Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

June 3, 2020 – March 25, 2021 R46384

Energy and Water Development:
March 25, 2021
FY2021 Appropriations
Mark Holt
The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding
Specialist in Energy Policy
for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the Department of the

Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Central Utah Project (CUP); the Department
Corrie E. Clark
of Energy (DOE); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the Appalachian Regional
Analyst in Energy Policy
Commission (ARC); and several other independent agencies. DOE typically accounts for about

80% of the bill’s funding.

Overall Funding Totals
President Trump submitted his FY2021 budget proposal to Congress on February 10, 2020. The budget requests for agencies
included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill totaled $42.559 billion, including budget offsets. This was
$5.764 billion (12%) below the FY2020 enacted Energy and Water Development total of $48.324 billion, not including
supplemental appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2021 Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill July 13, 2020 (H.R. 7613, H.Rept. 116-449). The Energy and Water bill was included as Division C in the
second FY2021 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 7617), passed by the House July 31, 2020. The House-passed bill
would have provided total non-emergency energy and water development funding of $49.601 billion, including offsets. This
was $1.278 billion (3%) above the FY2020 enacted level and $7.042 billion (17%) above the request. The Chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee released a draft FY2021 Energy and Water bill and explanatory statement on November
10, 2020 (https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results), which included $51.864 billion for Energy and Water Development programs—$9.305 billion above the
budget request and $3.540 billion above the FY2020 enacted appropriation, excluding emergency appropriations. FY2021
Energy and Water Development funding was enacted by Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260), signed by the President on December 27, 2020. The enacted Energy and Water appropriations totaled $49.525 billion,
$1.201 billion (2%) above the FY2020 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations and scorekeeping adjustments.
Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2020 Enacted Through FY2021 Enacted
Dol ars in mil ions (and % change from 2020 enacted)
FY2021
Senate
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Majority
FY2021
Agency
Enacted
Request
House
Draft
Enacted
Corps of Engineers
7,650
5,966 (-22%)
7,629 (0%)
7,722 (+1%)
7,796 (+2%)
Bureau of Reclamation/CUP
1,680
1,138 (-32%)
1,655 (-1%)
1,690 (+1%)
1,691 (+1%)
Department of Energy
38,657
35,732 (-8%)
40,864 (+6%)
42,041 (+9%)
39,627 (+3%)
Independent Agencies
407
333 (-18%)
389 (-5%)
413 (+1%)
414 (+2%)
Rescissions
-71
-610
-935
-2
-3
Total
48,324
42,559 (-12%)
49,601 (+3%)
51,864 (+7%)
49,525 (+2%)
Source: P.L. 116-260 and Explanatory Statement on H.R. 133, H.Rept. 116-449, Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft
explanatory statement on FY2021 Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
Notes: CUP=Central Utah Project Completion Account. Enacted amounts do not include subsequent emergency supplemental
appropriations. FY2021 House levels exclude emergency appropriations and certain offsets.
Emergency Funding
Title VI of the House-passed bill included $44.05 billion in emergency FY2021 funding—nearly doubling the bill’s total
appropriations to $93.651 billion. These “additional infrastructure investments” were intended “to support the economic
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic,” according to the House Appropriations Committee report. USACE was to receive
$17.0 billion, Reclamation $3.0 billion, and DOE $24.050 billion. Neither the draft Senate bill nor the enacted measure
included additional emergency appropriations for Energy and Water Development programs as passed by the House.
Congressional Research Service

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Major Issues
Major Energy and Water Development provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, included the establishment
of a national uranium reserve (at half the requested amount), funding for renewable energy grid integration and storage,
funding for artificial intelligence and quantum information science initiatives, a nearly 25% increase in nuclear weapons
activities, and the first funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Trump Administration proposals to limit
funding for water projects, reduce energy R&D funding, eliminate weatherization grants for low-income households, and end
DOE loan and loan guarantee programs were not adopted.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Introduction and Overview
The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bil includes funding
for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in Title I; the Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Central Utah Project (CUP), in Title
II; the Department of Energy (DOE), in Title III; and a number of independent agencies,
including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC), in Title IV. Figure 1 compares the major components of the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bil from FY2020 through FY2021.
Figure 1. Funding for Major Components of Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, FY2020 through FY2021
(excluding emergency supplementals)

Sources: H.R. 133 Explanatory Statement; Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft Explanatory
Statement for Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bil , 2021; H.R. 7617;
H.Rept. 116-449; Explanatory Statement for Division C of H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; S. 2470;
H.R. 2740; FY2021 Budget Appendix; and agency budget justifications. Includes some adjustments; see tables 4-7
for details.
Notes: FY2021 DOE request total does not include asset sales and certain other offsets. Enacted amounts do
not include subsequent emergency supplemental appropriations. CUP = Central Utah Project Completion
Account. FY2021 House levels exclude emergency appropriations and certain offsets.
President Trump submitted his FY2021 budget request to Congress on February 10, 2020. The
budget requests for agencies included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bil
totaled $42.559 bil ion, including budget offsets. This was $5.764 bil ion (12%) below the
FY2020 enacted Energy and Water Development total of $48.324 bil ion, not including
supplemental appropriations.1 The House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2021

1 Most figures for the FY2020 enacted appropriations and FY2021 Administration Request are
taken from the House Appropriations Committee report on the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bil , 2021 (H.Rept. 116-449), July 15, 2020, the Senate
Appropriations Committee majority draft FY2021 explanatory statement,
Congressional Research Service

1

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Energy and Water Development appropriations bil July 13, 2020 (H.R. 7613, H.Rept. 116-449).
The Energy and Water bil was included as Division C in the second FY2021 consolidated
appropriations bil (H.R. 7617), passed by the House on July 31, 2020. The House-passed bil
would have provided total non-emergency energy and water development funding of $49.601
bil ion, including offsets. This is $1.278 bil ion (3%) above the FY2020 enacted level and $7.042
bil ion (17%) above the request. In addition, the House bil included $44.050 bil ion in
emergency FY2021 energy and water appropriations (described below), for a total of $93.651
bil ion.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby released draft bil s and explanatory
statements for al 12 regular FY2021 appropriations bil s on November 10, 2020, but no
subcommittee or committee markups were held. The release of the draft bil s was intended to
further negotiations on annual appropriations between the House and the Senate.2 (Hereinafter,
the draft of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bil and explanatory statement are
referred to as “the Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil ” and “Senate
Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement.”) The committee majority’s
draft bil and explanatory statement for Energy and Water Development appropriations would
have provided a total of $51.864 bil ion, including offsets, according to the comparative statement
of new budget authority that is in the explanatory statement. This is $3.540 bil ion (7%) above the
FY2020 enacted level, $9.305 bil ion (22%) above the request, and $2.262 bil ion (5%) above the
House-passed level, excluding emergency supplemental appropriations.
FY2021 Energy and Water Development funding was enacted by Division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), signed by the President on December 27, 2020. The
enacted Energy and Water appropriations totaled $49.525 bil ion—$1.201 bil ion (2%) above the
FY2020 enacted level, $6.966 bil ion (16%) above the Administration request, $77 mil ion (0%)
below the House-passed level, and $2.339 bil ion (5%) below the Senate majority draft, excluding
emergency appropriations and scorekeeping adjustments. (Detailed energy and water
development appropriations tables for the enacted measure can be found in the Explanatory
Statement, at https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/12/21/CREC-2020-12-21.pdf-bk4.)
Administration Request
DOE would have received $35.732 bil ion under the Administration’s FY2021 budget request
(excluding offsets)—a decrease of $2.925 bil ion (8%) from the FY2020 enacted level. The
FY2021 request for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) was $720 mil ion, which
is $2.070 bil ion (74%) below the FY2020 enacted level. This included elimination of grants for
home weatherization assistance and state energy programs. Nuclear Energy Research and

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EWRept.pdf, and the Explanatory
Statement for H.R. 133, https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/12/21/CREC-2020-12-21.pdf-
bk4. House-passed figures are taken from H.R. 7617 and the committee report. Figures for some
subaccounts not shown in the House Appropriations Committee report are taken from the DOE
FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, February 2020, https://www.energy.gov/cfo/
downloads/fy-2021-budget-justification.
2 Senate Appropriations Committee, “ Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produce Bipartisan
Results,” November 10, 2020, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-
advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results. See also the statement from Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair
Patrick Leahy, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/minority/senate-approps-vice-chair-leahy-statement-on-
the-release-of-the-fy-2021-senate-appropriations-bills-.

Congressional Research Service

2

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Development (R&D) would have dropped from $1.493 bil ion in FY2020 to $1.180 bil ion in
FY2021 (21%), and Fossil Energy R&D would have been reduced from $750 mil ion to $731
mil ion (3%). DOE’s Office of Science, which funds a wide range of research, would have
received $5.838 bil ion, down $1.162 bil ion (17%) from the FY2020 enacted level. Funding for
the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E), which received $425 mil ion in
FY2020, would have been eliminated and $311 mil ion in prior-year funding rescinded.
Environmental Management (waste management and cleanup) was to decline from $7.455 bil ion
in FY2020 to $6.066 bil ion in FY2021 (down $1.390 bil ion, or 19%).
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the DOE agency responsible for defense-
related nuclear activities, was to be increased from $16.705 bil ion in FY2020 to $19.771 bil ion
in FY2021 (up $3.066 bil ion, or 18%) by the Administration request. Also proposed for increases
were DOE’s Office of Electricity (up $5 mil ion, or 3%) and the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy
Security, and Emergency Response (up $29 mil ion, or 18%).
The two major water agencies in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bil would
have seen funding reductions under the FY2021 budget request. USACE would have declined
from $7.650 bil ion in FY2020 to $5.966 bil ion in FY2021 (down $1.684 bil ion, or 22%).
Reclamation (separately from CUP) would have been reduced from $1.660 bil ion in FY2020 to
$1.128 bil ion in FY2021 (down $532 mil ion, or 32%).
Among the independent agencies funded by the bil , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
was to receive an increase in total appropriations from $856 mil ion in FY2020 to $863 mil ion in
FY2021 (up $8 mil ion, or 1%). NRC’s budget is mostly offset by nuclear industry fees, which
may vary from year to year; the agency’s net appropriation was proposed to decline from $128
mil ion in FY2020 to $123 mil ion in FY2021 (down $5 mil ion, or 4%). Funding for the
Appalachian Regional Commission would have decreased from $175 mil ion in FY2020 to $165
mil ion in FY2021 (down $10 mil ion, or 6%). Deeper percentage reductions in appropriations
were proposed for smal er regional authorities in the bil : Denali Commission (-51%), Delta
Regional Authority (-92%), Northern Border Regional Commission (-97%), and Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission (-100%).
House-Passed Bill
The House-passed bil would have largely reversed the funding reductions proposed by the
Administration and reduced the Administration’s proposed increases for DOE defense programs.
DOE appropriations in the House bil totaled $40.864 bil ion (excluding emergency funding), up
$2.207 bil ion (6%) from FY2020. From the enacted FY2020 levels, funding for EERE would
have increased by $60 mil ion (2%), Science would have risen $55 mil ion (1%), ARPA-E would
have increased by $10 mil ion (2%), and loan programs were to continue unchanged. Nuclear
Energy R&D would have been reduced by $58 mil ion (4%), less than the $313 mil ion reduction
sought by the Administration. The bil would have reduced Fossil R&D by $4 mil ion less than
the reduction proposed by the Administration. The House bil would have reduced the
Administration’s proposed $3.066 bil ion (18%) increase for NNSA to $1.333 bil ion (8%).
The Administration’s proposed FY2021 funding reductions for water development agencies
would have been largely reversed under the House-passed bil : regular (non-emergency)
appropriations would have decreased by $30 mil ion (2%) for Reclamation and by $21 mil ion (a
fraction of a percent) for USACE from their FY2020 enacted levels. For independent agencies
funded by the bil , the House bil would have reversed the proposed reductions, mostly cal ing for
level funding or slight increases. The primary exception was the Delta Regional Authority, which
would have been reduced by $15 mil ion (50%) from its FY2020 funding level (compared with
Congressional Research Service

3

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

the 92% reduction sought by the Administration). The House bil also included first-time funding
of $250,000 for the Southwest Border Regional Commission.
Senate Committee Majority Draft
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil and explanatory statement would have
provided $42.041 bil ion for DOE, $6.309 bil ion (18%) above the request and $1.178 bil ion
(3%) above the House-passed level, excluding emergency supplementals. Compared with the
House-passed levels, total funding for DOE energy programs would have been $206 mil ion (1%)
higher under the Senate draft, and defense programs would have been $968 mil ion (4%) higher.
For the water agencies, the Senate committee majority draft would have provided $7.722 bil ion
for USACE, $1.756 (29%) above the request and $93 mil ion (1%) above the House-passed level,
excluding emergency supplemental appropriations. Reclamation would have received $1.670
bil ion, $542 mil ion (48%) above the request and $40 mil ion (2%) above the House-passed
level. Independent agencies would have received $413 mil ion, $80 mil ion (24%) above the
request and $24 mil ion (6%) above the total approved by the House. The Senate draft did not
include startup funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission.
Emergency Funding
In addition to the regular appropriations described above, Title VI of the House-passed bil
included $44.050 bil ion in emergency FY2021 funding—nearly doubling the bil ’s total
appropriations. These “additional infrastructure investments” were intended “to support the
economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic,” according to the House Appropriations
Committee report. USACE would have received $17.0 bil ion, Reclamation would have received
$3.0 bil ion, and DOE would have received $24.050 bil ion. The emergency spending in Title VI
was outside the annual budget caps described below. No such additional emergency spending for
energy and water development programs was included in the Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft bil or in the enacted FY2021 energy and water development funding in P.L. 116-
240.3
The largest amounts of the DOE emergency funding would have gone to EERE ($8.330 bil ion),
of which $3.250 bil ion was for weatherization (energy efficiency) improvements to low-income
housing, $2.250 bil ion was for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, and $1.025
bil ion was for electric vehicle infrastructure. Science would have received $6.250 bil ion in
emergency appropriations for upgrades to scientific research facilities. Other DOE programs that
were to receive the largest amount of emergency funding included Defense Environmental
Cleanup ($2.685 bil ion), Electricity, for grid modernization ($3.350 bil ion), Nuclear Energy
($1.250 bil ion), and Fossil Energy ($1.250 bil ion).
USACE’s emergency appropriations included $10.0 bil ion for construction and $5.0 bil ion for
operation and maintenance. Limitations on USACE construction projects in various existing
statutes would have been waived. Emergency funding for Reclamation included $300 mil ion for
WaterSMART grants for water efficiency and infrastructure improvements, $605 mil ion for
Indian Water Rights Settlements, and at least $700 mil ion for various efforts in California
associated with the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act, the Central Val ey Project Improvement
Act, and the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement.

