves interim storage of
warheads to be dismantled; dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead
components and materials). The FY2013 appropriation was $40.7 million, and the FY2014
request is $49.3 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $55.3 million, and
stated, “NNSA continues to cut funding for dismantlement, despite a clear requirement to
continue to dismantle warheads, sustain production line capacity, and harvest materials for
recycling to meet stockpile needs.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $56.0
million, with the increase to be used to “reduce the backlog in dispositioning nuclear components
from dismantled nuclear warheads.”
Stockpile Services. This category includes Production Support; R&D Support; R&D
Certification and Safety; Management, Technology, and Production; and Plutonium Infrastructure
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 FY2013 appropriation was
$844.3 million. The FY2014 request was $910.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $1,180.0 million, with reductions to large requested increases in certification on
grounds that NNSA has not demonstrated the need for such increases, and increases due to
inclusion in Stockpile Services of certain funds requested elsewhere in the budget. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $838.5 million and moved several programs into or out
of Stockpile Services.
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
FY2013 and FY2014 requests included five campaigns:
Science Campaign. The FY2013 appropriation was $321.2 million; the FY2014 request is
$397.9 million. Within this campaign, the largest increases went to (1) Advanced Certification,
which among other things conducts experiments to help “select technologies for re-use of existing
Congressional Research Service
46

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

pits in LEP designs using Insensitive High Explosive (IHE)”;80 Primary Assessment
Technologies, which among other things “address[es] plutonium aging and material compatibility
issues associated with pit re-use”; and Dynamic Materials Properties, which among other things
will conduct “increased experimental efforts on plutonium as a function of age in existing pits
intended for reuse” because they “are required in order to enable upcoming LEPs without the
need to build significant numbers of new pits.” For FY2014, the House Appropriations
Committee recommended the requested amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $374.7 million.
Engineering Campaign. This campaign “funds activities that assess and improve fielded nuclear
and non-nuclear engineering components without further underground testing.” For FY2013,
$127.7 million was appropriated; the FY2014 request is $149.9 million. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $90.0 million, and recommended moving certain funds from this
campaign to a new Technology Maturation Campaign.
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-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 2009.81 Between February
20, 2011, and March 20, 2011, NIF personnel conducted 34 “successful target shots … in support
of HEDSS [High Energy Density Stockpile Stewardship].”82 In 2011, personnel conducted a total
of 283 NIF shots of all types.83
However, as experiments proceeded, the prospect that NIF would soon achieve fusion ignition
began to fade. The House Appropriations Committee in its FY2012 report stated, “the
considerable costs [for NIF] will not have been warranted if the only role the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) serves is that of an expensive platform for routine high energy density physics
experiments.” The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its concern over the prospects of
NIF achieving ignition by the end of FY2012 and directed NNSA to establish an advisory
committee on this and related topics.

80 IHE is a type of explosive that is less likely to detonate under certain accident conditions.
81 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.
82 “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.
83 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Project Status—2011, December,” https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/
project_status/2011/december.php.
Congressional Research Service
47

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

For FY2013, the appropriation for this campaign was $446.7 million. The FY2014 request was
$401.0 million. The largest decreases are for Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support,
reflecting a reduction in facility operations, and for Facility Operations and Target Production,
reflecting a reduction in shot rate at NIF and elimination of support for experiments by external
users at NIF and a related facility. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $514.0
million. The increase resulted because NNSA had requested $113.0 million for NIF operations in
another budget category (Site Stewardship); by moving those funds to this campaign, the
committee “consolidates total funding for NIF facility operations within Campaigns.” The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $528.4 million, including moving $113.3 million for
NIF operations from Site Stewardship to Facility Operations and Target Production.
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. For
FY2013, the appropriation was $545.8 million; the FY2014 request was $564.3 million. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $600.6 million, of which $69.0 million would be used
for the exascale initiative, which is intended to lead to more-capable supercomputers.
Readiness Campaign. This campaign “operates the capability for producing tritium to maintain
the national inventory needed for the nuclear weapons stockpile.” The FY2013 appropriation was
$115.3 million. The FY2014 request increased to $197.8 million. Tritium Readiness increased to
$91.7 million because of “cost premiums for enrichment of unobligated reactor fuel” and
“preparations for continued increases in production to meet mission requirements.” Nonnuclear
Readiness funds were realigned to a new subprogram, Component Manufacturing Development,
“to restore the full capability to mature production processes and technologies.” The House
Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for this campaign, providing funds for
programs in this campaign under Directed Stockpile Work “since those activities directly support
stockpile production needs.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended replacing the
Readiness Campaign with the Technology Maturation Campaign, and recommended $253.7
million for the latter, which includes funds from Stockpile Services and the Engineering and
Readiness Campaigns while moving funds for tritium activities to Stockpile Services.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
This program funds infrastructure and operations at nuclear weapons complex sites. For FY2013,
the appropriation was $1,972.6 million. NNSA would abolish this program in its FY2014 request,
transferring its programs to the newly created Nuclear Programs and the much-expanded Site
Stewardship. These two programs are discussed below; for comparison, the total FY2014 request
for them is $2,450.5 million.
RTBF had several subprograms. The largest was Operations of Facilities (FY2013 appropriated,
$1,305.8 million). The second largest was Construction (FY2013 appropriated, $387.8 million).
Congressional Research Service
48

