This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-379
entitled 'National Energy Policy: Inventory of Major Federal Energy
Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations' which was released on
June 14, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
June 2005:
National Energy Policy:
Inventory of Major Federal Energy Programs and Status of Policy
Recommendations:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-379]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-379, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The lives of most Americans are affected by energy. Increased energy
demand and higher energy prices has led to concerns about dependable,
affordable, and environmentally sound energy. The federal government
has adopted energy policies and implemented programs over the years
that have focused on the appropriate role of the federal government in
energy, attempting to achieve balance between supply and conservation.
The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report contained over 100
recommendations that it stated, taken together, provide a national
energy plan that addresses the energy challenges facing the nation. As
Congress considers existing federal energy programs and proposed energy
legislation in support of the May 2001 report, GAO was asked to (1)
identify major federal energy-related efforts, (2) review the status of
efforts to implement the recommendations in the May 2001 NEP report,
and (3) determine the extent to which resources associated with federal
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP
report.
What GAO Found:
Over 150 energy-related program activities and 11 tax preferences
address eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2)
energy’s impact on the environment and health, (3) low-income energy
consumer assistance, (4) basic energy science research, (5) energy
delivery infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance
and physical security, and (8) energy market competition and education.
At least 18 federal agencies, from the Department of Energy (DOE) to
the Department of Health and Human Services, have energy-related
activities. Based on fiscal year 2003 data (the most complete data
available), the federal government provided a minimum of $9.8 billion
in estimated budget authority for the energy-related programs we
identified. In addition, various federal energy-related income tax
preferences provided another estimated $4.4 billion in outlay
equivalent value, primarily for energy supply objectives. On the
revenue side, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion in
fiscal year 2003 through various energy-related programs and about
$34.6 billion in energy-related excise taxes. Significant collections
involve royalties from the sale of oil and gas resources on federal
lands, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels account for most of the
excise taxes.
While DOE reports that most of the 2001 NEP report recommendations are
implemented, it is difficult to independently assess the status of
efforts made to implement these recommendations because of limited
information and the open-ended nature of some of the recommendations
themselves. For example, the NEP report recommended the development of
energy educational programs, including possible legislation to create
education programs funded by the energy industry. However, DOE’s
January 2005 status report on NEP implementation provided only an
overview of federal energy education efforts and made no mention of
possible legislation to create such programs. In addition, some of the
recommendations are open-ended and lack a specific, measurable goal,
which makes it difficult to assess progress. Without a specific,
measurable goal, it can be difficult to understand how and to what
extent activities are helping to fulfill a recommendation. While this
report does not make recommendations, it provides observations on the
lack of information on the status of the NEP recommendations, which may
hinder policy makers in assessing progress and determining future
energy policies.
Resources devoted to energy-related programs have grown since the
release of the NEP report. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000,
just prior to the 2001 NEP report, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget
authority for energy-related programs grew by about 30 percent, from
$7.3 billion to $9.6 billion. In addition, over the same period,
estimated outlay equivalents for energy-related income tax preferences
grew by over 60 percent, from $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion. Federal
efforts have continued to address the eight major energy activities.
Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the federal efforts,
accounting for a majority of the growth.