3 Senate Appropriations Committee majority explanatory statement, p. 1, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/EWRept.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

The House bil specified that funds “designated in this Act by the Congress as being for an
emergency requirement” would have become available only if the President “subsequently so
designates al such amounts and transmits such designations to the Congress” (Section 4).
Enacted Measure
Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) provided $39.627 bil ion
for DOE, which is $970 mil ion (3%) above the FY2020 enacted level, $3.895 bil ion (11%)
above the Administration request, $1.237 bil ion (3%) below the House level, and $2.414 bil ion
(6%) below the Senate majority draft level. DOE energy programs received $12.445 bil ion for
FY2021, $2.189 bil ion (15%) below the FY2020 enacted level, with the reduction resulting
almost entirely from rescissions of unused loan and loan guarantee funding. NNSA received
$19.732 bil ion for FY2021, $3.028 billion (18%) above the FY2020 enacted level.
USACE received $7.796 bil ion for FY2021, $146 mil ion (2%) above the FY2020 amount. The
Bureau of Reclamation received $1.670 bil ion, $10 mil ion (1%) more than in FY2020.
Independent agencies were appropriated a net total of $414 mil ion for FY2021, an increase of $7
mil ion (2%) from FY2020. Initial funding of $250,000 was provided for the Southwest Border
Regional Commission. In contrast to the House-passed bil , no additional emergency
appropriations for energy and water development programs were included in the enacted FY2021
funding measure.
Earlier-Year Funding
FY2020 funding was enacted in the FY2020 Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act on December 19, 2019, as Division C of the Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2020, which was signed by the President on December 20, 2019 (P.L. 116-
94). The enacted measure provided $48.324 bil ion for Energy and Water programs (including
rescissions), $3.663 bil ion (8%) above the FY2019 funding level (excluding emergency
supplemental appropriations) and $10.368 bil ion (27%) above the Administration request.
Funding tables and other details are provided in the explanatory statement submitted with the
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020.4
Figures for FY2019 exclude emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $17.419 bil ion
provided to USACE and DOE for natural disaster response by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
(P.L. 115-123), signed February 9, 2018. Similarly, the discussion and amounts in this report do
not reflect the emergency supplemental appropriations provided in the Additional Supplemental
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-20) for USACE ($3.258 bil ion) and
Reclamation ($16 mil ion) or Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related supplemental
appropriations (e.g., P.L. 116-136). For more details, see CRS In Focus IF11435, Supplemental
Appropriations for Army Corps Flood Response and Recovery, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E.
Normand, and CRS Report R45708, Energy and Water Development: FY2020 Appropriations, by
Mark Holt and Corrie E. Clark.
Budgetary Limits
Congressional consideration of the annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bil is
affected by certain procedural and statutory budget enforcement requirements. These consist

4 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Committee Print of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House o f
Representatives, on H.R. 1865/P.L. 116-94, Legislative T ext and Explanatory Statement, January 2 020,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT -116HPRT38679/pdf/CPRT -116HPRT38679.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

primarily of procedural limits on discretionary spending (spending provided in annual
appropriations acts) established in a budget resolution or through some other means, and
al ocations of this amount that apply to spending under the jurisdiction of each appropriations
subcommittee.
Statutory budget enforcement is currently derived from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA;
P.L. 112-25). The BCA established separate limits on defense and nondefense discretionary
spending. These limits are in effect from FY2012 through FY2021 and are primarily enforced by
an automatic spending reduction process cal ed sequestration, in which a breach of a spending
limit would trigger across-the-board cuts, known as a sequester, within that spending category.
The BCA’s statutory discretionary spending limits were increased for FY2020 and FY2021 by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019, P.L. 116-37, H.R. 3877), signed by the President
August 2, 2019. For FY2021, BBA 2019 sets discretionary spending limits of $671.5 bil ion for
defense funding and $626.5 bil ion for nondefense funding (the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bil includes both). P.L. 116-136 (§14003) altered the accounting of certain harbor
maintenance spending toward the discretionary spending limits.
From the FY2021 discretionary spending limit, the House Appropriations Committee on July 13,
2020, al ocated $49.607 bil ion to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee (H.Rept. 116-443).5 That limit did not apply to the emergency appropriations in
the House-passed FY2021 consolidated funding bil s. The Senate Appropriations Committee
majority posted draft FY2021 subcommittee al ocations on November 10, 2020, including
$51.752 bil ion for energy and water development, which is consistent with the text within the
explanatory statement but different from the comparative statement of new budget authority at the
end of the explanatory statement.6 The enacted Energy and Water Development appropriations
measure for FY2021 totaled $49.525 bil ion, excluding scorekeeping adjustments. (For more
information, see CRS Insight IN11148, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the BCA
and Debt Limit, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch, and CRS Report R44874, The Budget
Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.)
Funding Issues and Initiatives
Several issues drew particular attention during congressional consideration of Energy and Water
Development appropriations for FY2021. The issues described in this section—listed
approximately in the order the affected agencies appear in the Energy and Water Development
bil —were selected based on total funding involved, percentage of proposed increases or
decreases, amount of congressional debate engendered, and potential impact on broader public
policy considerations. Substantial controversy arose during House markups and floor debate
about the bil ’s $44.050 bil ion in emergency spending under Title VI (Division C) in response to
the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak; those provisions were dropped, but the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, included $900 bil ion of emergency COVID relief in Divisions M and
N. (For information on COVID effects, see CRS Insight IN11300, COVID-19: Potential Impacts
on the Electric Power Sector, by Ashley J. Lawson.)

5 T he House and Senate Appropriations Committees make subcommittee allocations pursuant to Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344).
6 Senate Appropriations Committee majority, 2021 Original Senate Allocation, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/
imo/media/doc/FY21%20302(b)%20Subcommittee%20Allocations.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

6

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Army Corps of Engineers and Reclamation Budgets
For USACE, the Trump Administration requested $5.966 bil ion for FY2021, which is $1.684
bil ion (22%) below the FY2020 appropriation. The request included no funding for initiating
new studies and construction projects (referred to as new starts). The FY2021 request would have
limited funding for ongoing navigation and flood risk-reduction construction projects to those
whose benefits are at least 2.5 times their costs, or projects that address safety concerns. Many
congressional y authorized USACE projects do not meet that standard. The House-passed energy
and water funding measure for FY2021 provided $7.629 bil ion for USACE, plus $17.0 bil ion in
emergency appropriations, and included funds for seven new starts for studies and seven new
starts for construction projects.7 The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil for
FY2021 would have provided $7.722 bil ion for USACE and included funds for nine new starts
for studies and seven new starts for construction projects.
The Trump Administration also sought to transfer the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP) from USACE to DOE, a proposal included in prior budget requests that
Congress has not approved. For Reclamation (not including CUP), the FY2021 request would
have reduced funding by $532 mil ion (32%) from the FY2020 level, to $1.128 bil ion. The
House-passed bil included $1.630 bil ion for Reclamation, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee majority draft would have provided $1.670 bil ion.
The Trump Administration did not request FY2021 funding for USACE’s Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Congress authorized USACE’s WIFIA in 2014
(Title V, Subtitle C of P.L. 113-121).8 USACE through WIFIA is authorized to provide credit
assistance in the form of secured or direct loans for a range of water resource projects.9 H.Rept.
116-449 indicated support for USACE’s activities to develop its WIFIA, and in staying informed
about its development;10 no appropriations were provided specifical y for USACE’s WIFIA in
H.R. 7617. The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft included a new USACE account
for the agency’s WIFIA and would have appropriated $25 mil ion to the new account.11 The draft
bil would have required $22.8 mil ion of the funds to be used for WIFIA assistance to nonfederal

7 House Committee on Appropriations, Report on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2021, H.Rept. 116-449, p. 16. For more on environmental infrast ructure authorities, see CRS In
Focus IF11184, Arm y Corps of Engineers: Environm ental Infrastructure Assistance, by Anna E. Normand.
8 USACE has elected to call its WIFIA program the Civil Works Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP); this
report refers to it as WIFIA, to remain consistent with legislative text.
9 USACE’s WIFIA is authorized to assist eligible projects that have the following purposes: reduction of riverine or
coastal storm flood damage; restoration of aquatic ecosystems; improvement of the inland and intracoastal waterways
navigation system; improvement of navigation of a coastal inland harbor of the United States, including channel
deepening and construction of associated general navigation features; or a combination of purposes that are supported
by the USACE’s and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) WIFIA programs. (For more information, see 33
U.S.C. §3905.) USACE has clarified that dam and levee safety projects fall within WIFIA’s eligible project purposes.
10 House Committee on Appropriations, Report on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2021, H.Rept. 116-449, p. 73. In the report, the committee included language that would direct the
USACE to brief the committee on the budget scoring challenges related to USACE’s WIFIA program. Some of the
scoring challenges relate to the scoring of federal projects and projects related to federal assets.
11 T he authorization of appropriations for USACE’s WIFIA expired in FY2019 (see 33 U.S.C. §3912). In contrast to
the Environmental Protection Agency’s WIFIA program, which was also authorized in 2014 and provided its first
WIFIA assistance in 2018, USACE’s WIFIA program has been under development (using USACE General Expenses
appropriations), but was not operational as of the start of FY2021 .
Congressional Research Service

7

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

dam owners for dam safety projects,12 and $2.2 mil ion for USACE administrative expenses to
carry out the program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, created a new account for USACE’s WIFIA
program, as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft, and
appropriated $14.2 mil ion to it. Of the total, $12.2 mil ion is specifical y for nonfederal dam
owners for dam safety projects, with the remaining $2 mil ion for USACE administrative
expenses to carry out the program. Total FY2021 enacted appropriations for USACE were $7.80
bil ion (31% above the FY2021 request and 2% above the FY2020 enacted amount). The
Administration’s proposed transfer of the FUSRAP radiological site cleanup program to DOE
was not approved. Following enactment of the FY2021 appropriations measure, USACE issued
its Work Plan for FY2021 programs, projects, and activities on January 19, 2021.13
For more details, see CRS In Focus IF11462, Army Corps of Engineers: FY2021 Appropriations,
by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter, CRS In Focus IF11465, Bureau of Reclamation:
FY2021 Appropriations, by Charles V. Stern, CRS Report R46320, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers: Annual Appropriations Process and Issues for Congress, by Anna E. Normand and
Nicole T. Carter, and CRS In Focus IF11193, WIFIA Program: Background and Recent
Developments, by Elena H. Humphreys.
Power Marketing Administration Proposals
DOE’s FY2021 budget request included three spending proposals, none of which were enacted,
related to the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonnevil e Power Administration
(BPA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). PMAs sel the power generated by
various federal dams. The Trump Administration proposed to divest the assets of the three PMAs
that own transmission infrastructure: BPA, SWPA, and WAPA.14 These assets consist of
thousands of miles of high voltage transmission lines and hundreds of power substations. The
budget request projected that mandatory spending savings from the sale of these assets would
total approximately $4.1 bil ion over a 10-year period.15 The budget request proposed to repeal
the borrowing authority for WAPA’s Transmission Infrastructure Program, which facilitates the
delivery of renewable energy resources.

12 T hat is, although the WIFIA authority provides for USACE to assist a range of water resource projects, the draft bill
would have limited the FY2021 WIFIA assistance to nonfederal dam safety. T he draft explanatory statement
accompanying the bill provided additional direction to USACE on development of the program, including the ty pes of
eligible projects. For more information, see Senate Committee on Appropriations majority draft explanatory statement,
November 10, 2020, p. 59.
13 USACE, “ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Releases Work Plan for Fiscal 2021 Civil Works Appropriations,” January
19, 2021, https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-Vie w/Article/2476138/us-army-
corps-of-engineers-releases-work-plan-for-fiscal-2021-civil-works-appro/.
14 T his proposal was also included in the T rump Administration’s Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century:
Reform Plan and Reorganization Recom m endations, June 21, 2018, pp. 66-67, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Government -Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf. T otal 10-year savings were estimated at $9.5
billion, possibly including the proposed cancellation of WAPA borrowing authority. Mandatory spending is provided
by permanent law outside the annual appropriations process; for details, see CBO, “ What is the difference between
mandatory and discretionary spending?,” https://www.cbo.gov/content/what -difference-between-mandatory-and-
discretionary-spending.
15 Office of Management and Budget, A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms, Fiscal Year 2021,
p. 138, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

8

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

The FY2021 budget also proposed eliminating the statutory requirement that PMAs limit rates to
amounts necessary to recover only construction, operations, and maintenance costs. The budget
proposed that the PMAs instead transition to a market-based approach to setting rates. The
Administration estimated that this proposal would yield $7.4 bil ion in new revenues over 10
years.16 The budget also cal ed for repealing $3.25 bil ion in borrowing authority provided to
WAPA for transmission projects enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5). The proposal was estimated to save $500 mil ion over 10 years.17
The Administration had made al of these proposals in previous years. To take effect, they would
have needed to be enacted in authorizing legislation, and no congressional action was taken on
them. The proposals were opposed by groups such as the American Public Power Association and
the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association, and they have been the subject of
opposition letters to the Administration from several regional y based bipartisan groups of
Members of Congress. PMA reforms have been supported by some policy research institutes,
such as the Heritage Foundation.
For further information, see CRS Report R45548, The Power Marketing Administrations:
Background and Current Issues, by Richard J. Campbel .
Proposed Termination of Energy Efficiency Grants
The FY2021 budget request proposed to terminate both the DOE Weatherization Assistance
Program and the State Energy Program (SEP), but Congress continued to fund the programs in
FY2021. The Weatherization Assistance Program provides formula grants to states to fund energy
efficiency improvements for low-income housing units to reduce their energy costs and save
energy. The SEP provides grants and technical assistance to states for planning and
implementation of their energy programs. Both the weatherization and SEP programs are under
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The weatherization program
received $305 mil ion and SEP received $63 mil ion for FY2020, after also having been proposed
for elimination in that year’s budget request, as wel as in FY2019 and FY2018. According to
DOE, the proposed elimination of the grant programs was “due to a departmental shift in focus
away from deployment activities and towards early-stage R&D.”18
The House-passed bil included funding for energy efficiency grants within Title III and Title VI.
Within Title III, the bil provided for smal increases in weatherization and SEP grants over their
FY2020 enacted levels. Title VI of the bil would have provided emergency supplemental
funding: $3.250 bil ion for weatherization grants, $730 mil ion for SEP grants, and $2.250 bil ion
for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBGs). The EECBG program, which is
authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA, P.L. 110-140), was funded at
$3.2 bil ion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). ARRA also
provided supplemental funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program ($5 bil ion) and SEP
($3.1 bil ion).
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil and explanatory statement included
smal funding increases for energy efficiency grants: $305 mil ion for weatherization grants and
$62.5 mil ion for SEP grants. The FY2021 enacted funding measure provided $315 mil ion for