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Perhaps the most controversial activity in the Weapons Activities account was the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The project involves two buildings, the Radiation Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB),
which was completed in 2009, and the Nuclear Facility (NF), which has been designed but not
built. CMRR would replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building, most of
which was built in 1952. Among other things, CMR houses research into plutonium and supports
pit production at Los Alamos, such as by conducting analytical chemistry procedures to monitor
the quality of plutonium at various stages during the manufacture of a pit. Since 2005, cost
estimates for CMRR increased several-fold, and some critics argue that it is not necessary. For
FY2012, NNSA requested $300 million for CMRR but the conference report directed that “no
construction activities are funded for the CMRR-Nuclear Facility during fiscal year 2012.”
NNSA requested no funds for FY2013 or FY2014 for CMRR. According to the FY2013 request
justification,
NNSA has determined, in consultation with the national laboratories, that existing
infrastructure in the nuclear complex has the inherent capacity to provide adequate support
for plutonium chemistry, plutonium physics, and special nuclear materials. NNSA proposes
deferring CMRR Nuclear Facility construction for at least five years. Studies are ongoing to
determine long-term requirements. Instead of the CMRR Nuclear Facility, NNSA will
maximize use of existing facilities and relocate some nuclear materials. Estimated cost
avoidance from FY 2013 to FY 2017 totals approximately $1.8 billion.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended no funds for CMRR-NF for
FY2014. Meanwhile, NNSA continues to explore a strategy for producing pits.
Another project, the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), was intended to replace old facilities at
the Y-12 National Security Complex, some of which dated back to World War II. It would
conduct operations involving enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and naval reactors. It would
also conduct downblending of enriched uranium (i.e., reducing the fraction of fissile uranium-235
and increasing the fraction of non-fissile uranium-238) to make it unusable for weapons in
support of nuclear nonproliferation. The FY2013 appropriation was $312.8 million. For FY2014,
NNSA renamed UPF the Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project and requested $325.8 million
for it. The House Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount, but expressed
concern about “the steep escalation in costs to complete design of the facility.” The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount, while expressing concern about
project management. “Most recently, a space fit issue that required raising the roof of the building
by 13 feet to fit critical equipment resulted in more than $500,000,000 in additional costs.”
Nuclear Programs
This program focuses on processing and managing Special Nuclear Materials (i.e., uranium
highly enriched in isotope 235 and plutonium). Its goals are to supply required quantities of these
materials; recycle, recover, and store these materials; and sustain program skills. It has three
elements: (1) Nuclear Operations Capability, which among other things includes Plutonium Metal
Reprocessing, “a new funding line to receive pits from Pantex and process plutonium to establish
an inventory of purified metal alloy that will support manufacturing 30 pits per year and help
mitigate the risk of the decision to defer the construction” of CMRR-NF; (2) Capabilities Based
Investments, which seek to sustain capabilities supporting weapons activities; and (3)
Construction. The FY2014 request for this new program is $744.5 million.
Congressional Research Service
49

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

The House Appropriations Committee was sharply critical of NNSA’s use of this new budget
category. It would not “consider changing the congressional budget structure … for bureaucratic
reorganizations and not for new funding lines that are poorly justified.” Accordingly, it
“selectively funded the activities requested under Nuclear Programs using the existing budget
structure.” The Senate Appropriations Committee “has renamed the two new accounts that
encompass previous RTBF functions to provide greater clarity: (1) Nuclear Operations and
Capital Construction and (2) Site Operations and Maintenance.” The committee recommended
$688.0 million for Nuclear Operations and Capital Construction, of which $439.0 million is for
major capital construction projects as requested.
Site Stewardship
The FY2013 appropriation for this program was $72.8 million. The FY2014 budget request
would expand this program to $1,706.0 million and restructure its mission. Almost all—$1,660.8
million, or 97.4%—of Site Stewardship would be for Enterprise Infrastructure, the major
elements of which were Site Operations ($1,112.5 million requested), Site Support ($109.6
million requested to fund nuclear safety, R&D and waste management, among other things), and
Sustainment ($433.8 million requested to fund some of NNSA’s direct maintenance activities).
Four other programs in Site Stewardship had requests of less than $18 million.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $154.8 million for Site Stewardship, but
declined to fund certain programs under it. “The reduction below the request is due to continued
funding of infrastructure under Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. The NNSA should not
request funding for site facility operations, maintenance, or recapitalization within Site
Stewardship.” The Senate Appropriations Committee did not provide funds under Site
Stewardship, instead providing most of the requested funds, $1,535.9 million, under Site
Operations and Maintenance.
Other Programs
Weapons Activities includes several smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, Nuclear
Programs, and Site Stewardship. 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. For FY2013, the appropriation was $201.5
million. The FY2014 request is $219.2 million. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees recommended the requested amount.
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 FY2013 appropriation was $232.8 million. For FY2014, NNSA
transferred this program to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation “to align all NNSA funding for
reducing global nuclear dangers in one appropriation,” and the House Appropriations Committee
did not consider funding for it under Weapons Activities. In contrast, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $260.2 million for this program, and did not approve transferring this
account to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Congressional Research Service
50