What GAO Recommends:
This report does not contain any recommendations. In commenting on this
report, DOE stated that the NEP report and status report were not
intended to provide a full accounting of federal energy-related
activities. Our report does not suggest that they were so intended.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-379.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jim Wells at (202) 512-
3841 or wellsj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Over 150 Different Federal Government Program Activities Address
Energy:
It Is Difficult to Assess Progress of Federal Efforts to Implement the
National Energy Policy Report Recommendations:
Federal Resources Devoted to Energy-Related Activities Have Grown since
2000:
Observations:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity, Agency,
and Energy Type:
Appendix III: Federal Electricity Support:
PMAs and TVA Market and Deliver Power Generated at Federal Facilities:
Rural Utilities Service Provides Federal Loans and Loan Guarantees:
Appendix IV: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO
Observations:
Appendix V: Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget Authority for
Agency Programs, by Energy Activity Area:
Appendix VI: Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003,
and 2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Tables:
Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity Areas,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 2: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy's Impact on the Environment and
Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 5: Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated
Budget Authority:
Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal Year
2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Table 8: Energy Market Competition and Education, Fiscal Year 2003
Estimated Budget Authority:
Table 9: Federal Energy-Related Collections, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 10: Energy-Related Excise Tax Collections, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2003:
Table 12: Energy-Related Income Tax Preferences as Reported for Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2003:
Table 13: Budget Requests, by Major Energy Activity Area, Fiscal Years
2000, 2003, and 2005:
Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency
Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy
Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major Energy
Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998
(1999 dollars):
Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO
Observations:
Abbreviations:
ASCR: Advanced Scientific Computing Research:
BES: Basic Energy Science:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy:
CFTC: Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
CHP: combined heat and power:
CSLF: Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
DOI: Department of the Interior:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EIA: Energy Information Administration:
ENRD: Environment and Natural Resources Division:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program:
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
FTC: Federal Trade Commission:
FY: fiscal year:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IEA: International Energy Agency:
IPHE: International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy:
LIHEAP: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program:
MMS: Minerals Management Service:
NEP: May 2001 National Energy Policy report:
NEPDG: National Energy Policy Development Group:
NHHOR: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
NSR: New Source Review:
OAR: Office of Air and Radiation:
OCS: outer continental shelf:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSM: Office of Surface Mining:
PMA: Power Marketing Administration:
R&D: research and development:
RUS: Rural Utilities Service:
SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission:
SPR: Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USTDA: U.S. Trade and Development Agency:
WIP: Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program:
Letter June 10, 2005:
The Honorable Robert Byrd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James Jeffords:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The daily lives of most Americans--as well as the health of our economy
and our high standard of living--are directly affected by the
availability of energy. Most sectors of American society, from the
agricultural and industrial to the transportation and residential, rely
upon a readily available supply of energy to function. According to the
most recent data from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy
Information Administration (EIA), the United States is the largest
single consumer of energy, accounting for one-fourth of the world's
consumption. Consumption is expected to grow here and throughout the
world in the near future. Further, energy prices have risen
significantly in recent years--American consumers now spend about three-
quarters of a trillion dollars a year on it--and prices are not
expected to drop significantly in the foreseeable future. The prospect
of increased demand--and perhaps still higher prices--has led to
concerns about the adequacy of our energy supply to sustain these
consumption levels.
Although the federal government has adopted various energy policies and
implemented related programs over the years, energy policies have
frequently been the subject of heated debate. Concerns about these
policies and programs have most often focused on the appropriate role
of the federal government in energy matters and in how to achieve the
appropriate balance between increasing supply and encouraging
conservation. The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report laid out
the most recent national energy policy proposal: that is, to promote
dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and
distribution of energy for the future. The NEP report contained over
100 recommendations that it stated, taken together, provide a national
energy plan that addresses the energy challenges facing the nation. As
Congress considers existing federal energy programs and proposed energy
legislation in support of the NEP report, you asked us for a clearer
understanding of how the federal government is working to meet our
nation's energy needs. Specifically, you asked us to (1) identify the
federal government's major energy-related efforts, (2) review the
status of efforts to implement the May 2001 NEP report recommendations,
and (3) determine the extent to which resources associated with federal
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP
report.
To identify the federal government's major energy-related efforts, we
focused our review on several key federal agencies that have the most
responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the NEP report:
the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Commerce, Transportation,
State, and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. In
addition to identifying energy-related program activities, we
identified energy-related income tax preferences[Footnote 1] from the
lists of tax expenditures published annually by the Office of
Management Budget that accompany the President's budget. We also
obtained data on energy-related federal collections, including revenue
from royalties, fees, and excise taxes. We collected and analyzed
agency-reported program and tax policy descriptions and budget request
and funding information at these key agencies and at other agencies as
time allowed; we developed an inventory of the energy-related program
activities we identified. Because it was often difficult to quantify
the resources associated with energy-related aspects of various
programs, where possible, we relied on agency estimates of budget
authority[Footnote 2] for fiscal year 2003--the most recent year for
which data were available for most of the programs as we conducted the
majority of our review during fiscal year 2004. For example, some
programs received budget authority as part of a larger appropriation,
and agencies had to estimate the portion associated with the energy-
related activity. To facilitate comparing the energy-related resources
associated with outlay and tax programs, we used the Department of the
Treasury's outlay equivalent[Footnote 3] estimates for the income tax
preferences. The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is
useful for gauging general magnitude but does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions. We were not able to review
every agency within the federal government that might have energy-
related activities. Principally, we did not review the Department of
Defense (DOD), which is, among other things, a principal federal
government energy consumer. In addition, although the federal
government has a major impact on the energy industry through regulatory
actions, this review did not include an inventory of federal regulatory
actions that affect energy, but rather focused on federal energy-
related programs and tax policies.