16 Ibid., p. 139.
17 Ibid., p. 140.
18 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 20, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/
02/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -in-brief_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

9

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

weatherization grants and $62.5 mil ion for SEP grants, with none of the emergency supplemental
funding passed by the House.
Proposed Reductions in Energy R&D
Appropriations for applied R&D on energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy (NE),
and fossil energy (FE) would have been reduced from $4.650 bil ion in FY2020 to $2.670 bil ion
(43%) under the Administration’s FY2021 budget request.19 Major proposed reductions included
bioenergy technologies (-83%), vehicle technologies (-81%), natural gas technologies (-71%),
advanced manufacturing (-75%), building technologies (-79%), wind energy (-79%), solar energy
(-76%), geothermal technologies (-76%), and nuclear fuel cycle R&D (-39%), although some
programs would have been increased, such as energy storage (+49%) and advanced coal energy
systems (+115%). The House voted to maintain nearly level funding for energy R&D, and, in
addition, to provide approximately $2.9 bil ion in emergency funding (Title VI) for energy
research, demonstration, and commercialization projects. The Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft bil included nearly level funding for energy R&D. Enacted FY2021 appropriations
for energy R&D totaled $4.743 bil ion, 2% above the FY2020 enacted level.
The Administration said its proposed reductions would have primarily affected the later stages of
energy research, which tend to be the most costly. “The Budget focuses DOE resources toward
early-stage R&D, where the Federal role is strongest, and reflects an increased reliance on the
private sector to fund later-stage research, development, commercialization, and deployment of
energy technologies,” according to the FY2021 DOE request.20 However, the explanatory
statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, said, “The Department is directed to
maintain a diverse portfolio of early-, mid-, and latestage research, development, and market
transformation activities in each applied energy research and development program office.”
The Administration had also proposed similar reductions in previous years but they were not
approved by Congress.
Renewable Energy Grid Integration and Storage Initiatives
The explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $40 mil ion
in crosscutting funding for Renewable Energy Grid Integration, which would “facilitate the
oversight of grid integration activities” among DOE’s solar, wind, water power, and geothermal
R&D programs. Within available funds, the explanatory statement provided $10 mil ion for
“development and demonstration of an ‘energyshed’ management system that addresses a
discrete geographic area in which renewable sources currently provide a large portion of electric
energy needs, where grid capacity constraints result in curtailment of renewable generation, and
with very substantial existing deployment of interactive smart meters.” Similar language was
included in the Senate Appropriations Committee draft.21
DOE was directed by the explanatory statement to develop “a crosscutting research and
development roadmap and implementation plan” to “be focused on reducing costs and improving
the performance of a diverse set of grid-scale storage technologies to meet industry needs,
improve reliability and environmental performance of the electricity grid, and reduce greenhouse

19 Additional energy activities that are not included in this tot al include state energy efficiency and weatherization
grants, energy security programs, and electricity programs. T he Office of Science and ARPA -E are not included.
20 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 17, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/
02/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -in-brief_0.pdf.
21 Senate Appropriations Commit tee majority draft explanatory statement, p. 92.
Congressional Research Service

10

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

gas emissions.” Both the House committee report and Senate committee draft explanatory
statement also supported crosscutting energy storage activities.
Nuclear Waste Management Funding
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget request did not include new funding for a proposed
underground nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, after the Administration’s funding
requests for the repository were not approved by Congress in the previous three fiscal years.
Those requests had included funding for DOE to pursue an NRC license for the repository and for
NRC to consider DOE’s license application. Although no FY2021 funding was requested for
licensing and developing Yucca Mountain, the Administration sought $27.5 mil ion to develop
nuclear waste central interim storage capacity. “Funding is primarily dedicated to performing
activities that would lay the groundwork necessary to ensure near-term deployment of interim
storage to ensure safe and effective consolidation and temporary storage of nuclear waste,”
according to DOE’s budget justification. Funding for the program was to come from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, which holds fees and interest paid by the nuclear power industry for waste
management.22 The House approved the Administration’s request but specified that only $7.5
mil ion come from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil also included $27.5 mil ion (but within
Nuclear Energy rather than as a separate account) for the development of consolidated interim
nuclear spent fuel storage facilities. Up to $10 mil ion of that amount could have been used to
contract for spent fuel management, including storage by a private company. The Senate draft
also included an authorization (Sec. 306) for DOE to conduct a pilot program for interim spent
nuclear fuel storage at a site selected with the consent of the host state, local governments, and
Indian tribes. Similar language had been included in previous Senate Appropriations Committee
Energy and Water Development appropriations bil s but not enacted.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided $27.5 mil ion for Nuclear Waste Disposal,
of which $20 mil ion was directed to be used for interim storage and $7.5 mil ion (from the
Nuclear Waste Fund) for Nuclear Waste Fund oversight activities. The Senate draft proposal for
an interim storage pilot program was not enacted. For more background, see CRS Report
RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.
Advanced Reactor Demonstrations
A new, $230 mil ion sub-account for an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program within the
DOE Nuclear Energy account was included in the explanatory statement for the FY2020 enacted
appropriations measure. Of that funding, $160 mil ion was provided for DOE to begin two
advanced nuclear reactor demonstration projects, with a cost-share of at least 50% from
nonfederal sources. Another $30 mil ion was provided for grants to reduce the technical risk of
two-to-five additional reactor demonstration proposals, with a nonfederal cost-share of at least
20%. DOE announced awards totaling $160 mil ion for two advanced reactor demonstrations on
October 13, 2020—a molten salt reactor and a high-temperature gas reactor.23 The FY2021 DOE

22 DOE, Budget in Brief, February 2020, p. 38, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f72/doe-fy2021-
budget-in-brief_0.pdf.
23 DOE, Office of Nuclear Energy, “U.S. Department of Energy Announces $160 Million in First Awards under
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program,” news release, October 13, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-
department -energy-announces-160-million-first-awards-under-advanced-reactor.
Congressional Research Service

11

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

request included no further funding for reactor demonstrations but cal ed for $20 mil ion to
continue R&D related to the program. The budget request proposed to formal y establish the
Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) as a DOE construction project and more than quadruple its funding
to $295 mil ion. The VTR would be a new reactor to provide fast (high energy) neutrons for
testing advanced reactor fuels and materials. DOE estimates the project’s total construction cost
at between $3 bil ion and $6 bil ion, with completion ranging from 2026 to 2030.24
The House approved $240 mil ion for Advanced Reactor Demonstrations in FY2021, $10 mil ion
above the FY2020 enacted amount. However, the House-passed bil reduced VTR construction
funding from the requested amount to $65 mil ion, the same as the FY2020 appropriation for
preconstruction activities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement recommended $280
mil ion for Advance Reactor Demonstrations “to ensure that the program can continue in an
accelerated manner.” The Senate majority draft included $45 mil ion for the VTR, while noting,
“The Committee is concerned that the Department is proceeding with plans for the VTR without
having secured commitments from private companies or foreign governments for monetary and
in-kind contributions.”25
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $250 mil ion for the Advanced Reactor
Demonstration Program. That amount includes $80 mil ion apiece for two cost-shared
demonstration projects, $40 mil ion for cost-shared grants to reduce the technological risk of
future demonstrations, $30 mil ion for the National Reactor Demonstration Center, $15 mil ion
for regulatory development, and $5 mil ion for nonproliferation safeguards. The VTR project was
appropriated $45 mil ion, with a requirement in the explanatory statement that DOE give the
Appropriations Committees “a plan for executing the Versatile Test Reactor project via a public-
private partnership with an option for a payment-for-milestones approach.”
Establishment of Uranium Reserve
The FY2021 budget request for the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy included $150 mil ion to
establish a Uranium Reserve. This initiative cal ed for DOE to purchase uranium from domestic
uranium producers and have it converted to uranium hexafluoride (a necessary step in making
nuclear reactor fuel) by a domestic conversion facility. The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021, provided $75 mil ion for the Uranium Reserve.
According to DOE, this stockpile of uranium would be available for nuclear power operators in
the event of a civilian nuclear fuel market disruption and provide a source of U.S.-origin uranium
for defense purposes. “Establishing a reserve is an urgent step needed in response to an
overreliance on imported uranium product that has undermined U.S. energy security and
impacted U.S. fuel supply capabilities,” according to the DOE budget justification. However, the
justification notes that, for the newly stockpiled uranium, “no immediate national security need
has been identified.”26 The proposed government purchases are also intended to address “near-
term chal enges to the production and conversion of domestic uranium,” which are currently

24 T homas J. O’Connor, VT R Program Director, DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Versatile T est Reactor Update,”
March 28, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/
VT R%20NEAC%20Rev%202%20%28003%29_1.pdf .
25 Senate Committee on Appropriations majority draft explanatory statement, November 10, 2020, p. 107.
26 DOE, Budget in Brief, February 2020, p. 39, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f72/doe-fy2021-
budget-in-brief_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

under economic stress, according to the justification. “Subsequent support wil be considered as
deemed necessary across a 10-year period as the government and private sector work to
reestablish US technology and market share,” according to a report released April 23, 2020, by
the Administration’s Nuclear Fuel Working Group (NFWG).27
The House-passed bil provided no funding for the proposed Uranium Reserve. “The Department
has been unable to provide specific information about how it would implement the program,
including in congressional justifications, briefings, and in responses to questions from the
Committee about how the funds would be spent, including the process for the purchase,
conversion, or sale of uranium in a reserve,” according to the Appropriations Committee report.
Instead, the committee directed DOE within 180 days after enactment to provide a detailed plan
for establishing the Uranium Reserve.28
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil included $120 mil ion for the Uranium
Reserve, plus $30 mil ion within DOE’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation accounts. The draft
explanatory statement directed DOE to “provide a specific program plan for executing funds
recommended for this activity as wel as plans to consolidate this program with other existing
uranium management activities within the Department.”29
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, did not provide the Trump Administration’s
requested $150 mil ion for the Uranium Reserve within DOE energy programs but instead
appropriated $75 mil ion for the program within the NNSA Weapons Activities account. The
explanatory statement directed NNSA to submit a Uranium Reserve program plan to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees.
U.S. uranium production in calendar year 2019 was the lowest since before 1949, according to the
Energy Information Administration. As of the fourth quarter of 2019, EIA reported that three
domestic in-situ uranium plants (solution mining operations in which a solvent is pumped through
underground ore bodies to recover uranium) were operating and that three domestic conventional
uranium mil s were on standby. Two domestic uranium producers petitioned the Department of
Commerce (DOC) in 2018 to investigate foreign uranium imports under Section 232 of the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862). DOC subsequently recommended presidential action
to restrict imports, but President Trump did not concur.30 Nonetheless, the Trump Administration
expressed significant concerns regarding national security and responded by establishing the
NFWG. The DOE FY2021 budget justification cal ed the Uranium Reserve initiative “consistent
with the priorities” of the NFWG and said it would “directly support the operation of at least two
U.S. uranium mines and the reestablishment of active domestic conversion capabilities” and was
“not designed to replace or disrupt market mechanisms.”31
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11505, Uranium Reserve Program Proposal: Policy
Implications, by Lance N. Larson.

27 DOE, “ Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership,” news release, April 23, 2020,
https://www.energy.gov/strategy-restore-american-nuclear-energy-leadership.
28 House Committee on Appropriations, Report on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2021, H.Rept. 116-449, July 15, 2020, p. 114.
29 Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement, p. 108.
30 White House, “ Memorandum on the Effect of Uranium Imports on the National Security and Establishment of the
United States Nuclear Fuel Working Group,” July 12, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/
memorandum-effect -uranium-imports-national-security-establishment-united-states-nuclear-fuel-working-group.
31 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

13

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Operations
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—administered, maintained, and operated by DOE—
includes both a crude oil reserve and a refined petroleum product reserve. These reserves provide
standby and emergency petroleum stocks that DOE can draw down and sel in the event of a
domestic or international oil supply disruption. Most SPR stocks are in the form of crude oil
contained in underground storage caverns—owned and operated by the federal government—
located in Texas and Louisiana. These crude oil stocks are near oil refining, pipeline, and port
infrastructure in the U.S. Gulf Coast region. As of March 2021, standby SPR crude oil stocks
totaled approximately 638 mil ion barrels.32 The SPR also includes a 1 mil ion barrel northeast
gasoline supply reserve (NGSR) that contains refined petroleum products held in leased
commercial storage facilities located in the New York harbor area, the Boston area, and South
Portland, ME.
DOE’s FY2021 budget request included appropriations for two SPR budget accounts: (1)
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ($187 mil ion), which funds management, operations, and
maintenance activities, and (2) SPR Petroleum Account ($0), which funds the acquisition,
transportation, and injection of petroleum products. One notable change proposed in DOE’s
budget request was to disestablish the NGSR, sel al refined petroleum product, transfer $19
mil ion to the SPR Petroleum Account, transfer additional proceeds to the general fund, and
eliminate annual NGSR leasing costs.
During FY2020, following oil market disruptions and price volatility related to the COVID-19
pandemic, DOE executed some unplanned efforts that required using available SPR Petroleum
Account funds. Some of these efforts included an exchange-for-storage solicitation and a $5
mil ion crude oil purchase.33 In 2021, DOE is required to draw down and sel at least 10 mil ion
barrels of crude oil as mandated by previously enacted legislation (P.L. 114-74 and P.L. 115-141)
and possibly more should a suspended FY2020 sale occur in FY2021.34 Expenses associated with
transporting and delivering mandated sales to buyers are paid for by SPR Petroleum Account
funds. DOE’s budget request estimates FY2021 drawdown costs of $7.5 mil ion.
Neither the House-passed bil nor the Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil
approved DOE’s request to disestablish the NGSR. However, both bil s did contain language to
relax presidential finding criteria for sel ing, during FY2021, refined petroleum product stored in
the NGSR. Proceeds from such a sale would be deposited into the SPR Petroleum Account.
Whether such a sale might occur during FY2021 is uncertain and would depend on regional
petroleum-product market conditions and the Administration’s desire to draw down and sel
NGSR inventories.
For the Strategic Petroleum Reserve budget account, the House-passed bil and Senate draft bil
included $195 mil ion and $187 mil ion, respectively. For the SPR Petroleum Account, the House
bil and Senate draft would have appropriated $7.5 mil ion and $1 mil ion, respectively.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $188 mil ion for the SPR budget account
and $1 mil ion for the Petroleum Account, for a total of $189 mil ion. The offsets requested by the