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

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.” The FY2013 appropriation was $666.5 million. Prior to
FY2014, this program was a component of Safeguards and Security. In the FY2014 request,
NNSA abolished Safeguards and Security and made Defense Nuclear Security a standalone
program. The FY2014 request is $679.0 million, of which $14.0 million is for a security upgrade
at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) in the Nevada National Security Site. NNSA, in its
request, noted that various security enhancements had been taken or were underway in response
to the July 2012 security breach at Y-12. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$665.0 million. It noted that some of the reduction from the FY2013 level was due to removal of
special nuclear material from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and deferred funding for
the DAF upgrade. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount.
NNSA CIO [Chief Information Officer] Activities was a new program for FY2013 that sought
to consolidate cyber security and information technology programs. Elements included cyber
security, enterprise secure computing, and Federal Unclassified Information Technology. The
latter will provide “commodity computing infrastructure” that will support a “shift from a
traditional, costly desktop support model to a cloud-provisioned virtualized desktop-based
solution.” The FY2013 appropriation was $141.6 million. The FY2014 request for NNSA CIO
Activities is $148.4 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $150.0 million
and renamed the budget line Information Technology and Cyber Security “to more clearly
describe the purposes for which the funds may be used.” The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount and also renamed the budget line Information Technology
and Cyber Security.
The National Security Applications program is directed toward “national security science,
technology and engineering.” The FY2013 appropriation was $9.5 million. For FY2014, NNSA
transferred activities funded by National Security Applications from Weapons Activities to
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Legacy Contractor Pensions: For many decades, the University of California (UC) operated Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Since laboratory employees were UC
employees, they could participate in the university’s pension plan. When the two labs were
privatized, the contracts between DOE and the laboratory operators included provisions that in
effect mirrored the pension that lab staff who were UC employees when the labs were privatized
would have received had the labs remained with UC. These pensions were larger than those
provided to employees hired after privatization. To make up the difference, NNSA paid into the
pension plan for the UC employees. For Weapons Activities, the FY2013 appropriation for this
payment was $170.2 million, and the FY2014 request is $279.6 million. (NNSA requested an
additional amount for this purpose under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.) The House
Appropriations Committee recommended the amount requested, but noted its concern “about the
continually escalating costs of contractor pensions and other postretirement benefits and their
impacts on programmatic activities.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
amount requested.
Congressional Research Service
51

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Nonproliferation and National Security Programs84
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 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2013a
FY2014
Program
Approp.
Request House
Senate

Conf.
Nonproliferation and

Verification R&D
$429.5 $388.8 $388.8 $408.8
Domestic Uranium
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Enrichment R&D
Nonproliferation and

International Security
143.1 141.7 128.7 128.0
International Materials
Protection and Control
526.7 369.6 369.6 419.6

(IMPC)
Fissile Materials Disposition
631.6
502.6
502.6
669.2

Global Threat Reduction

Initiative
460.7 424.5 408.3 497.5
Legacy Contractor Pensions
51.4
93.7
93.7
93.7

Nuclear Counterterrorism

Incident Response
0.0 181.3 180.0 0.0
Counterterrorism and

Counterproliferation
0.0 74.7 65.0 0.0
Rescissions and Use of Prior

Year Funds
0.0 -36.7 -36.7 -36.7
Total 2,243.1
2,140.1
2,100.0
2,180.1

Source: FY2014 budget request; H.Rept. 113-135; S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. Source: DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Figures reflect the March 1, 2013,
sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
Funding for these programs in FY2013 was $2,243.1 million after the March 1, 2013, sequester.
The request for FY2014 was $2,140.1 million, but that total includes two programs that the
Administration proposes transferring from the Weapons Activities program: the Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response program and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation

84 This section was prepared by Carl E. Behrens.
Congressional Research Service
52

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

program. Without those two activities, the Nuclear Nonproliferation program request would be
$1,884.2 million.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was funded at $429.6 million for FY2013.
The request for FY2014 was $388.8 million. The Administration proposed renaming the program
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D. The House bill would fund the program at the requested
level. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $408.8 million.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international safeguards, export
controls, and treaties and agreements. The FY2014 request for these programs was $141.7
million, compared with $143.1 million appropriated for FY2013. The House bill would
appropriate $128.7 million; the Senate committee recommended $128.0 million.
International Materials Protection and Control (IMP&C), which is concerned with reducing the
threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, was funded at $526.7
million in FY2013; the FY2014 request was $369.6 million. The decrease, according to DOE’s
budget justification document, reflects a shift “to a sustainability phase with the Russian
Federation” in which “security costs are increasingly transitioned to the Russian side.” It also
includes a reduction in the so-called Second Line of Defense Activities, mostly border and port
detection programs, by $122 million, while the programs were under a strategic review. The
House bill would appropriate the requested amount. The Senate bill would increase the funding to
$419.7 million.
The goal of the Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons
plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power reactors, and a similar program in
Russia. The U.S. side of the program originally included construction of three projects at
Savannah River, SC: a facility to fabricate “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel; a pit disassembly
and conversion facility (PDCF), and a waste solidification facility. However, controversy
developed over whether the pit disassembly project is necessary. The FY2012 request for the
Fissile Materials Disposition program was $892.2 million, including $172 million for the PDCF,
but the final bill appropriated $685.4 million for the program, and included no funding for the
PDCF project, because, the conference report stated, “NNSA has not completed a study of
alternatives or a conceptual design report with a cost and schedule estimate.”
The FY2013 request for FMD programs was $921.3 million. No funding was asked for the
PDCF; NNSA said it would use existing facilities for pit disassembly. The waste solidification
facility was completed and no further funding was requested. The major cause of the increase was
the planned cold start-up of the MOX facility. However, no funding increase for the MOX project
was included in the FY2013 continuing resolution, and the start-up was delayed. The actual
FY2013 MOX appropriation was $401.0 million; the total FMD appropriation was $631.6
million. In the meantime estimated total cost for the facility was increased from $4.8 billion to
$7.7 billion, in part to expand its capability to carry out the functions of the cancelled PDCF
plant.
In its FY2014 budget request, NNSA decided to slow down completion of the MOX plant, and
begin a process of “evaluating alternatives for a new and affordable plutonium disposition
strategy.” It asked for a total of $502.6 million for FMD programs, including $320 million for the
MOX plant. The House bill would appropriate the requested amount, but the House
Appropriations Committee report said no additional funding would be provided to study
alternatives to the MOX plant, since NNSA had not submitted any alternatives that had not been
Congressional Research Service
53

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

“exhaustively studied” or would likely cost less. The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected
the pause in MOX construction, funding the facility at $430.6 million and total FMD programs at
$669.2 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 FY2013 appropriation for this program
was $460.7 million. The FY2014 request was $424.5 million. The House bill would appropriate
$408.3 million. The Senate committee recommended $497.5 million.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Civilian
Nuclear Energy Research Facilities85

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 its responsibilities for the
cleanup of former nuclear weapons production facilities that had been administered under
multiple offices.86 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. The Office of
Environmental Management also is responsible for the cleanup of DOE facilities that were
involved in civilian nuclear energy research, which also generated wastes and contamination.
These research facilities add a non-defense component to the office’s mission, albeit smaller in
terms of the scope of their cleanup and associated funding.87
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 for ongoing cleanup efforts at nuclear weapons production and nuclear
energy research facilities has generated continuing 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 states that historically were involved in
the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research for civilian purposes.88 The
geographic scope of these facilities is substantial, collectively encompassing a land area of
approximately 2 million acres. Cleanup remedies are in place and operational at the majority of

85 This section was prepared by David Bearden.
86 In 1989, DOE created the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, which later was renamed the
Office of Environmental Management.
87 For additional information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Environmental Management, see
DOE’s website: http://energy.gov/em/office-environmental-management.
88 For an interactive map and listing of each facility, see DOE’s Office of Environmental Management website:
http://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites.
Congressional Research Service
54

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

these facilities. The responsibility for their long-term stewardship has been transferred to the
Office of Legacy Management and other offices within DOE for the operation and maintenance
of cleanup remedies and monitoring.89 See the “Office of Legacy Management” section of this
report. Some of the smaller sites for which DOE initially was responsible were transferred to the
Army Corps of Engineers in 1997 under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP). The cleanup of these sites is funded within the civil works budget of the Corps.90
(See Table 4.) Once the Corps completes the cleanup of a FUSRAP site, it is transferred back to
DOE for long-term stewardship under the Office of Legacy Management.
Much work remains to be done at the 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 to fulfill the cleanup liability of the
United States. As of the beginning of FY2013, the Office of Environmental Management had
completed cleanup activities at 90 facilities in 30 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and remains responsible for the cleanup of 17 facilities in 11 states at which cleanup was not yet
complete.91 Although cleanup is scheduled to be complete at some of these facilities over the next
several years, cleanup is expected to continue at some of the larger and more complex facilities
for decades. The Hanford facility in the state of Washington has the lengthiest estimated time
frame, with cleanup scheduled to continue possibly as late as 2066 based on more conservative
assumptions.92 DOE estimates that the costs to complete the cleanup of these 17 facilities could
range between $187.0 billion and $223.4 billion from FY2013 into the future, exceeding the past
costs already incurred across the entire inventory of facilities.93 A substantial proportion of these
funding needs and lengthy time frames is due to challenges in managing, treating, and disposing
of millions of gallons of high-level radioactive wastes stored in hundreds of tanks at Hanford, the
Savannah River facility in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
Over time, DOE periodically has revised its estimates as project baselines and assumptions
change. These estimates have varied widely over the years by many billions of dollars. For
example, the above estimates of future costs are several billion dollars higher than DOE presented