To review the status of federal efforts to implement the
recommendations contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed
publicly reported status information on the implementation of the NEP
recommendations, focusing on DOE's most recent January 2005 report on
the status of the 106[Footnote 4] NEP recommendations. We discussed
efforts to monitor and report on the status of these recommendations
with DOE's Office of National Energy Policy and other federal agencies
involved in energy-related efforts. We also discussed the energy-
related programs with the appropriate agency personnel and, when
possible, determined whether and how the programs were related to the
NEP report recommendations.
To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP
report, we compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report)
federal programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003
programs and budget authority estimates. In addition, we compared
outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related income tax preferences
between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Due to the constraints of
developing an inventory of federal energy-related efforts and
associated resources within the review time frame, we did not assess
the changes within the individual program activities within our
inventory. We conducted our review between December 2003 and May 2005
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is
contained in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Federal agencies oversee a myriad of energy-related programs and income
tax preferences that address eight major energy activity areas: (1)
energy supply, (2) energy's impact on the environment and health, (3)
low-income energy consumer assistance, (4) basic energy science
research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6) energy conservation,
(7) energy assurance and physical security, and (8) energy market
competition and education. At least 18 different federal agencies, from
the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), have energy-related program activities, with DOE
accounting for more than one-half the federal government's energy-
related budget authority, based on fiscal year 2003 estimates. In
fiscal year 2003, the federal government provided a minimum of $9.8
billion in estimated budget authority for the over 150 energy-related
program activities we identified. Energy supply programs represent
about one-quarter of these federal program resources at $2.4 billion,
followed by about $2.2 billion for low-income energy assistance, about
$1.9 billion to address energy's impact on the environment and health,
$1.2 billion for basic energy science research, about $0.9 billion for
energy delivery infrastructure, about $0.8 billion for energy
conservation, and about $0.2 billion each for energy assurance and
security and energy market competition and education. In addition,
various federal energy-related income tax preferences provided another
estimated $4.4 billion in outlay equivalent value in fiscal year 2003,
primarily for energy supply objectives. On the revenue side, in fiscal
year 2003, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion through
various energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-
related excise taxes. Collections include offsetting fees that fund
energy-related programs; however, significant collections are from
federal oil and gas royalties, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels
account for most of the excise tax revenue.
It is difficult to assess the status of efforts made to implement the
NEP report recommendations because of limited information and the open-
ended nature of some of the recommendations themselves. Four years
after the release of the NEP report, implementation of most of its
recommendations remains a work in progress since they either address
ongoing federal activities or require legislation to be enacted. While
DOE's January 2005 status report provided more information on the
status of recommendation implementation than has been previously
reported, that information is still incomplete. For example, the 2001
NEP report recommended the development of energy educational programs,
including possible legislation to create education programs funded by
the energy industry. However, DOE's January 2005 status report provided
only an overview of federal energy education efforts and made no
mention of possible legislation to create education programs. Some of
the recommendations in the 2001 NEP report are open-ended and lack
specific, measurable goals, which contribute to the difficulty in
assessing progress made toward implementing the recommendations. For
example, a NEP report recommendation is that the President make energy
security a priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on
the status of this recommendation, DOE states that energy security has
been made a priority of our trade and foreign policy through various
bilateral and multilateral activities, such as the U.S.-China Oil and
Gas Industry Forum. Because this recommendation lacks a specific,
measurable goal, it is difficult to understand how and to what extent
the activities mentioned are helping to fulfill the recommendation.
Appendix IV provides a complete list of the NEP recommendations, DOE's
January 2005 reported status, and GAO observations on the reported
status.
Federal resources devoted to energy-related program activities have
grown since the release of the 2001 NEP report. For example, compared
with fiscal year 2000, just prior to the release of the NEP report,
fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority for energy-related programs
grew by about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion. In
addition, over the same time period, outlay equivalent estimates for
energy-related income tax preferences grew by over 60 percent, from
$2.7 billion to $4.4 billion. While we did not review changes within
individual programs and tax policies, federal efforts have continued to
address the eight major energy activities of supply, environment and
health, low-income assistance, basic science, infrastructure,
conservation, assurance and security, and competition and education.
Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the federal efforts,
accounting for a majority of both total federal resources and their
growth since 2000. For example, income tax preferences associated with
energy supply have represented almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in
income tax preferences. Within energy supply income tax preferences,
growth has occurred primarily with efforts targeting fossil and
renewable energy supplies. While this report does not contain
recommendations, we do note a lack of a central source of information
on the progress of federal energy-related efforts that may hinder
policy makers in determining the direction of future energy policy
initiatives.
Over 150 Different Federal Government Program Activities Address
Energy:
At least 18 different federal agencies, from DOE to HHS, conduct at
least 158 energy-related program activities. These programs address
eight major categories of activities, ranging from energy supply to
energy conservation. In fiscal year 2003, for the energy program
activities we identified, the federal government provided at least $9.8
billion in estimated budget authority. In addition, 11 federal energy-
related income tax preferences were estimated at $4.4 billion in outlay
equivalent value for fiscal year 2003. On the revenue side, in fiscal
year 2003, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion through
various energy-related programs that include fees and royalties on
development of federal energy resources and about $34.6 billion in
excise taxes on gasoline and other fuels.
Major Energy Program Activities Fall into Eight Categories:
Federal energy-related programs and income tax preferences address
eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy's
impact on the environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer
assistance, (4) basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery
infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and
physical security, and (8) energy market competition and education. On
the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 2003 estimated budget
authority for energy-related programs and outlay equivalent estimates
for energy-related income tax preferences, resources to address energy
supply activities accounted for almost one-half of the $14.2 billion in
federal energy-related resources. Table 1 provides a summary of fiscal
year 2003 resources for energy-related programs we identified and
income tax preferences by the eight major energy activity areas.
Appendix II provides additional details on energy-related programs by
major activity area, by agency, and by energy type. In addition to
programs and income tax preferences, other federal policies that are
not quantified also affect these major energy areas. For example, in
the supply area, the federal government provides electricity support
through federal utilities and loan programs. Also, regarding energy's
impact on the environment and energy conservation, the federal
government, as a major energy user, has energy use policies that
influence both the type and amounts of energy used.
Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity Areas,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in billions.
Energy activity area: Energy supply;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2.39;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4.18.
Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1.87;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0.09.
Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2.21;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None.
Energy activity area: Basic energy science research;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1.17;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None.
Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.88;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None.
Energy activity area: Energy conservation;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.79;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0.11.
Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.25;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None.
Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.24;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None.
Total;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $9.80;
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4.38.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[End of table]
Energy Supply:
On the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 2003 resources, energy
supply programs and related income tax preferences accounted for about
$6.6 billion, or almost one-half of the federal resources provided to
energy-related programs. We identified 6 agencies, conducting 65
different program activities, addressing supply issues such as access
for energy development on federal lands, research and development for
energy sources ranging from clean coal to nuclear fusion, and nuclear
energy regulation. In addition to these 6 agencies, Treasury reports on
9 different income tax preferences that address energy supply.
Specifically, several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code grant
favorable tax treatment to activities such as the recovery of the
actual capital investment costs of discovering, purchasing, and
developing energy. These income tax preferences accounted for about
$4.18 billion in fiscal year 2003 outlay equivalent estimates, more
than the total estimated budget authority of $2.39 billion for energy
supply programs. Table 2 shows fiscal year 2003 outlay equivalent
estimates for supply-related income tax preferences and fiscal year
2003 estimated budget authority for energy supply programs by major
federal agency. Appendix II provides details on energy supply programs
by agency and energy type.
Table 2: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Income tax preferences: Alternative (nonconventional) fuel production
credit (from fossil sources);
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,720,000.
Income tax preferences: Excess of percentage over cost depletion,
fuels;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $910,000.
Income tax preferences: Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $620,000.
Income tax preferences: New technology credit;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $380,000.
Income tax preferences: Expensing of exploration and development costs,
fuels;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $230,000.
Income tax preferences: Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $140,000.
Income tax preferences: Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $130,000.
Income tax preferences: Income tax credits for alcohol fuels;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $30,000.