32 Energy Information Administration, “Crude Oil, SPR,” March 5, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/
PET _ST OC_WST K_A_EPC0_SAS_MBBL_W.htm .
33 For additional information, see CRS Insight IN11373, Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Developments, by Phillip
Brown.
34 For additional information about congressionally required SPR oil sales, see Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Mandated
and Modernization Sales, by Phillip Brown, a congressional distribution memo available to congressional clients by
request from the author.
Congressional Research Service

14

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Administration were not approved, nor was the proposal to eliminate the NGSR. The enacted
measure included a provision similar the House and draft Senate majority bil s to relax the
criteria—requiring a presidential finding of just a regional supply shortage versus a domestic or
international supply shortage—for sel ing refined petroleum products from the NGSR during
FY2021 (Division D, Section 305).
Table 1. SPR Budget Accounts: Comparison of FY2021 Budget Request, House Bill,
and Senate Appropriations Committee Majority Draft Bill, and Enacted Measure
(dol ars in mil ions)

Senate
Committee
Budget
Majority Draft
FY2021
Request
House Bill
Bill
Enacted
(A)
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
187.1
195.0
187.1
188.0
(B)
SPR Petroleum Account
0
7.5
1.0
1.0

Budget Offset and Transfer:

Refined Product Sales
(C)
Sel Northeast Gasoline Supply
-87.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reserve
(D)
Transfer to SPR Petroleum
19.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Account
(E)
Net budget offset (C + D)
-68.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
(F)
Summation of Accounts and
119.1
202.5
188.1
189.0
Offset (A + B + E)
Source: CRS analysis of DOE’s FY2021 budget request, House-passed bil , and Senate Appropriations
Committee majority draft bil and explanatory statement, and P.L. 116-240 and explanatory statement.
Notes: Net budget offset in DOE’s FY2021 budget request would be transferred to the general fund of the
Treasury. N/A = not applicable.
Proposed Termination of Energy Loans and Loan Guarantees
The FY2021 budget request cal ed for halting further loans and loan guarantees under DOE’s
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program and the Title 17
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. Similar proposals to eliminate the programs in
FY2018 through FY2020 were not enacted. The FY2021 budget request would also have halted
further loan guarantees under DOE’s Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program, a proposal that also
was not approved by Congress in previous years. Under the FY2021 budget proposal, DOE
would have received $3 mil ion (offset by fees) to administer its existing portfolio of loans and
loan guarantees. Unused prior-year authority, or ceiling levels, for loan guarantee commitments
would have been rescinded, as wel as $170 mil ion in unspent appropriations to cover loan
guarantee “subsidy costs” (which are primarily intended to cover potential program losses). The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided funds to continue administering al the energy
loan and loan guarantee programs, although it rescinded $392 mil ion of previously appropriated
emergency funding for a temporary Title XVII loan guarantee authority and $1.9 bil ion of
emergency funds for the ATVM direct loan program. The House-passed bil and the Senate
committee majority draft also included funds to continue administering the loan and loan
guarantee programs.
Congressional Research Service

15

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Information Science
Initiatives
DOE’s FY2021 budget justification emphasized the importance of the Office of Science’s
crosscutting research on quantum information science (QIS) and artificial intel igence (AI) in
supporting “U.S.-based leadership in microelectronics.”35 The FY2021 request included $237
mil ion for QIS and $125 mil ion for AI, plus $12 mil ion requested by NNSA in support of QIS
research. The DOE Office of Science’s funding for QIS has grown in the past five years, from $6
mil ion in FY2017 to $195 mil ion in FY2020—with a further 21% increase sought for FY2021.
The funding request was spread across six Office of Science program areas, mostly in Advanced
Scientific Computing Research ($86 mil ion) and Basic Energy Sciences ($72 mil ion).36 DOE
established the Artificial Intel igence and Technology Office (AITO) in September 2019 to
coordinate AI activities. The FY2021 DOE request included a new appropriations account for
AITO, which was to receive $5 mil ion—nearly double the FY2020 funding level for AI
coordination, which had been included in the Departmental Administration account.
The House-passed bil provided for $235 mil ion for quantum information science, about the
same as the request, “including not less than $120,000,000 for research and not less than
$100,000,000 for up to five National Quantum Information Science Research Centers,” according
to the House Appropriations Committee report. The House bil included funding of up to $125
mil ion for AI and machine learning, similar to the Administration request. In addition, Title VI
included emergency supplemental funding of $75 mil ion for equipment and infrastructure for the
QIS Research Centers.
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement recommended $271
mil ion from DOE Science programs for QIS, including the five QIS research centers. The Senate
draft also included at least $120 mil ion from DOE Science programs for AI and machine
learning, with “Advanced Scientific Computing Research to take a lead role.”37
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided at least $245 mil ion for “the Office of
Science’s coordinated and focused research program in quantum information science.” Within
those available funds, $125 mil ion was provided for five National Quantum Information Science
Research Centers. While not creating the requested new AITO account, the FY2021 enacted
measure provided at least $100 mil ion for “Artificial Intel igence and Machine Learning
capabilities across the Office of Science Programs,” according to the explanatory statement.
QIS, including quantum computing, builds on the principles governing the smal est particles of
matter and energy to obtain and process information in ways that cannot be achieved based on
classical physics principles. AI general y involves computerized systems that work and react in
ways commonly thought to require intel igence, such as solving complex problems in real-world
situations. AI is often considered to include machine learning as a subfield. DOE’s budget
documents described the QIS and AI program areas as “fundamental for the Industries of the
Future Initiative” and the National Quantum Initiative, which are intended to advance U.S.
industrial and scientific leadership.38 Additional y, the National Security Commission on AI

35 Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette, T estimony Before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, March 4, 2020, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
03.04.20%20—%20Brouillette%20Testimony.pdf.
36 Email from Robert T uttle, DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, April 16, 2020.
37 Senate Appropriations Committ ee majority draft explanatory statement, p. 116.
38 Ibid., and DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 4, February 2020, p. 150, https://www.energy.gov/
Congressional Research Service

16

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

recommended in March 2020 that federal AI funding be doubled, including $300 mil ion for
DOE.39
For more information, see CRS Report R45409, Quantum Information Science: Applications,
Global Research and Development, and Policy Considerations, by Patricia Moloney Figliola,
CRS In Focus IF10608, Overview of Artificial Intelligence, by Laurie A. Harris, and CRS Video
WVB00311, Artificial Intelligence: An Overview of Technologies and Issues for Congress, by
Laurie A. Harris.
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and Fusion
Research Grant Funding
The Administration’s FY2021 request for DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program under
the Office of Science included $107 mil ion for the U.S. contribution to the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which is under construction in France by a
multinational consortium. “ITER wil be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long
periods of time” and is to lay the technical foundation “for the commercial production of fusion-
based electricity,” according to the consortium’s website.40 The FY2021 DOE appropriation
request, 56% below the FY2020 enacted level of $242 mil ion (which had been an 83% increase
from FY2019), included funding to pay for components supplied by U.S. companies for the
project, such as central solenoid superconducting magnet modules.
The House-passed bil included $260 mil ion for the U.S. contribution to ITER, “of which not
less than $100,000,000 is for in-cash contributions,” according to the Appropriations Committee
report. An additional $65 mil ion for ITER was to be provided by Title VI as an emergency
supplemental. The Senate committee majority draft recommended $211 mil ion for the U.S.
contribution to ITER, including at least $54 mil ion for in-cash contributions.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, included $242 mil ion for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, the same as in FY2020, including $60 mil ion in cash. The emergency supplemental
funding passed by the House was not enacted. The explanatory statement directed DOE to give
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a “performance baseline for the entire project”
within 180 days after enactment.
ITER has long attracted congressional concern about management, schedule, and cost. The
United States is to pay 9% of the project’s construction costs, including contributions of
components, cash, and personnel. Other collaborators in the project include the European Union,
Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, and China. The total U.S. share of the cost was estimated in
2015 to be between $4.0 bil ion and $6.5 bil ion, up from $1.45 bil ion to $2.2 bil ion in 2008.
Some private-sector fusion companies contend that the technologies they are pursuing could
produce practical fusion power sooner and less expensively than ITER.41 The FY2021 FES
budget request included $4 mil ion, the same as in FY2020, for the Innovation Network for
Fusion Energy (INFUSE) program, which provides private-sector fusion companies with access

sites/prod/files/2020/03/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-4_0.pdf.
39 National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, First Quarter Recommendations, March 2020, p. 9,
https://sites.google.com/nscai.gov/home/reports.
40 IT ER website, https://www.iter.org/.
41 Bourzac, Katherine, “Fusion Start -Ups Hope to Revolutionize Energy in the Coming Decades,” Chemical and
Engineering News, August 6, 2018, https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/Fusion-start -ups-hope-revolutionize/96/
i32.
Congressional Research Service

17

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

to DOE national laboratory facilities and expertise.42 ARPA-E (below) also is funding some
alternative fusion concepts.43 The House bil provided $5 mil ion for INFUSE, according to the
committee report. The Senate committee majority draft recommended $4 mil ion for INFUSE, the
same as the enacted amount.
Proposed Elimination of Advanced Research Projects Agency—
Energy
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget proposed to eliminate the Advanced Research
Projects Agency—Energy and rescind $332 mil ion of the agency’s unobligated balances. ARPA-
E funds research on technologies that are determined to have potential to transform energy
production, storage, and use.44 According to the budget request, DOE would have ended ARPA-E
“while incorporating ARPA-E’s approach to technology development into the execution of
applied energy office Smal Business Innovation Research/Smal Business Technology.”45 The
Administration requested $21 mil ion for ARPA-E close-out activities and oversight of existing
projects in FY2021. The Administration also had proposed to terminate ARPA-E in its FY2018,
FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but Congress increased the program’s funding in al three
years, and the same pattern continued for FY2021.
The House voted to increase ARPA-E’s funding to $435 mil ion in FY2021, $10 mil ion (2%)
above the FY2020 enacted amount. In addition, Title VI of the House bil included $250 mil ion
for ARPA-E in emergency supplemental funding. The House Appropriations Committee report
said, “The Committee again strongly rejects the short-sighted proposal to terminate ARPA-E.
Instead, the Committee continues investment in this transformational program and directs the
Department to continue to spend funds provided on research and development and program
direction.” The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil included $430 mil ion for
ARPA-E. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $427 mil ion for ARPA-E and did
not include the emergency supplemental funding passed by the House.
Weapons Activities Funding Increases
The FY2021 budget request for DOE Weapons Activities was 25% greater than the FY2020
enacted level ($15.602 bil ion vs. $12.457 bil ion). The FY2020 enacted appropriation for
Weapons Activities was 12% above the FY2019 level. Weapons Activities programs are carried
out by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency within
DOE.
Under Weapons Activities, the FY2021 budget request included funding for several major nuclear
warhead life-extension programs (LEPs):
 NNSA requested $816 mil ion for the B61-12 LEP in FY2021, an increase of $23
mil ion over the $793 mil ion enacted for FY2020. The B61-12 is to combine
four existing types of B61 warheads. The first production unit (FPU) had been

42 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 4, February 2020, p. 188, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2020/03/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-4_0.pdf.
43 DOE, “Department of Energy Announces $32 Million for Lower-Cost Fusion Concepts,” April 7, 2020,
https://www.energy.gov/articles/department -energy-announces-32-million-lower-cost -fusion-concepts.
44 DOE, “About ARPA-E,” https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-site-page/about.
45 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 75, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/
02/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -in-brief_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

scheduled for FY2020 but was delayed due to an issue with capacitors used in six
major electrical components. According to NNSA, FPU is now scheduled for
FY2022, and the program is to be completed in FY2026.
 NNSA requested $257 mil ion for the W88 Alteration in FY2021, a reduction of
$47 mil ion from the $304 mil ion enacted in FY2020. The program is to upgrade
the arming-fuzing-firing system on the warhead and refresh the warhead’s
conventional high explosives. This warhead is carried on a portion of the D-5
(Trident) submarine-launched bal istic missiles (SLBMs). NNSA expected to
provide the FPU of this warhead in 2020, but according to NNSA, the delivery
was delayed due to an issue with capacitors used in three major components.
According to its budget documents, NNSA now estimates that it wil provide the
FPU in FY2021.
 NNSA requested $1.0 bil ion for the W80-4 in FY2021, an increase of 11% over
the $899 mil ion enacted in FY2020. This is the warhead for the new long-range
cruise missile. The LEP would seek to use common components from other LEPs
and to improve warhead safety and security. The increase in the budget request
for FY2021 reflected an increase in the scope of work on the program. The FPU
is scheduled for FY2025.
 NNSA requested $541 mil ion for the W87-1 warhead modification program for
FY2021, a nearly fivefold increase over the $112 mil ion enacted for FY2020.
This increase reflected a “ramp-up” of activities across al program areas. The Air
Force plans to deploy the W87-1 on the new U.S. land-based intercontinental
bal istic missile (ICBM), the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). NNSA
has indicated that the FPU for the W87-1 is currently planned for FY2030.
However, the FY2021 budget documents also note that the W87-0 warhead,
which is currently deployed on U.S. ICBMs, wil also be “qualified and deployed
onto the GBSD.” This would provide the Air Force with an alternative warhead if
the W87-1 FPU is delayed.46
NNSA requested $2.458 bil ion for a new program area—Production Modernization. This new
program area funds many of the nuclear materials projects that were a part of Directed Stockpile
Work in the FY2020 budget. It has four subprograms: Primary Capability Modernization,
Secondary Capability Modernization, Non-nuclear Capability Modernization, and Tritium and
Domestic Uranium Enrichment. The budget request sought increases in funding for each of the
subprograms, although nearly 70% of the added funding was for Primary Capability
Modernization.
According to NNSA’s budget documents, the Primary Capability Modernization program
“consolidates management of nuclear material processing capabilities … needed for the
production of primaries.”47 Primaries are the plutonium pits and high explosives that serve as the
core of nuclear weapons. In FY2020, Congress approved $797.8 mil ion for the plutonium
modernization programs that are now a part of this program area; NNSA is requesting $1.369
mil ion for FY2021. Congress approved $13.8 mil ion for high explosives and energetics in
FY2020; NNSA requested $67.4 mil ion in FY2021.
The Plutonium Sustainment subprogram plans to expand production of plutonium pits from
existing facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to a new facility