89 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.
90 Enacted October 13, 1997, 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.
91 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, April 2013,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. EM-5 and EM-47. See page EM-47 for a list of the 17 facilities that still are
administered by the Office of Environmental Management. One of these 17 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. The administration of the Hanford facility in the state of Washington is broken
out into two DOE offices, the Office of River Protection and Richland Operations Office.
92 Ibid. The projected completion dates for activities at the Hanford facility administered by the Richland Operations
Office range from 2060 to 2066.
93 Ibid., p. EM-23 and p. EM-46. DOE reports that the Office of Environmental Management has incurred $107.6
billion in past costs from FY1997 through FY2012. Including these past costs, the estimated total “life-cycle” costs of
cleanup range from $294.6 billion to $330.9 billion. DOE has used FY1997 as the baseline, or starting point, for the
time frame of these life-cycle estimates. Historically, DOE also has reported $35 billion in past costs incurred since the
establishment of the Office of Environmental Management in 1989 through FY1996, yielding a total of $142.6 billion
in past costs incurred from 1989 to FY2012. Comprehensive information on past costs incurred prior to the
establishment of the Office of Environmental Management in 1989 is not readily available.
Congressional Research Service
55

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

just the previous fiscal year.94 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 excluded from the above cost estimates. Long-term stewardship entails an even greater degree
of uncertainty considering the lengthy time frames of maintenance and monitoring once cleanup
remedies are in place and operational, especially at sites where the cleanup method may entail the
permanent containment of radioactive wastes in perpetuity.
FY2014 appropriations proposed for the Office of Environmental Management and Office of
Legacy Management are discussed separately below.
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 account funds the cleanup of wastes and contamination resulting from
civilian nuclear energy research. 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 three federal facilities
that were used to enrich uranium for national defense and civilian purposes and to reimburse
uranium and thorium licensees for their costs of cleaning up sites that supported these facilities.95
These three federal uranium enrichment facilities are located in Paducah, Kentucky; Piketon,
Ohio (Portsmouth plant); and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
As passed by the House, H.R. 2609 would provide a total of $5.53 billion for these three accounts
combined to fund the Office of Environmental Management in FY2014, $403.7 million less than
the total of $5.93 billion included in S. 1245 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The President had requested $5.62 billion for the Office of Environmental Management in
FY2014, $91.1 million more than the House proposed and $312.6 million less than the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended. In comparison to the prior fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $5.29 billion for the Office of Environmental Management in FY2013 (post-
sequestration and post-rescission).
The House floor debate over FY2014 appropriations for the Office of Environmental
Management focused on the prioritization of funding for the cleanup of nuclear weapons
production and nuclear energy research facilities among other competing priorities within DOE’s
mission, including research, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and administration of DOE
programs and activities. The House-passed funding level of $5.53 billion for the Office of
Environmental Management includes $41.5 million more than the House Appropriations
Committee had recommended in its report on H.R. 2609. This funding was added through two

94 Using FY2012 as a baseline or starting point, DOE had estimated remaining cleanup costs ranging from $174 billion
to $209 billion in its FY2013 budget justification. See Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer,
FY2013 Congressional Budget Request, February 2012, Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. 9.
95 42 U.S.C. §2297g.
Congressional Research Service
56

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

amendments approved in floor debate, accompanied by offsets to other DOE accounts to remain
within the budget allocation for the bill.
H.Amdt. 249 increased the Defense Environmental Cleanup account by $22.6 million with
offsetting reductions in the Departmental Administration account and the Renewable Energy,
Energy Reliability and Efficiency account. Floor statements indicated that the $22.6 million
increase was intended to restore a portion of the reduction for the Richland Operations Office at
the Hanford facility.96 H.Amdt. 268 increased the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account
by $19.0 million with offsetting reductions in the Departmental Administration account and the
Office of the Administrator account for the National Nuclear Security Administration within
DOE. Floor statements indicated that the $19.0 million increase for the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup account was intended to restore a portion of the reduction that the House
Appropriations Committee had recommended.97 The $19.0 million added by the amendment
would increase the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account to the full level that the
President had requested, of which $17.0 million would be devoted to the West Valley
Demonstration Project site in the state of New York.98
Although there are varied issues among individual DOE facilities, the overall adequacy of
funding for the Office of Environmental Management to attain cleanup milestones across the
facility inventory has been an overarching issue. Cleanup milestones are enforceable measures
incorporated into compliance agreements negotiated among DOE, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the states. These milestones establish time frames for the completion of
specific actions to satisfy applicable requirements at individual facilities.99 According to DOE, the
President’s request for the Office of Environmental Management would be sufficient to attain all
cleanup milestones due in FY2014.100 In its report on H.R. 2609, the House Appropriations
Committee noted the “need to ensure progress toward cleanup milestones” and stated that the bill
would “sustain the pace of cleanup across the sites.”101 The Senate Appropriations Committee
asserted that the House markup “would cause major cleanup milestones to be missed in
Washington, New Mexico, South Carolina, Idaho, and Tennessee.”102 As noted above, two floor
amendments to H.R. 2609 subsequently provided an additional $41.5 million to make up some of
the proposed reductions below the President’s request.
Neither H.R. 2609 as passed by the House, nor S. 1245 as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, includes the $463 million that the President requested within the Defense
Environmental Cleanup account to resume the federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund. Congress ceased the federal payment in FY2012. This payment historically has been
treated as an offset to the funding for the Office of Environmental Management because the
payment does not become available to DOE until Congress subsequently appropriates it out of the