Income tax preferences: Exception from passive loss limitation for
working interests in oil and gas properties;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $20,000.
Income tax preferences: Total;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $4,180,000.
Program activities, by agency: Department of Energy;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,259,299.
Program activities, by agency: Department of the Interior;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $513,423.
Program activities, by agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $392,094.
Program activities, by agency: Department of Agriculture;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $181,313.
Program activities, by agency: National Science Foundation;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $44,237.
Program activities, by agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,200.
Program activities, by agency: Total;
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $2,391,566.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[End of table]
Supply programs address four primary types of energy: fossil,
renewable, nuclear, and alternative. Fossil energy supply includes
coal, oil, and natural gas production and accounted for $4.7 billion of
the almost $6.6 billion in fiscal year 2003 resources for energy supply
programs. Fossil resources included $1.1 billion in estimated budget
authority for programs such as clean coal technology research and
development. Resources addressing fossil supply also included an
estimated $3.6 billion in outlay equivalent value from 6 different
income tax preferences. These income tax preferences include the
support of fossil fuel production from nonconventional sources such as
synthetic fuels produced from coal. Renewable energy supply includes
hydropower, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar energy. Estimated
budget authority for renewable programs was at $349 million in fiscal
year 2003, and these programs generally address renewable energy
research and development. In addition, 2 income tax preferences, a new
technology credit and exclusion of interest on facility bonds,
supported renewable energy at an estimated outlay equivalent of $510
million in fiscal year 2003. Nuclear energy supply-related programs,
with estimated budget authority of about $507 million in fiscal year
2003, address nuclear fission and mainly consist of DOE's nuclear
energy research and development programs and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC) regulation of nuclear energy. Finally, alternative
energy programs, with estimated budget authority of $439 million in
fiscal year 2003, include transportation fuels other than gasoline or
diesel; traditional energy sources used in untraditional ways
(distributed energy);[Footnote 5] and energy sources of the future,
such as hydrogen and fusion. Hydrogen and fusion programs account for
most of the programs under alternative energy. In addition, 1 tax
preference, providing tax credits for alcohol fuels, supports
alternative energy supply. Table 3 shows the fiscal year 2003 level of
resources by energy supply type. Appendix II provides additional
details on the types of energy supply addressed by specific agency
programs.
Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Energy type: Fossil;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1,074,021;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $3,640,000.
Energy type: Renewable;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 348,962;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $510,000.
Energy type: Nuclear;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 506,535;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0.
Energy type: Alternative;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 439,048;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $30,000.
Total;
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2,368,566[B];
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4,180,000.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[B] Total energy supply-related programs were $2,391,566 (in
thousands); however, 1 program was not focused on a specific type of
energy and, thus, was not included in this table--representing the
difference of $23 million.
[End of table]
In addition to resources for programs and income tax preferences
directed at the energy sector, the federal government provides other
forms of support, largely to users of electricity. While this support
is not captured in the programs or income tax preferences, it does
provide benefits that represent implicit federal support for certain
users of electricity. Specifically, there are five federal utilities,
four Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), that provide electricity and transmission services to
customers in their regions. The PMAs market power produced primarily at
federal hydroelectric dams and projects that are owned and operated by
either the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the International Boundary and
Water Commission. TVA markets electricity produced at its own fossil,
nuclear, and hydroelectric energy facilities. In addition, another
federal agency, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), provides federal
loan guarantees and other services to rural utilities. The federal
support provided through these agencies differs from that of the other
programs and incentives described in this report because it does not
provide any federal funding to electricity customers. Revenue from
sales of electricity generated by federally owned facilities and from
loan repayment (in the case of RUS) is intended to largely pay the
costs to the federal government of providing the electricity and loans.
Therefore, the programs undertaken by these agencies are intended to be
revenue-neutral to the federal government. Nonetheless, the electricity
support provided by these agencies constitutes a benefit to users--an
implicit federal subsidy--because the revenues collected by the
agencies have generally been below what would have been collected for
the same services by private entities. Appendix III provides additional
details on these support programs.