46 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 1, February 2020, p. 118, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2020/03/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-1_2.pdf.
47 Ibid., p. 92.
Congressional Research Service

19

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

(repurposed from the canceled Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility) at the Savannah River Site
in South Carolina. The Plutonium Sustainment subprogram, which received $712 mil ion for
FY2020, is to be divided into four subprograms for FY2021: Los Alamos Plutonium
Modernization ($593.5 mil ion), Plutonium Pit Production Project at Los Alamos ($226 mil ion),
Savannah River Plutonium Modernization ($200 mil ion), and Savannah River Plutonium
Processing ($241.9 mil ion). The two program areas at Los Alamos fund activities needed to
recapitalize buildings and capacity to meet pit production requirements at Los Alamos. The
programs at Savannah River support efforts to plan for operations at the new pit facility, to work
on its design and site and facility preparation, and to begin long-lead procurement.
The House approved $13.660 bil ion for Weapons Activities for FY2021. While this would be an
increase of $1.203 bil ion (10%) over the amount appropriated in FY2020, it is $1.942 bil ion
lower than the FY2021 budget request of $15.602 bil ion. The House did not approve some of
NNSA’s proposed changes in the structure of the Weapons Activities programs, noting in the
Appropriations Committee Report (H.Rept. 116-449) that, although NNSA had sought “to engage
in a constructive and transparent manner in communicating the proposed changes,” these efforts
were not sufficient and “the Committee believes additional oversight and monitoring is
necessary.”
The House-passed bil also contained a provision that would bar the use of funds “to conduct, or
make specific preparations for, any explosive nuclear weapons test that produces any yield” (Sec.
8133). Trump Administration officials had indicated that they did not currently plan to conduct
such a test, and would only consider doing so if there were concerns about the safety or reliability
of U.S. nuclear weapons. Recent reports indicated that the Administration had considered using
such a test to exhibit U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities.48
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil included $15.602 bil ion for weapons
activities, the same as the request and $1.942 bil ion above the House-passed level. The Senate
committee draft explanatory statement “supports the initial studies to evaluate the W93 warhead”
(the House had eliminated the funding) and supported the funding for the pit production plan,
using both Los Alamos and the Savannah River site.49
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $15.345 bil ion for weapons activities,
$257 mil ion (2%) below the request and $2.888 bil ion (23%) above the FY2020 enacted
amount. The explanatory statement reiterated congressional concerns about NNSA’s pit
production plans. It mandated that NNSA provide a plan outlining an integrated master schedule
for “al pit production-related project and program activities” going forward. It also directed
NNSA to develop “a comprehensive, integrated ten-year research program for pit and plutonium
aging that represents a consensus program among the national laboratories and federal sponsors.”
For more information, see CRS Report R44442, Energy and Water Development Appropriations:
Nuclear Weapons Activities, by Amy F. Woolf.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Sites: Proposed Reductions and
Transfers
DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for environmental cleanup and
waste management at the department’s nuclear facilities. The $6.066 bil ion request for EM

48 Hudson, John and Paul Sonne, “T rump Administration Discussed Conducting First U.S. Nuclear T est in Decades,”
Washington Post, May 22, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-administration-discussed-
conducting-first-us-nuclear-test-in-decades/2020/05/22/a805c904-9c5b-11ea-b60c-3be060a4f8e1_story.html.
49 Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement, p. 127.
Congressional Research Service

20

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

activities for FY2021 would have been a decrease of $1.390 bil ion (19%) from the FY2020
enacted level of $7.455 bil ion. The budgetary components of the EM program are Defense
Environmental Cleanup (-20%) and Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup (-14%). The largest
proposed decreases were at the Hanford Site (WA), where projects managed by the Richland
Operations Office would have been reduced by $347 mil ion (-35%) and those by the Office of
River Protection by $358 mil ion (-22%). Other relatively large EM reductions were proposed for
the Oak Ridge Site (TN), down by $251 mil ion (-37%); Idaho National Laboratory, down by
$175 mil ion (-39%); and Los Alamos National Laboratory, down by $100 mil ion (-46%). The
DOE budget justification attributed many of the proposed funding decreases to completion of
various cleanup projects at the sites involved.50
The FY2021 request included a proposal to transfer management of the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program from USACE to the Office of Legacy Management (LM), the DOE
office responsible for long-term stewardship of remediated sites. The transfer had also been
proposed for FY2020 but was not approved by Congress, nor was it approved for FY2021. The
FY2021 LM budget request included $150 mil ion for FUSRAP, down from $200 mil ion
appropriated to USACE for the program in FY2020. According to the DOE budget justification,
“LM wil be responsible for the administration of FUSRAP, USACE wil continue to conduct
cleanup of FUSRAP sites, and LM wil continue to conduct LTS&M [long-term surveil ance and
maintenance] after cleanup activities are completed.” Under the proposal, LM would have
reimbursed USACE for the cost of the cleanup activities.51
The House approved $7.458 bil ion for EM activities, an increase of $2 mil ion from the FY2020
enacted level. In addition, the House bil includes $3.125 bil ion in EM emergency supplemental
funding, including $2.685 bil ion for defense cleanup, $200 mil ion for non-defense cleanup, and
$240 mil ion for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. The
House did not approve the proposed transfer of FUSRAP to DOE or the proposed funding
reduction, recommending an FY2021 appropriation of $210 mil ion, up $10 mil ion (5%) from
the FY2020 enacted amount. In addition, Title VI of Division C included $500 mil ion in
emergency supplemental appropriations for FUSRAP, but they were not enacted.
The Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil includes $7.534 bil ion for EM, $1.468
bil ion above the request and $76 mil ion above the House-passed level, excluding emergency
supplementals. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $7.586 bil ion for EM, an
increase of $131 mil ion (2%) over the FY2020 enacted amount.
Southwest Border Regional Commission and Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission Funding
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided $250,000 for the Southwest Border
Regional Commission (SBRC)—the first appropriations for the SBRC since it was authorized in
the 2008 farm bil (P.L. 110-234) along with the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
(SCRC) and the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC). The SBRC is one of seven
authorized federal regional commissions and authorities, of which four are currently active: the
Appalachian Regional Commission, the NBRC, the Denali Commission, and the Delta Regional

50 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/
02/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -in-brief_0.pdf.
51 DOE, FY2021 Budget in Brief, February 2020, p. 56, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f72/doe-
fy2021-budget-in-brief_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 27 link to page 28 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Authority.52 If formed, the SBRC would be the fifth active federal regional commission.
However, even with the enacted appropriation, the SBRC’s formation additional y depends on the
appointment of a federal co-chair by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, as
required by statute. According to the explanatory statement, “The Administration is encouraged to
promptly appoint a Federal Co-Chair in order to establish key partnerships with local
communities, improve economic conditions and travel along the southwest border, and to
consider opportunities to establish a regional presence in or near major inland ports of entry.”
The enacted FY2021 funding measure also included $1 mil ion for the SCRC, which is inactive
as wel . Since FY2010, the SCRC has received annual appropriations of $250,000, but has yet to
form, as no federal co-chair has ever been appointed. Although the SCRC’s increased
appropriation provided it with the ability to conduct some limited grantmaking upon formation,
its development would stil require a presidential y appointed and Senate-confirmed federal co-
chair. The House-passed bil included the same funding levels for SBRC and SCRC as enacted
for FY2021, while the Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bil would have provided
zero.
Bill Status and Recent Funding History
Table 2 indicates the steps taken during consideration of FY2021 Energy and Water Development
appropriations. (For more details, see the CRS Appropriations Status Table at http://www.crs.gov/
AppropriationsStatusTable/Index.)
Table 2. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2021
Subcommittee
Markup

Final Approval

House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Comm.
Passed
Comm.
Passed
Report
House
Senate
Law
7/7/20

7/13/20
7/31/20

12/21/20 12/21/20 12/27/20
Source: CRS Appropriations Status Table.
Note: The Senate Appropriations Committee majority released a draft FY2021 Energy and Water Development
appropriations bil and explanatory statement November 10, 2020, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/
news/committee-releases-fy21-bil s-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results.

Table 3 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2015 through FY2020 and major stages of consideration for FY2021.

52 For more information, see CRS Report R45997, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features
and Function, by Michael H. Cecire.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 11 link to page 11 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2015-FY2021
(budget authority in bil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2021
FY2021 FY2021 Majority
Enac-
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Request
House
Draft
ted
34.8
37.3
37.4a
43.2b
44.7c
48.3d
42.6
49.6e
51.9
49.5
Source: Compiled by CRS from totals provided by congressional budget documents.
Notes: Figures exclude permanent budget authorities and reflect rescissions.
a. Amount does not include $1.0 bil ion in emergency funding for the USACE (P.L. 114-254).
b. Amount does not include $17.4 bil ion in emergency funding for USACE and DOE (P.L. 115-123).
c. Amount does not include supplemental funding provided by P.L. 116-20 ($3.258 bil ion for USACE and
$15.85 mil ion for Reclamation).
d. Amount does not include supplemental funding provided by P.L. 116-136.
e. Amount does not include emergency funding.
Description of Major Energy and Water Programs
The annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bil includes four titles: Title I—Corps
of Engineers—Civil; Title II—Department of the Interior (Bureau of Reclamation and Central
Utah Project); Title III—Department of Energy; and Title IV—Independent Agencies, as shown
in Table 4. Major programs in the bil are described in this section in the approximate order they
appear in the bil . Previous appropriations and the amounts recommended and approved during
the major stages of the FY2021 appropriations process are shown in the accompanying tables,
and additional details about many of these programs are provided in separate CRS reports as
indicated. For a discussion of current funding issues related to these programs, see “Funding
Issues and Initiatives,” above. Congressional clients may obtain more detailed information by
contacting CRS analysts listed in CRS Report R42638, Appropriations: CRS Experts, by James
M. Specht and Justin Murray.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 29 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Majority
FY2021
Title
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Title I: Corps of
6,827
6,999
7,650
5,966
7,629
7,722
7,796
Engineers
Title II: CUP and
1,480
1,565
1,680
1,138
1,655
1,690
1,691
Reclamation
Title III: Department
34,569
35,709
38,657
35,729
40,864
42,041
39,627
of Energy
Title IV: Independent
392
390
407
333
389
413
414
Agencies
General provisions
—
21
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
43,268
44,684
48,395
43,169
50,536
51,866
49,528
Rescissions and
-49
-24
-71
-610
-935
-2
-3
Scorekeeping
Adjustmentsa
E&W Total
43,219
44,660
48,324
42,559
49,601
51,864
49,525
FY2021 Emergency

44,050

Supplemental
Total with

93,651

Supplemental
Sources: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617; H.Rept. 116-449; President’s Budget FY2021; Explanatory Statement for Division C of
H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; S. 2470; H.R. 2740; CBO Current Status Report; H.Rept. 116-83;
H.Rept. 115-929; S.Rept. 115-258; and P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement. Subtotals may include other
adjustments. Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding and adjustments.
a. Budget “scorekeeping” refers to official determinations of spending amounts for congressional budget
enforcement purposes. These scorekeeping adjustments may include rescissions and offsetting revenues
from various sources.
Agency Budget Justifications
FY2021 budget justifications for the largest agencies funded by the annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations bil can be found through the links below. The justifications provide
detailed descriptions and funding breakouts for programs, projects, and activities under the
agencies’ jurisdiction.
 Title I, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, http://www.usace.army.mil/
Missions/CivilWorks/Budget
 Title II
 Bureau of Reclamation, https://www.usbr.gov/budget/
 Central Utah Project, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
fy2020_cupca_budget_justification.pdf
Congressional Research Service

24

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

 Title III, Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2021-
budget-justification
 Title IV, Independent Agencies
 Appalachian Regional Commission, https://www.arc.gov/publications/
BudgetDocuments.asp
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/
 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, https://www.dnfsb.gov/about/
congressional-budget-requests
 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, http://www.nwtrb.gov/about-us/
plans
Army Corps of Engineers
USACE is an agency in the Department of Defense with both military and civilian
responsibilities. Under its civil works program, which is funded by the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bil , USACE plans, builds, operates, and in some cases maintains
water resource facilities for coastal and inland navigation, riverine and coastal flood risk
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.53
In recent decades, Congress has general y authorized USACE studies, construction projects, and
other activities in omnibus water authorization bil s, typical y titled as Water Resources
Development Acts (WRDA), prior to funding them through appropriations legislation. Recent
Congresses enacted the following omnibus water resources authorization acts: in June 2014, the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121); in December
2016, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322, the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act [WIIN Act]); and in October 2018, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018 (Title I of P.L. 115-270, America’s Water Infrastructure Act
of 2018 [AWIA 2018]). These acts consisted largely of authorizations for new USACE projects,
and they altered numerous USACE policies and procedures.54
Unlike for highways and in municipal water infrastructure programs, federal funds for USACE
are not distributed to states or projects based on formulas or delivered via competitive grants.
Instead, USACE general y is directly involved in planning, designing, and managing the
construction of projects that are cost-shared with nonfederal project sponsors.
From the 112th to the 116th Congresses, earmark moratorium policies limited congressional y
directed funding of site-specific projects (i.e., earmarks). Prior to the 112th Congress, Congress
would direct funds to specific projects not in the budget request or increase funds for certain
projects. For FY2011-FY2021, Congress appropriated additional funding for categories of
USACE work without identifying specific projects. For example, in FY2020, Congress provided
$2.53 bil ion in additional funding for 26 categories of USACE activities (e.g., construction
related to flood and storm damage reduction). After congressional enactment of the
appropriations legislation and accompanying report language on priorities and other guidance for