96 See Congressional Record, House, July 9, 2013, p. H4256.
97 See Congressional Record, House, July 9, 2013, p. H4279.
98 See H.Rept. 113-135, p. 155.
99 Compliance agreements for individual facilities are available on DOE’s Office of Environmental Management
website: http://energy.gov/em/compliance-agreements.
100 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, April 2013,
Volume 5, Environmental Management, p. EM-6.
101 See H.Rept. 113-135, p. 138.
102 See the Senate Appropriations Committee June 27, 2013, press release on the full committee markup of S. 1245,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=ba47a4ea-f6df-4341-9716-89343ce3e8c6.
Congressional Research Service
57

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. The President also proposed to resume assessments on nuclear
utilities in FY2014 to generate additional revenues.103 The authority to collect these assessments
expired in October 2007. As authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, both federal payments
and nuclear utility assessments originally financed the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund based on
the premise that the federal government and the nuclear utilities benefited from services provided
by federal uranium enrichment facilities and that both therefore should share the costs of the
cleanup of these facilities.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated an existing balance of $3.5 billion in
the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund accrued from past nuclear utility assessments and federal
payments that would be available for appropriation in FY2014.104 Appropriations proposed in
H.R. 2609 and S. 1245 still would leave roughly $3.0 billion for appropriation in future fiscal
years (plus accrued interest on the balance). DOE last estimated in 2010 that the balance of the
fund would be exhausted by FY2020 without additional revenues, leaving a shortfall of $11.8
billion to complete the cleanup of federal uranium enrichment facilities over the long term.105 If
the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund were fully expended, existing law requires DOE still to pay
the costs of cleanup, subject to annual appropriations.106
Among the individual DOE facilities and supporting program activities, appropriations proposals
for the Office of Environmental Management in FY2014 reflect differing priorities. Table 15
presents the three appropriations accounts that fund the Office of Environmental Management
with a breakout by facility and program activity. The table presents the amounts proposed for
FY2014 in H.R. 2609 as passed by the House, S. 1245 as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and the President’s budget request, compared to appropriations enacted for FY2012
and FY2013 (post-sequestration and post-rescission). The table also presents the net total
program funding level for the Office of Environmental Management for the three accounts
combined, accounting for offsets including the federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund that the President proposed to resume in FY2014.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Environmental Management
($ millions)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Account/Site or Program Activity
Approp.
Approp. Request House Senate Conf.
Defense Environmental Cleanup


Closure Sites
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
Hanford 2,132.0
1,966.3
2,132.0
2,071.8
2,172.0
- Richland Operations
950.0
876.6
921.8
876.6
961.8
- Office of River Protection
1,182.0
1,089.7
1,210.2
1,195.2
1,210.2
Idaho National Laboratory
384.7
355.8
365.0
368.0
380.0

103 Office of Management and Budget, FY2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, Analytical Perspectives, p. 209.
104 Office of Management and Budget, FY2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, p. 397.
105 Department of Energy, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Report for Congress,
December 2010, p. 42. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires DOE to report to Congress on the financial status of the
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund every three years.
106 42 U.S.C. §2297g-2(c).
Congressional Research Service
58

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Account/Site or Program Activity
Approp.
Approp. Request House Senate Conf.
NNSA facilities and Nevada off-sites
282.0
259.7
309.7 284.9 344.7
Oak Ridge Reservation
198.4
183.5
193.9a
204.0
214.9
Savannah River Site
1,187.8
1,094.7
1,088.3
1,069.2
1,194.3
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
213.3
197.8
203.4
204.5
222.4
Program Direction
321.6
295.8
280.8
280.8
320.8
Program Support
20.4
18.7
18.0
18.0
18.0
Safeguards and Security
251.0
231.8
234.1
234.1
250.7
Technology Development and Deployment
10.3
10.1
24.0b 10.0 24.0
Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
0.0
0.0
463.0
0.0
0.0
H.Amdt. 249 to H.R. 2609



22.6

Defense Environmental Cleanup Subtotal
5,006.2
4,619.2
5,316.9
4,772.6c 5,146.5
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup


Fast Flux Test Reactor
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
Gaseous Diffusion Plants
100.4
95.3
96.2
96.2
96.2
Smal Sites
67.5
63.9
50.2
48.2
70.2
West Val ey Demonstration Project
64.7
61.6
64.0
47.0
64.0
H.Amdt. 268 to H.R. 2609



19.0

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Subtotal
235.4
223.4
213.0 213.0d 233.0
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund


Gaseous Diffusion Plants
472.2
448.2
530.9
545.0
530.9
- Oak Ridge
200.9
190.4
177.1
186.2
177.1
- Paducah
81.4
77.5
262.1
265.2
262.1
- Portsmouth
190.0
180.3
91.8
93.6
91.8
Pension, Community, and Regulatory Supporte —

23.9

23.9
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Subtotal
472.2
448.2
554.8
545.0
554.8
Use of Prior Year Defense Environmental Cleanup Funds
-3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Offset for Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
0.0
0.0
-463.0
0.0
0.0
Office of Environmental Management Total
5,710.4
5,290.8
5,621.7
5,530.6 5,934.3
Source: FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47. FY2013 enacted amounts are as provided to
CRS by the DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. These amounts reflect required
reductions resulting from the application of the President’s March 1, 2013, sequestration order under P.L. 112-
25, as amended, and an across-the-board rescission required under P.L. 113-6.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. H.Rept. 113-135 presented a different accounting of the President’s FY2014 request for the Oak Ridge
Reservation, citing $198.0 million. S.Rept. 113-47 cited $193.9 million as in DOE’s budget justification.
b. H.Rept. 113-135 presented a different accounting of the President’s FY2014 request for Technology
Development, citing $20.0 million. S.Rept. 113-47 cited $24.1 million as in DOE’s budget justification.
c. As passed by the House, H.Amdt. 249 to H.R. 2609 increased the total amount for the Defense
Environmental Cleanup account by an additional $22,586,500.
Congressional Research Service
59

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

d. As passed by the House, H.Amdt. 268 to H.R. 2609 increased the total amount for the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup account by an additional $18,956,000.
e. Pension, Community, and Regulatory Support is broken out in the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund in
DOE’s budget justification and in S.Rept. 113-47. This activity received funding within the account total in
FY2012 and FY2013, and for FY2014 in H.Rept. 113-135, but was not broken out in those instances.
Office of Legacy Management
Once cleanup remedies are in place under the Office of Environmental Management, DOE’s
Office of Legacy Management administers the long-term stewardship of the facilities that do not
have a continuing mission. The Office of Legacy Management also is responsible for the long-
term stewardship of sites that had been transferred from DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers
under the FUSRAP program in 1997. Once the Corps completes the cleanup of a site under this
program, it is responsible for the initial two years of operation and maintenance, after which time
the site is transferred back to DOE’s Office of Legacy Management for long-term stewardship.107
The Office of Legacy Management also manages the payment of pensions and retirement benefits
of former contractor personnel who worked at DOE facilities that do not have a continuing
mission,108 among other supporting activities.109 The federal role in the management of these
former contractor pensions and benefits stems from the long-term nature of the projects and the
associated length of employment for the personnel who performed the work for DOE. These
pensions and benefits are earned and accrued by contractor employees while in active
employment at DOE facilities and are payable after their employment ends.110
The Office of Legacy Management has been funded entirely within DOE’s Other Defense
Activities account since FY2009.111 As passed by the House, H.R. 2609 would provide $173.0
million within this account for the Office of Legacy Management in FY2014. As reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1245 would provide $177.0 million, the same amount as the
President requested. These proposed amounts would be an increase above the enacted
appropriations of $155.7 million in FY2013 (post-sequestration and post-rescission).
During FY2014, the Office of Legacy Management plans to continue its management of three
major closure sites and almost 90 other small sites, and to add six new sites to its inventory for
long-term stewardship responsibility by the end of that fiscal year.112 DOE reports that funding

107 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department Of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Regarding Program Administration and Execution of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP), March 1999.
108 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.
109 For more information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Legacy Management, see DOE’s website:
http://energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management.
110 For more information on DOE’s management of former contractor pensions and benefits, see the Office of Legacy
Management Post-Closure Benefits Program website: http://www.lm.doe.gov/default.aspx?id=172.
111 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. 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.
112 Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, April 2013,
Volume 2, Other Defense Activities, p. ODA-39.
Congressional Research Service
60

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

needs for new sites, other new actions, and inflationary increases for various program elements
have been partially offset in the near term through improvements in program and administrative
efficiencies and a decrease in the need to contribute to former contractor workers’ pension
funds.113 However, funding needs for the Office of Legacy Management are likely to increase
more significantly over the next decade, as additional facilities are cleaned up and transferred
from the Office of Environmental Management and the FUSRAP program for long-term
stewardship. DOE projects that the total number of facilities administered by the Office of
Legacy Management will increase to 129 facilities by FY2020.114
Estimating the long-term funding needs for the Office of Legacy Management is inherently
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 needed for radioactivity to decay to acceptable levels. Enforcement of land
use restrictions or other institutional controls also may be necessary in perpetuity at facilities that
are not cleaned up for unrestricted use, in order to prevent potentially harmful exposures. These
and other factors make it difficult to reliably estimate the financial liability of the United States
for long-term stewardship of sites contaminated from the historic production of nuclear weapons
and civilian nuclear energy research in the 20th century.115
Power Marketing Administrations116
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.117 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.