53 Military responsibilities are funded through the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
54 For more information on USACE authorization legislation, see CRS In Focus IF11322, Water Resources
Developm ent Acts: Prim er, by Nicole T . Carter and Anna E. Normand, and CRS Report R45185, Arm y Corps of
Engineers: Water Resource Authorization and Project Delivery Processes, by Nicole T . Carter and Anna E. Normand.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

use of the additional funding, the Administration develops a work plan that reports on (1) the
studies and construction projects selected to receive funding for the first time (new starts) and (2)
the specific projects receiving additional funds. For more information, see CRS In Focus
IF11462, Army Corps of Engineers: FY2021 Appropriations, by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T.
Carter, and CRS Report R46320, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Annual Appropriations Process
and Issues for Congress, by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter. Table 5 shows USACE
appropriations accounts from FY2018.
Table 5. Army Corps of Engineers
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Majority
FY2021
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Investigations and
123.0
125.0
151.0
102.6
151.0
151.2
153.0
Planning
Construction
2,085.0
2,183.0
2,681.0
2,173.2a
2,619.9
2,661.0
2,692.7
Mississippi River
425.0
368.0
375.0
209.9a
365.0
395.0
380.0
and Tributaries
(MR&T)
Operation and
3,630.0
3,739.5
3,790.0
1,996.5a
3,838.0
3,781.0
3,849.7
Maintenance
(O&M)
Regulatory
200.0
200.0
210.0
200.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
General
185.0
193.0
203.0
187.0
195.0
211.0
206.0
Expenses
FUSRAPb
139.0
150.0
200.0
0
210.0
250.0
250.0
Flood Control
35.0
35.0
35.0
77.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
and Coastal
Emergencies
(FCCE)
Office of the
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
Asst. Secretary of
the Army
Water

25.0
14.2c
Infrastructure
Finance and
Innovation
(WIFIA) Program
Harbor

1,015.0

Maintenance
Trust Fund
Congressional Research Service

26

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Majority
FY2021
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Inland

0

Waterways Trust
Fund
Rescissions

-0.5
Total Title I
6,827.0
6,998.5
7,650.0
5,966.2
7,628.9
7,722.2
7,795.0
FY2021

17,000.0

Emergency
Supplemental
Total with

24,628.9

Supplemental
Sources: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617, H.Rept. 116-449; President’s Budget, FY2021; Explanatory Statement for Division C of
H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; S. 2470; H.R. 2740; CBO Current Status Report; H.Rept. 116-83;
FY2020 Budget Justification; H.Rept. 115-929; S.Rept. 115-258; S.Rept. 115-132; H.Rept. 115-230; and P.L. 115-
31 and explanatory statement. FY2020 and FY2021 request numbers can be found at
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil- Works/Budget/. Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding.
a. In the Administration’s request, some activities that would have previously been funded in these accounts
were proposed to be funded directly from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) and Inland
Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) accounts. That is, the Administration proposed funding eligible USACE
activities directly from the trust funds. This would replace the current practice of having USACE’s O&M,
Construction, and MR&T accounts incur expenses for HMTF-eligible and IWTF-eligible activities, and for
these expenses to be reimbursed from the HMTF and IWTF accounts. For example, HMTF-eligible
maintenance dredging would no longer be funded by the O&M account and reimbursed by th e HMTF;
instead the dredging would be funded directly from the HMTF account. Similar proposals were not enacted
in FY2019 and FY2020.
b. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The Administration’s FY2020 and FY2021 requests
proposed transferring administration and funding of FUSRAP to the DOE Office of Legacy Management, but
the proposal was not enacted in either year.
c. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, created a new USACE account to support direct loans and for
the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014
(Title V, Subtitle C of P.L. 113-121).
Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the
assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood
control and navigation projects, Reclamation’s original mission was to develop water supplies,
primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West for farming and ranching. Reclamation
has evolved into an agency that assists in meeting the water demands in the West while working
to protect the environment and the public’s investment in Reclamation infrastructure. The
agency’s municipal and industrial water deliveries have more than doubled since 1970.
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 mil ion
acres of farmland and 31 mil ion people. 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 other benefits.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 33 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Reclamation facility operations are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and
wildlife species and because of conflicts among competing water users during drought conditions.
As with the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation budget is made up largely of individual project
funding lines, rather than general programs that would not be covered by congressional earmark
requirements. Therefore, as with USACE, these Reclamation projects have often been subject to
earmark disclosure rules. The moratorium on earmarks through FY2021 restricted congressional
steering of money directly toward specific Reclamation projects.
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.55 Reclamation also typical y requests funds in a
number of smal er accounts, and has proposed additional accounts in recent years.
Implementation and oversight of the Central Utah Project, also funded by Title II, is conducted by
a separate office within the Department of the Interior.56
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11465, Bureau of Reclamation: FY2021
Appropriations, by Charles V. Stern. Previous appropriations and the amounts recommended and
approved during the major stages of the FY2021 appropriations process are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Bureau of Reclamation and CUP
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021
Program
Approp
Approp
Approp
Request
House
Draft
Approp
Water and Related
1,332.1
1,392.0
1,512.2
979.0
1,487.0
1,521.1
1,521.1
Resources
Policy and Administration
59.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
54.0
60.0
60.0
CVP Restoration Fund
41.4
62.0
54.8
55.9
55.9
55.9
55.9
(CVPRF)
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
37.0
35.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
Gross Current
1,469.5
1,550.0
1,660.0
1,127.9
1,629.9
1,670.0
1,670.0
Reclamation Authority
Central Utah Project
10.5
15.0
20.0
10.0
25.0
20.0
21.0
(CUP) Completion

55 T he Water and Related Resources Account is largely funded by the Reclamation Fund, which receives and
distributes receipts related to a number of federal activities (including royalties received from oil and gas leasing on
federal lands). For more on this fund and financing of selected Reclamation Projects, see CRS Report R41844, The
Reclam ation Fund: A Prim er, by Charles V. Stern.
56 T he Central Utah Project moves water from the Colorado River basin in eastern Utah to the western slopes of the
Wasatch Mountain range. It was authorized in 1956 under the Colorado River Storage Project Act (P.L. 84 -485). For
more information, see the CUP website at https://www.cupcao.gov/.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 34 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021
Program
Approp
Approp
Approp
Request
House
Draft
Approp
Total, Title II Current
1,480.0
1,565.0
1,680.0
1,137.9
1,654.9
1,690.0
1,691.0
Authority (CUP and
Reclamation)
FY2021 Emergency

3,000.0

Supplemental
Total with

4,654.9

Supplemental
Sources: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617, H.Rept. 116-449; President’s Budget, FY2021; Explanatory Statement for Division C of
H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; H.R. 2740; CBO Current Status Report; H.Rept. 116-83; FY2020
Budget Justifications; H.Rept. 115-929; S.Rept. 115-258; S.Rept. 115-132; H.Rept. 115-230; and P.L. 115-31 and
explanatory statement. Excludes offsets and permanent appropriations.
Notes: Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. CVP = Central Val ey Project.
Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bil has funded al DOE programs since
FY2005. Major DOE activities include (1) R&D on renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear
power, fossil energy, and electricity; (2) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; (3) energy statistics,
projections, and analysis; (4) general science; (5) loan programs; (6) environmental cleanup; and
(7) nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs. Table 7 provides the recent funding history
for DOE programs, which are briefly described further below.
Table 7. Department of Energy
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021

Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and
2,321.8
2,379.0
2,799.0
719.6
2,850.2
2,848.0
2,861.8
Renewable Energy
Electricity Delivery and
248.3

—
Energy Reliabilitya
Electricity Delivery

156.0
190.0
195.0
195.0
223.0
211.7
Cybersecurity, Energy

120.0
156.0
184.6
165.0
156.0
156.0
Security, and Emerg. Resp.
Nuclear Energy
1,205.1
1,326.1
1,493.4b
1,179.9c
1,435.8
1,505.3
1,507.6
Fossil Energy R&D
726.8
740.0
750.0
730.6
735.0
750.0
750.0
Uranium Reserve

150.0
0
120.0
0d
Naval Petroleum and Oil
4.9
10.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Shale Reserves
Congressional Research Service

29

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021

Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Strategic Petroleum
260.4
245.0
205.0
119.1
202.5
188.1
189.0
Reserve
Northeast Home Heating
6.5
10.0
10.0
-84.0
10.0
10.0
6.5
Oil Reserve
Energy Information
125.0
125.0
126.8
128.7
126.8
126.8
126.8
Administration
Non-Defense
298.4
310.0
319.2
275.8
315.0
326.0
319.2
Environmental Cleanup
Uranium Enrichment
840.0
841.1
881.0
806.2
821.6
848.0
841.0
Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund
Science
6,259.9
6,585.0
7,000.0
5,837.8
7,055.0
7,026.0
7,026.0
AI Technology Office

4.9
0
0
0
Advanced Research
353.3
366.0
425.0
-310.7
435.0
430.0
427.0
Projects Agency—Energy
(ARPA-E)
Nuclear Waste Disposal
0
0
0
27.5
27.5
0
27.5
Departmental Admin.
189.7
165.9
161.0
136.1
137.9
161.0
166.0
(net)
Office of Inspector
49.0
51.3
54.2
57.7
57.7
57.7
57.7
General
International Affairs

0
0
33.0
0
0
0
Office of Indian Energy
0
18.0
22.0
8.0
22.3
22.0
22.0
Advanced Technology
5.0
5.0
5.0
0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicles Manufacturing
(ATVM) Loans
ATVM Rescission of

-1,908.0
Emergency Funding
Title 17 Loan Guarantee
23.0
18.0
29.0
-384.7
29.0
29.0
29.0
Title 17 Rescission of

-392.0
Emergency Funding
Tribal Indian Energy Loan
1.0
1.0
2.0
-8.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
Guarantee
TOTAL, ENERGY
12,918.0
13,472.4 14,633.6
9,819.7 14,641.3 14,846.9
12,444.8
PROGRAMS
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons Activities
10,642.1
11,100.0
12,457.1
15,602.0
13,659.6
15,602.0
15,345.0
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,999.2
1,930.0
2,164.4
2,031.0
2,240.0
2,095.0
2,260.0
Naval Reactors
1,620.0
1,788.6
1,648.4
1,684.0
1,684.0
1,684.0
1,684.0
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 36 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021

Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Office of Admin./Salaries
407.6
410.0
434.7
454.0
454.0
443.2
443.2
and Expenses
Total, NNSA
14,669.0
15,228.6 16,704.6 19,771.0 18,037.6 19,824.2 19,732.2
Defense Environmental
5,988.0
6,024.0
6,255.0
4,983.6
6,321.0
6,360.0
6,426.0
Cleanup
Defense Uranium

821.6

Enrichment D&D
Other Defense Activities
840.0
860.3
906.0
1,054.7b
942.3
906.0
920.0
Defense Nuclear Waste
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Disposal
TOTAL, DEFENSE
21,497.0
22,112.9 23,865.6
25,809.3 26,122.5 27,090.2
27,078.2
ACTIVITIES
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMAs)
Southwestern
11.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
Western
93.4
89.4
89.2
89.4
89.4
89.4
89.4
Falcon and Amistad O&M
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TOTAL, PMAs
105.0
100.0
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
General provisions

-12.7
-607.0

2.0
2.0
DOE total
34,569.1
35,708.9 38,657.2
35,732.2 40,863.8 42,041.4
39,627.3e
appropriations
Offsets and adjustments
-49.0
-23.6
-70.9
-610.2
—
-2.2
-2.2
Total, DOE
34,520.1
35,685.3 38,586.3
35,122.1 40,863.8 42,039.1
39,625.0
FY2021 Emergency

24,050.0

Supplemental
Total with

64,913.8

Supplemental
Sources: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617; H.Rept. 116-449; President’s Budget, FY2021; Explanatory Statement for Division C of
H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; H.R. 2740; CBO Current Status Report; H.Rept. 116-83; H.Rept.
115-929; S.Rept. 115-258; S.Rept. 115-132; H.Rept. 115-230; and P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement.
Notes: Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. AI = Artificial Intel igence.
a. The Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability was split in FY2019 into the Office of Electricity
Delivery and the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response.
b. Includes defense budget function funding of $153.4 mil ion in FY2020 and $137.8 mil ion.
c. Includes $141 mil ion for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program that is currently managed by
USACE.
d. Uranium Reserve funding of $75 mil ion provided under Weapons Activities account.
e. Total excludes $2.2 mil ion rescission from EERE that is included under “offsets and adjustments.”
Congressional Research Service

31

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) conducts research and
development on transportation energy technology, energy efficiency in buildings and
manufacturing processes, and the production of solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable
energy. EERE also administers formula grants to states.
The Sustainable Transportation program area includes electric vehicles, vehicle efficiency, and
alternative fuels. DOE’s electric vehicle program aims to “reduce the cost of electric vehicle
batteries by more than half, to less than $100/kWh [kilowatt-hour] (ultimate goal is $80/kWh),
increase range to 300 miles, and decrease charge time to 15 minutes or less.” DOE’s vehicle fuel
cel program is focusing on the costs of fuel cel s and hydrogen to fuel them. According to the
FY2021 budget request, “Investments in fuel cel technologies wil increase the emphasis on
heavy-duty vehicles and new applications (e.g., trucks, marine, rail, aviation, data centers).”
Regarding biofuels R&D, the DOE request said, “By 2030, the U.S. has the potential to produce 1
bil ion dry tons of non-food biomass resources without disrupting agricultural markets for food
and animal feed.”57
Renewable power programs focus on electricity generation from solar, wind, water, and
geothermal sources. The solar energy program has a goal of achieving, by 2030, costs of 3 cents
per kWh for unsubsidized, utility-scale photovoltaics (PV) and 5 cents/kWh for baseload
concentrating solar power (CSP) systems. This would require cost reductions of 40%-65% below
DOE’s 2018 benchmarks. Wind R&D is to focus on early-stage research and testing to reduce
costs and improve performance and reliability. For the geothermal program, DOE requested
funding in FY2021 to “support two new subsurface enhancement and sustainability efforts”: one
on wel technology to isolate geothermal target zones, and the other on assessing reservoir
properties for enhanced geothermal systems.58
In the energy efficiency program area, the advanced manufacturing program focuses on
improving the energy efficiency of manufacturing processes and on the manufacturing of energy-
related products. The building technologies program includes R&D on lighting, space
conditioning, windows, and control technologies to reduce building energy-use intensity. The
energy efficiency program provides two types of formula grants to states: weatherization grants
for improving the energy efficiency of low-income housing units and state energy planning
grants.59
For more details, see CRS Report R44980, DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE): Appropriations Status, by Corrie E. Clark.
Electricity Delivery, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Energy Reliability
The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) was created
from programs that were previously part of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability. The programs that were not moved into CESER became part of the DOE Office of
Electricity (OE).60

57 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 1, p. 12, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/
04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-3-part-1.pdf.
58 Ibid., p. 13.
59 Ibid., p. 14.
60 DOE, “Secretary of Energy Rick Perry Forms New Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency
Congressional Research Service