113 Ibid., p. ODA-40.
114 Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 2011-2020 Strategic Plan, DOE/LM-0512, January 2011, p.
5, available on DOE’s website: http://energy.gov/lm/downloads/2011-2020-strategic-plan.
115 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 2012 Agency Financial
Report
, November 2012, “Environmental Cleanup and Disposal Liabilities,” p. 62-64, available on DOE’s website:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2012parafr_0.pdf.
116 This section was prepared by Charles V. Stern.
117 Net funding for the Western Area Power Administration includes the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing
Fund.
Congressional Research Service
61

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

The Obama Administration’s FY2014 request for the PMAs was $85 million. This is the same
level as the FY2012 appropriation, and slightly more than the FY2013 total of $79 million (post
sequestration, post rescission).118 The FY2014 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 $11.9 million and WAPA requests $95.9 million.
Receipts for SEPA are expected to offset all operating costs in FY2011. In addition, $400,000 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 for WAPA. Both the House and the Senate bills would appropriate the requested
amount for PMAs.
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 with the Treasury, 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.
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.
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.

118 This total includes an offset to WAPA of -$23 million from the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing Fund.
Congressional Research Service
62

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

Table 16. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
FY2013a
FY2014
Program
Approp.
Request House
Senate
Conf.
Appalachian Regional Commission
$68.1
$64.6
70.3
68.2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1,036.0 1,055.0 1,055.0 1,055.0

(Revenues)
-909.5 -930.7 -930.7 -930.7

Net NRC (including Inspector General)
126.5
124.3
124.3
124.3

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
29.1
29.9
29.9
29.9

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.0

Denali Commission
10.7
7.0
7.0
10.0

Delta Regional Authority
11.7
11.0
11.0
12.0

Northern Border Regional Commission
1.5
1.0
1.0
5.0

Southern Crescent Regional Commission
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0

Fed. Coord. Alaska Gas Projects
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0

Total
252.2 243.8 249.3 253.8

Source: FY2014 budget request, H.Rept. 113-135, S.Rept. 113-47.
Notes: Figures may not add due to rounding.
a. Source: H.Rept. 113-135. Figures do not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under P.L. 112-25.
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission119
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested $1.055 billion for FY2014 (including
$11.1 million for the inspector general’s office), $16.9 million above the FY2012 funding level.
Major activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation and licensing of commercial nuclear
reactors and oversight of nuclear materials users.120 The House bill included the same amount, as
did the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation.
The NRC budget request includes $240.5 million for new reactor activities, $24.9 million below
the FY2012 level. 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. Several of those
applications were subsequently withdrawn or suspended, though, as falling natural gas prices
reduced the competitiveness of nuclear power. NRC issued combined construction and operating
licenses for four new reactors at two sites in Georgia and South Carolina in early 2012.

119 This section was prepared by Mark Holt.
120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, NUREG-1100, Vol. 28,
February 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/v28/fy2013-cbj.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
63

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

NRC’s proposed FY2014 budget includes 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 was used to close out its licensing activities. As discussed in the
Nuclear Waste section of this report, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ordered NRC on August 13, 2013, to continue reviewing the Yucca Mountain license
application, using $11.1 million in leftover funding. Similarly, the House Appropriations
Committee directed NRC to use prior-year funds to complete the Yucca Mountain license
application, and contended that NRC was required by law to find additional resources as needed.
For regulation of operating reactors, NRC’s FY2014 budget request includes $571.9 million,
$37.2 million above the FY2012 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 nuclear disaster in Japan 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 review NRC’s regulatory system. NRC issued the first regulatory orders resulting
from that review on March 12, 2012, and is currently working on additional regulations.121
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 FY2014 request would result in a net appropriation of
$124.3 million, $4.3 million below the FY2012 enacted level.


121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident,” http://www.nrc.gov/
japan/japan-info.html. For a timeline of NRC actions, see http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan/
japan-timeline.html.
Congressional Research Service
64

Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations

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 E. Medalia
Specialist in Energy Policy
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
aandrews@crs.loc.gov, 7-6843
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov, 7-7632
David M. Bearden
Fred Sissine
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Energy Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
fsissine@crs.loc.gov, 7-7039
Carol Glover
Charles V. Stern
Information Research Specialist
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
cglover@crs.loc.gov, 7-7353
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Heather B. Gonzalez

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895

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
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Nicole Carter
7-0854
ncarter@crs.loc.gov
Bureau of Reclamation
Charles V. Stern
7-7786
cstern@crs.loc.gov
Betsy 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
Heather B. Gonzalez
7-1895
hgonzalez@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
65