32

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

OE’s mission is to lead DOE efforts “to strengthen, transform, and improve energy infrastructure
so that consumers have access to secure and resilient sources of energy.” Major priorities of OE
are developing a model of North American energy vulnerabilities, pursuing megawatt-scale
electricity storage, integrating electric power system sensing technology, and analyzing
electricity-related policy issues.61 The office also includes the DOE power marketing
administrations, which are funded from separate appropriations accounts.
CESER is the federal government’s lead entity for energy sector-specific responses to energy
security emergencies—whether caused by physical infrastructure problems or by cybersecurity
issues. The office conducts R&D on energy infrastructure security technology; provides energy
sector security guidelines, training, and technical assistance; and enhances energy sector
emergency preparedness and response.62
DOE’s Multiyear Plan for Energy Sector Cybersecurity describes the department’s strategy to
“strengthen today’s energy delivery systems by working with our partners to address growing
threats and promote continuous improvement, and develop game-changing solutions that wil
create inherently secure, resilient, and self-defending energy systems for tomorrow.”63 The plan
includes three goals that DOE has established for energy sector cybersecurity:
 strengthen energy sector cybersecurity preparedness;
 coordinate cyber incident response and recovery; and
 accelerate research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of resilient energy
delivery systems.
Nuclear Energy
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) “focuses on three major mission areas: the nation’s
existing nuclear fleet, the development of advanced nuclear reactor concepts, and fuel cycle
technologies,” according to DOE’s FY2021 budget justification. It cal ed nuclear energy “a key
element of United States energy independence, energy dominance, electricity grid resiliency,
national security, and clean baseload power.”64
The Reactor Concepts program area comprises research on advanced reactors, including
advanced smal modular reactors, and research to enhance the “sustainability” of existing
commercial light water reactors. Advanced reactor research focuses on “Generation IV” reactors,
as opposed to the existing fleet of commercial light water reactors, which are general y classified
as generations II and III. R&D under this program focuses on advanced coolants, fuels, materials,
and other technology areas that could apply to a variety of advanced reactors. To help develop
those technologies, the Reactor Concepts program is developing a Versatile Test Reactor that
would al ow fuels and materials to be tested in a fast neutron environment (in which neutrons
would not be slowed by water, graphite, or other “moderators”). Research on extending the life of
existing commercial light water reactors (moderated and cooled by ordinary water) beyond 60

Response,” press release, February 14, 2018, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-rick-perry-forms-new-
office-cybersecurity-energy-security-and-emergency.
61 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 1, February 2020, p. 262, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-3-part-1.pdf.
62 Ibid., p. 317.
63 DOE, Multiyear Plan for Energy Sector Cybersecurity, March 2018, p. 5, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2018/05/f51/DOE%20Multiyear%20Plan%20for%20Energy%20Sector%20Cybersecurity%20_0.pdf.
64 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, February 2020, p. 9, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-3-part-2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

33

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

years, the maximum operating period currently licensed by NRC, is being conducted by this
program with industry cost-sharing.
The Fuel Cycle Research and Development program includes generic research on nuclear waste
management and disposal. One of the program’s primary activities is the development of
technologies to separate the radioactive constituents of spent fuel for reuse or solidifying into
stable waste forms. 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, and development of improved technologies to prevent diversion of nuclear materials for
weapons. The program is also developing sources of high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU),
in which uranium is enriched to between 5% and 20% in the fissile isotope U-235, for potential
use in advanced reactors.
DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program was initiated by the explanatory statement for
the enacted FY2020 appropriations measure, with continued funding provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The program is to provide up to 50% cost sharing for two
nuclear reactor demonstration projects, up to 20% cost sharing for development work for two to
five additional demonstrations, and funding for related advanced reactor commercialization
activities. For more information, see CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors:
Technology Overview and Current Issues, by Daniel e A. Arostegui and Mark Holt.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Much of DOE’s Fossil Energy R&D Program focuses on technologies for use by coal-fired power
plants. Major activities include Advanced Coal Energy Systems and Carbon Capture, Utilization,
and Storage (CCUS); Natural Gas Technologies; and Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies
from Petroleum—Oil Technologies.
Advanced Coal Energy Systems includes R&D on modular coal-gasification systems, advanced
turbines, solid oxide fuel cel s, advanced sensors and controls, and power generation efficiency.
Elements of the CCUS program include the following:
 Carbon Capture subprogram for separating CO2 in both precombustion and
postcombustion systems;
 Carbon Utilization subprogram for R&D on technologies, including direct air
capture, to convert carbon to marketable products, such as chemicals and
polymers; and
 Carbon Storage subprogram on long-term geologic storage of CO2, focusing on
saline formations, oil and natural gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, basalts,
and organic shales.65
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture, by
Ashley J. Lawson.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Authorized in 1975 by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163, as amended; 42
U.S.C. §6201 et seq.), the SPR fulfil s two statutory policy objectives: (1) reduce the economic
impact of oil supply disruptions, and (2) carry out U.S. obligations under the Agreement on an

65 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, February 2020, p. 195, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-3-part-2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

34

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

International Energy Program (IEP)—a multilateral agreement subject to international law.
Currently, the SPR consists of a crude oil reserve in Texas and Louisiana and a smal er refined
petroleum product reserve in several Northeastern states.
Since the SPR was established, its crude oil stocks have been used on three occasions in response
to emergency oil supply disruptions. More frequently, SPR authorities have been used to
exchange crude oil with refiners following natural disasters (i.e., hurricanes) and other regional
supply disruption events.66 The northeast gasoline supply reserve (NGSR)—established in
2014—has never been utilized.
With limited utilization in response to emergency oil supply disruptions, growing U.S. crude oil
production, and rapidly declining net petroleum imports—one key metric used to determine IEP
emergency oil stock obligations—Congress began requiring DOE to draw down and sel SPR
crude oil to pay for other legislative priorities. Since 2015, Congress has enacted seven laws
mandating the sale of 271 mil ion barrels of crude oil. Additional y, Congress has required DOE
to sel approximately $1.5 bil ion of SPR crude oil to pay for an SPR modernization program.67
Science and ARPA-E
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. According to DOE’s FY2021 budget
justification, the Office of Science “is the Nation’s largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the
physical sciences and the lead Federal agency supporting fundamental scientific research for our
Nation’s energy future.”68
DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program focuses on developing and
maintaining computing and networking capabilities for science and research in applied
mathematics, computer science, and advanced networking. The program plays a key role in the
DOE-wide effort to advance the development of exascale computing, which seeks to build a
computer that can solve scientific problems 1,000 times faster than today’s best machines. DOE
has asserted that the department is on a path to have a capable exascale machine by the early
2020s.
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), the largest program area in the Office of Science, focuses on
understanding, predicting, and ultimately controlling matter and energy at the electronic, atomic,
and molecular levels. The program supports research in disciplines such as condensed matter and
materials physics, chemistry, and geosciences. BES also provides funding for scientific user
facilities (e.g., the National Synchrotron Light Source II, and the Linac Coherent Light Source-
II), and certain DOE research centers and hubs (e.g., Energy Frontier Research Centers, as wel as
the Batteries and Energy Storage and Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hubs).
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) seeks a predictive understanding of complex
biological, climate, and environmental systems across a continuum from the smal scale (e.g.,
genomic research) to the large (e.g., Earth systems and climate). Within BER, Biological Systems

66 For additional information about SPR releases, see U.S. Department of Energy, History of SPR Releases, at
https://www.energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/strategic-petroleum-reserve/releasing-oil-spr, accessed
November 12, 2020.
67 For additional information about congressionally required SPR oil sales, see Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Mandated
and Modernization Sales, by Phillip Brown, a congressional distribution memo available to congressional clients by
request from the author.
68 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 4, February 2020, p, 7, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2020/03/f72/doe-fy2021-budget -volume-4_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

35

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Science focuses on plant and microbial systems, while Biological and Environmental Research
supports climate-relevant atmospheric and ecosystem modeling and research. BER facilities and
centers include four Bioenergy Research Centers and the Environmental Molecular Science
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) seeks to increase understanding of the behavior of matter at very
high temperatures and to establish the science needed to develop a fusion energy source. FES
provides funding for the ITER project, a multinational effort to design and build an experimental
fusion reactor.
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program conducts research on the fundamental constituents of
matter and energy, including studies of dark energy and the search for dark matter. Nuclear
Physics supports research on the nature of matter, including its basic constituents and their
interactions. A major project in the Nuclear Physics program is the construction of the Facility for
Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University.
Two significant research efforts in the Office of Science cut across multiple program areas:
quantum information science, which aims to use quantum physics to process information, and
artificial intel igence and machine learning, which use computerized systems that work and react
in ways commonly thought to require intel igence.
A separate DOE office, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, was authorized by the
America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to support transformational energy technology research
projects. DOE budget documents describe ARPA-E’s mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk
technological barriers to the development of energy technologies.
For more details, see CRS Report R46341, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding:
FY2021, coordinated by John F. Sargent Jr.
Loan Guarantees and Direct Loans
DOE’s Loan Programs Office provides loan guarantees for projects that deploy innovative energy
technologies, as authorized by Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-
58), direct loans for advanced vehicle manufacturing technologies, and loan guarantees for tribal
energy projects. Section 1703 of EPACT05 authorized loan guarantees for advanced energy
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Section 1705 authorized a temporary
program through FY2011 for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
Title 17 al ows DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 80% of construction costs for eligible
energy projects. Successful applicants must pay an up-front fee, or “subsidy cost,” to cover
potential losses under the loan guarantee program. Under the loan guarantee agreements, the
federal government would repay al covered loans if the borrower defaulted. Such guarantees
would reduce the risk to lenders and al ow them to provide financing at below -market interest
rates.
DOE currently has more than $40 bil ion in authority available to make direct loans and loan
guarantees in the following categories:69
 Advanced Fossil Energy Projects Loan Guarantees, $8.5 bil ion;
 Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Loan Guarantees, $10.9 bil ion;

69 DOE, “Products and Services,” as of April 23, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/title-xvii/products-
services#innovativeenergy.
Congressional Research Service

36

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

 Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Loan Guarantees, up to $4.5
bil ion;
 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $17.7 bil ion in
direct loan authority; and
 Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program, up to $2 bil ion in partial loan guarantee
authority.
The only loan guarantees under Section 1703 have been $8.3 bil ion in guarantees provided to the
consortium building two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. DOE committed an
additional $3.7 bil ion in loan guarantees for the Vogtle project on March 22, 2019.70 Another
nuclear loan guarantee is being sought by NuScale Power to build a smal modular reactor in
Idaho.71
Energy Information Administration
The U.S. Energy Information Administration was established within DOE as the lead federal
agency for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data on U.S. and world energy supply and
consumption. EIA data collection spans the energy system from supply and transport to
consumption. Al energy sources are included in EIA’s data and analysis products, though some
(e.g., petroleum) are more detailed than others (e.g., renewables). The explanatory statement for
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, directed DOE to submit a report to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees on improving EIA’s energy modeling capabilities “to be able
to simulate deep decarbonization scenarios, including economy-wide net-zero emissions
policies.” For more details, see CRS Report R46524, The U.S. Energy Information
Administration, coordinated by Ashley J. Lawson.
Nuclear Weapons Activities
In the absence of explosive testing of nuclear weapons, the United States has adopted a science-
based program to maintain and sustain confidence in the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160). The goal of the program, as amended by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (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 NNSA, a semiautonomous agency within DOE
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65, Title
XXXII). NNSA implements the Stockpile Stewardship Program through the activities funded by
the Weapons Activities account in the NNSA budget.
Most of NNSA’s weapons activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which consists of
three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas
City National Security Campus, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12
National Security Complex, TN); and the Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada

70 DOE, “Secretary Perry Announces Financial Close on Additional Loan Guarantees During T rip to Vogtle Advanced
Nuclear Energy Project,” news release, March 22, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-perry-announces-
financial-close-additional-loan-guarantees-during-trip-vogtle.
71 NuScale Power, “ NuScale Power, LLC Submits Part II of DOE Loan Guarantee Application ,” news release,
September 6, 2017, http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/nuscale-power-llc-submits-part -ii-doe-loan-
guarantee-application. More information about DOE loans and loan guarantees is at the Loan Programs Office website,
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/loan-programs-office.
Congressional Research Service

37

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Test Site). NNSA manages and sets policy for the weapons complex; contractors to NNSA
operate the eight sites. Radiological activities at these sites are subject to oversight and
recommendations by the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, funded by Title IV
of the annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bil .
NNSA reorganized and renamed its program areas in its FY2021 budget request. The four main
programs, each with a request of over $2 bil ion for FY2021, include the following:
 Stockpile Management, which contains many of the projects included in Directed
Stockpile Work from previous years, supports work directly on nuclear weapons.
These include life extension programs, warhead surveil ance, maintenance, and
other activities.
 Stockpile Production programs focus on maintaining and expanding the
production capabilities for the components of nuclear weapons that are critical to
weapons performance. According to NNSA, these include primaries, canned
subassemblies, radiation cases, and non-nuclear components.
 Stockpile Research, Technology, and Engineering replaces the Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation program area. These programs provide the
scientific foundation for science-based stockpile decisions.
 Infrastructure and Operations maintains, operates, and modernizes the NNSA
infrastructure. It supports construction of new facilities and funds deferred
maintenance in older facilities.
Nuclear Weapons Activities also has several smal er programs, including the following:
 Secure Transportation Asset, providing for safe and secure transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials;
 Defense Nuclear Security, providing operations, maintenance, and construction
funds for protective forces, physical security systems, personnel security, and
related activities; and
 Information Technology and Cybersecurity, whose elements include
cybersecurity, secure enterprise computing, and Federal Unclassified Information
Technology.
For more information, see CRS Report R44442, Energy and Water Development Appropriations:
Nuclear Weapons Activities, by Amy F. Woolf, and CRS Report R45306, The U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites, by Amy F. Woolf and James D.
Werner.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
programs are administered by NNSA’s Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN).
The Materials Management and Minimization program conducts activities to minimize and,
where possible, eliminate stockpiles of weapons-useable material around the world. Major
activities include conversion of reactors that use highly enriched uranium (useable for weapons)
to low-enriched uranium, removal and consolidation of nuclear material stockpiles, and
disposition of excess nuclear materials.
Congressional Research Service

38

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Global Materials Security has three major program elements. International Nuclear Security
focuses on increasing the security of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material in other countries.
Radiological Security promotes the worldwide reduction and security of radioactive sources
(typical y used in medical and industrial devices), including the removal of surplus sources and
substitution of technologies that do not use radioactive materials. Nuclear Smuggling Detection
and Deterrence works to improve the capability of other countries to halt il icit trafficking of
nuclear materials.
Nonproliferation and Arms Control works to “to support U.S. nonproliferation and arms control
objectives to prevent proliferation, ensure peaceful nuclear uses, and enable verifiable nuclear
reductions,” according to the FY2021 DOE justification.72 This program conducts reviews of
nuclear export applications and technology transfer authorizations, implements treaty obligations,
and analyzes nonproliferation policies and proposals.
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Research and Development (NTNF R&D) was proposed as
a new NNSA program for FY2021, with the request moving $40 mil ion for NTNF from the
Nuclear Detonation Detection subprogram under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D. The
full request was included in the enacted measure. The NTNF operational readiness mission had
been located in the Department of Homeland Security. The budget request said that the NTNF
program would al ow NNSA to “take on a more active leadership role” in nuclear forensics.
Another, existing DNN program, Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response, carries out
activities to “protect our nation and its citizens from nuclear terrorism and incidents or accidents
involving the release of radiological material,” according to the FY2021 budget justification.73
Other DNN programs include R&D and Nonproliferation Construction.
For more information, see CRS Report R44413, Energy and Water Development Appropriations
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: In Brief , by Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
Cleanup of Former Nuclear Weapons Production and Research Sites
The development and production of nuclear weapons since the beginning of the Manhattan
Project74 during World War II resulted in a waste and contamination legacy managed by DOE that
continues to present substantial chal enges. DOE also manages legacy environmental
contamination at sites used for nondefense nuclear research. In 1989, DOE established the Office
of Environmental Management primarily to consolidate its responsibilities for the cleanup of
former nuclear weapons production sites that had been administered under multiple offices.75
DOE’s nuclear cleanup efforts are broad in scope and include the disposal of large quantities of
radioactive and other hazardous wastes generated over decades; management and disposal of
surplus nuclear materials; remediation of extensive contamination in soil and groundwater;

72 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 1, p. 613, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/03/
f72/doe-fy2021-budget-volume-1_2.pdf.
73 Ibid., p. 665.
74 As described by the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, “The Manhattan Project was a massive, top secret
national mobilization of scientists, engineers, technicians, and military personnel charged with producing a deployable
atomic weapon during World War II. Coordinated by the US Army, Manhattan Project activities were located in
numerous locations across the United States.” T he nuclear weapons activities begun by the Manhattan Project are now
the responsibility of DOE. See National Park Service, Manhattan Project National Historical Park website,
https://www.nps.gov/mapr/learn/historyculture/index.htm.
75 In 1989, DOE created the Office of Environmental Restoration and Wast e Management, which later was renamed the
Office of Environmental Management.
Congressional Research Service

39

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

decontamination and decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities; and safeguarding,
securing, and maintaining facilities while cleanup is underway.76 DOE’s cleanup of nuclear
research sites adds a nondefense component to EM’s mission, albeit smal er in terms of the scope
of their cleanup and associated funding.77
DOE has identified more than 100 separate sites in over 30 states that historical y were involved
in the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research for civilian purposes.78 These
sites collectively encompass a land area of approximately 2 mil ion acres. Cleanup remedies are
in place and operational at the majority of these sites. 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.79 Some of the
smal er sites for which DOE initial y was responsible were transferred to the Army Corps of
Engineers in 1997 under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Once USACE
completes the cleanup of a FUSRAP site, it is transferred back to DOE for long-term stewardship
under the Office of Legacy Management, which is separate from EM and has its own DOE
funding subaccount within Other Defense Activities.
Three appropriations accounts fund the Office of Environmental Management. The Defense
Environmental Cleanup account is the largest in terms of funding, and it finances the cleanup of
former nuclear weapons production sites. The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account
funds the cleanup of federal nuclear energy research sites. Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-486) established the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cleanup of three federal facilities that enriched uranium for
national defense and civilian purposes.80 Those facilities are located near Paducah, KY; Piketon,
OH (Portsmouth plant); and Oak Ridge, TN. DOE declared the cleanup of the Oak Ridge
enrichment site complete on October 13, 2020.81 Title X of P.L. 102-486 authorized the
reimbursement of uranium and thorium producers for their costs of cleaning up contamination
attributable to uranium and thorium sold to the federal government.82
The adequacy of funding for the Office of Environmental Management to attain cleanup
milestones across the entire site inventory has been a recurring issue. Cleanup milestones are
enforceable measures incorporated into compliance agreements negotiated among DOE, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the states. These milestones establish time frames for the
completion of specific actions to satisfy applicable requirements at individual sites.

76 T he term “cleanup” often refers to the remediation of risks at a site. Cleanup may not necessarily entail the removal
of all hazards from a site, but in some instances may invo lve the permanent containment of wastes or contamination to
address exposure risks. If residual waste or contamination remains on-site after cleanup is complete, long-term
stewardship may continue to monitor the site and ensure that cleanup measures continue to operate effectively.
77 For additional information on the history, mission, and scope of the Office of Environmental Management, see the
EM website: http://energy.gov/em/office-environmental-management.
78 For a list of active and completed sites, see the EM “Cleanup Sites” web page and interactive map at
http://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites.
79 T he Office of Legacy Management administers the long-term stewardship of DOE sites that do not have a continuing
mission once cleanup remedies are in place. Sites that have a continuing mission are transferred to the DOE offices that
administer those missions, which are responsible for their long-term stewardship.
80 42 U.S.C. §2297g.
81 DOE, Office of Environmental Management, “Workers Achieve Historic Cleanup of Uranium Enrichment
Complex,” news release, October 13, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/workers-achieve-historic-cleanup-
uranium-enrichment -complex.
82 42 U.S.C. §2296a.
Congressional Research Service

40

link to page 47 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Power Marketing Administrations
DOE’s four Power Marketing Administrations were established to sel the power generated by
various federal dams. Preference in the sale of power is given to publicly owned and
cooperatively owned utilities. The PMAs operate in 34 states; their assets consist primarily of
transmission infrastructure in the form of more than 33,000 miles of high voltage transmission
lines and 587 substations. PMA customers are responsible for repaying al power program
expenses, plus the interest on capital projects. Since FY2011, power revenues associated with the
PMAs have been classified as discretionary offsetting receipts (i.e., receipts that are available for
spending by the PMAs), thus the agencies are sometimes noted as having a “net-zero” spending
authority. Only the capital expenses of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) are supported by appropriations from Congress.
For more information, see CRS Report R45548, The Power Marketing Administrations:
Background and Current Issues, by Richard J. Campbel .
Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding in Title IV of the Energy and Water Development bil
include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. NRC is by far the largest of the
independent agencies, with a total budget of nearly $900 mil ion. However, as noted in the
description of NRC below, about 90% of NRC’s budget is offset by fees, so that the agency’s net
appropriation is less than half of the total funding in Title IV. NRC and ARC are discussed in
more detail below. The recent appropriations history for al the Title IV agencies is shown in
Table 8.
Congressional Research Service

41

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Table 8. Independent Agencies Funded by Energy and Water Development
Appropriations
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Appalachian Regional Commission
165.0
175.0
165.0
175.0
180.0
180.0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
911.0
855.6
863.4
863.4
863.4
844.4
(Revenues)
-780.8
-728.1
-740.4
-740.4
-740.4
-721.4
Net NRC (including Inspector General)
130.1
127.5
123.0
123.0
123.0
123.0
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
31.0
31.0
28.8
31.0
31.0
31.0
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.60
Denali Commission
15.0
15.0
7.3
15.0
15.0
15.0
Delta Regional Authority
25.0
30.0
2.5
15.0
30.0
30.0
Northern Border Regional Commission
20.0
25.0
0.9
25.0
30.0
30.0
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
0.3
0.3
0
1.0
0
1.0
Southwest Border Regional Commission

0.3
0
0.3
Total
390.0
407.3
333.1
388.9
412.6
413.9
Sources: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617; H.Rept. 116-449; FY2021 President’s Request; Explanatory Statement for Division C of
H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; S. 2470; H.R. 2740; CBO Current Status Report; H.Rept. 116-83;
H.Rept. 115-929; S.Rept. 115-258; S.Rept. 115-132; H.Rept. 115-230; P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement.
Note: Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Appalachian Regional Commission
Established in 1965,83 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic
development agency. It awards grants and contracts to state and local governments and nonprofit
organizations to foster economic opportunities, improve workforce skil s, build critical
infrastructure, strengthen natural and cultural assets, and improve leadership skil s and capacity in
the region. ARC’s authorizing statute defines the Appalachian Region as including all of West
Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. More than 25 mil ion
people currently live in the region as defined.
ARC provides funding to several hundred projects each year, with particular focus on the region’s
most economical y distressed counties. Major areas of infrastructure support include broadband
communication systems, transportation, and water and wastewater systems. ARC has supported
development of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), a planned 3,000-mile
system of highways that connect with the U.S. Interstate Highway System. According to ARC,
90.8% of ADHS is “complete, open to traffic, or under construction.”84

83 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, P.L. 89 -4.
84 For more information, see ARC home page at https://www.arc.gov.
Congressional Research Service

42

link to page 48 Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Since FY2016, Congress has appropriated approximately $50 mil ion per year as a set-aside for
ARC’s POWER Initiative (Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic
Revitalization), which assists communities impacted by the decline of the coal industry. The
POWER Initiative funds a variety of economic, workforce, and community development projects
to stabilize and stimulate economic activity in affected communities.
For more background on ARC and other regional commissions and authorities, see CRS Report
R45997, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function, by
Michael H. Cecire, and CRS In Focus IF11140, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities:
Overview of Structure and Activities, by Michael H. Cecire.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC is an independent agency that establishes and enforces safety and security standards for
nuclear power plants and users of nuclear materials. Major appropriations categories for NRC are
shown in Table 9. Nuclear Reactor Safety is NRC’s largest program and is responsible for
licensing and regulating the U.S. fleet of 94 power reactors, plus two under construction. NRC is
also responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear waste facilities, such as the proposed
underground nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV (for which no funding was
requested or provided for FY2021).
NRC is required by law to offset its total budget, excluding specified items, through fees charged
to nuclear reactor owners and other holders of NRC licenses. Budget items excluded from fee
recovery include prior-year balances, development of advanced reactor regulations, international
activities, and generic homeland security. As a result, NRC’s net appropriation for FY2021 is
about 15% of the agency’s total budget.
Table 9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Funding Categories
(budget authority in mil ions of current dol ars)
FY2021
Sen.
Comm.
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
Major.
FY2021
Funding Category
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
House
Draft
Approp.
Nuclear Reactor Safety
462.6
469.8
447.6
452.9
452.9
452.8
452.8
Nuclear Materials and
113.0
108.6
103.2
102.9
102.9
102.9
102.9
Waste Safety
Decommissioning and
27.1
25.4
22.9
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
Low-Level Waste
Yucca Mountain
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Licensing
Corporate Support
296.4
299.6
292.6
271.4
271.4
271.4
271.4
Integrated University
15.5
15.0
16.0
0
16.0
16.0
16.0
Program
Prior-Year Balances

-20
-40.0

-16.0
-16.0
-35.0
Inspector General
13.3
12.6
13.3
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
Total
922.0
911.0
855.6
863.4
863.4
863.4
844.4
Source: Explanatory statement for H.R. 133, 116th Congress; FY2021 Senate Appropriations Committee
majority draft; H.R. 7617; H.Rept. 116-449; NRC FY2021 Budget Justification; Explanatory Statement for Division
Congressional Research Service

43

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

C of H.R. 1865, 116th Congress; S.Rept. 116-102; H.R. 2740; H.Rept. 116-83; H.Rept. 115-929, NRC FY2020
Budget Justification; H.Rept. 115-697; S.Rept. 115-258.
Note: Fee offsets and some adjustments are excluded.
Congressional Hearings
The following hearings were held by the Energy and Water Development subcommittees of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the FY2021 budget request. Testimony and
opening statements are posted on most of the web pages cited for each hearing, along with
webcasts in many cases.
House
 Department of Energy, February 27, 2020, https://appropriations.house.gov/
events/hearings/department-of-energy-budget-request-for-fy2021.
 DOE Applied Energy Programs, March 3, 2020,
https://appropriations.house.gov/events/hearings/department-of-energy-applied-
energy-programs-budget-requests-for-fy2021.
 DOE National Nuclear Security Administration, March 4, 2020,
https://appropriations.house.gov/events/hearings/department-of-energynational-
nuclear-security-administration.
 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, March 10, 2020,
https://appropriations.house.gov/events/hearings/us-army-corps-of-engineers-
and-bureau-of-reclamation-budget-requests-for-fy2021.
 DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, Office of Science, and
Environmental Management, March 11, 2020, https://appropriations.house.gov/
events/hearings/department-of-energy-fy2021-budget-request-for-advanced-
research-projects-agency.
Senate
 Department of Energy, March 4, 2020, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/
hearings/review-of-the-fy2021-budget-request-for-the-us-department-of-energy.
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, March 11, 2020,
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/review-of-the-fy2021-budget-
request-for-us-army-corps-of-engineers-and-bureau-of-reclamation-within-dept-
of-interior.

Author Information

Mark Holt
Corrie E. Clark
Specialist in Energy Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy

Congressional Research Service

44

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Acknowledgments
Former CRS Research Assistant Danielle A. Arostegui developed the spreadsheet used for appropriations
analysis in this report.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
General (Coordinator)
Mark Holt
Corps of Engineers
Anna Normand
Nicole Carter
Bureau of Reclamation
Charles V. Stern
Renewable energy
Corrie E. Clark
Energy efficiency
Corrie E. Clark
Fossil energy research
Ashley Lawson
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Phil ip Brown
Nuclear energy
Mark Holt
Science and ARPA-E
Daniel Morgan
Quantum Information Science
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Artificial intel igence
Laurie A. Harris
Nuclear weapons stewardship
Amy Woolf
Nonproliferation
Mary Beth Nikitin
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
Lance Larson
Power Marketing Administrations
Charles V. Stern
Bonnevil e Power Administration
Charles V. Stern
Federal regional authorities and
Michael H. Cecire
commissions
Alyssa R. Casey
Appropriations legislative procedures
James V. Saturno
Bil Heniff
Megan Lynch
Congressional Research Service

45

Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46384 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
46

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 25, 2021

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Dec. 8, 2020

HTML · PDF

5% changed

Nov. 9, 2020

HTML · PDF

8% changed