Energy's Impact on the Environment and Health:
We identified 29 program activities, implemented by 11 different
agencies,[Footnote 6] that address the impact of energy development and
use on the environment and health. In fiscal year 2003, these programs
represented estimated budget authority of $1.87 billion. In addition,
an income tax preference for clean-fuel burning vehicles amounted to an
estimated $90 million outlay equivalent in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote
7] Major program focuses include nuclear waste cleanup and
environmental science research. The largest portion of the funding in
this energy policy area goes to DOE, which received an estimated $1.6
billion for energy-related programs in fiscal year 2003. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a primary mission of
protecting the nation's environment, is also a major agency involved in
addressing energy's impact on the environment and health. EPA is a
major regulator of energy development and use through its
implementation of environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act. We
were able to quantify an estimated $24.2 million in fiscal year 2003
that supported EPA programs addressing energy's impact on the
environment. However, EPA regulatory activities affect more than the
energy sector, and, because EPA does not track costs by industry
sector, the agency was not able to determine with complete certainty
how much of its $8 billion annual budget is energy-related. Thus, we
believe the estimate for EPA programs related to energy's impact on the
environment is understated. Finally, because energy development and use
can have a significant impact on the environment and health,[Footnote
8] other programs that primarily address other areas, such as renewable
supply and energy conservation, also address the environmental impacts
of energy. However, within this inventory, those programs are accounted
for under their primary area of energy supply and conservation and are
not also included here. Table 4 summarizes fiscal year 2003 resources
for energy's impact on the environment and health, by major agency;
appendix II provides more details on the agencies' individual programs.
Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy's Impact on the Environment and
Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $1,599,566.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Estimated budget authority: $91,900.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Estimated budget authority: $83,671.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Estimated budget authority: $24,200.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Estimated budget authority: $19,148.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Estimated budget authority: $18,778.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Estimated budget authority: $16,632.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Estimated budget authority: $9,697.
Agency: Department of State;
Estimated budget authority: $1,440.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Estimated budget authority: $650.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Estimated budget authority: $111.
Agency: Total;
Estimated budget authority: $1,865,793.
Tax preference for clean-fuel burning vehicles (outlay equivalent
estimate)[A];
Estimated budget authority: $90,000.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[End of table]
In addition to these programs, the federal government addresses
energy's impact on the environment through policies that are difficult
to quantify. For example, the federal government has set standards and
offered incentives to the private sector and citizens to reduce the
effects of fossil fuel use and to reduce reliance on fossil fuel for
energy. These include standards for smokestack and motor vehicle
emissions, home appliances, and building materials and practices. In
addition, the federal government is a significant consumer of energy
and, through its consumption decisions, can choose to consume energy
that is less harmful to the environment. In the late 1990s, the federal
government embarked on its "greening of the government" initiative and
sought to reduce reliance on the use of fuels in its buildings and
vehicles that contribute the most to pollution. Executive Order 13123,
Greening of the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, signed
June 3, 1999, addresses greenhouse gas emissions from federal
facilities and makes energy-efficiency targets more stringent. This
order requires that each agency reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by
30 percent by 2010 when compared with 1990 emissions levels.
Low-income Energy Consumer Assistance:
The federal government provides funding to assist low-income consumers
through two block grant programs: (1) the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), managed by HHS, provides grants to states
to fund fuel payment assistance and home energy efficiency improvements
for low-income households and (2) DOE's Weatherization Assistance
Program provides funds to make dwellings more fuel efficient in the
long term for low-income households. The total estimated budget
authority for these two programs in fiscal year 2003 was $2.212
billion, with the majority of the budget authority ($1.988 billion)
being for LIHEAP.
LIHEAP seeks to increase the health and prosperity of communities and
tribes by assisting low-income households, particularly those with the
lowest income that pay a high proportion of household income for home
energy, in meeting their immediate home energy needs. LIHEAP operates
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes or tribal
organizations, and U.S. territories. LIHEAP offers three types of
assistance: heating/cooling bill payment, energy crisis, and
weatherization and energy-related home repairs. Each state operates its
own program, which includes taking applications, establishing
eligibility, and making decisions on the kinds of assistance it will
offer. In fiscal year 2003, LIHEAP received $1.988 billion in budget
authority. During that fiscal year, approximately 4.4 million
households received heating assistance; 494,000 households received
cooling aid; 1.1 million received winter/year-round crisis aid; 71,000
received summer crisis aid; and 113,000 received weatherization
assistance. Households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP
assistance. Thus, even though the precise number of households assisted
is not known, 4.8 million households are estimated to have received
assistance in fiscal year 2003.
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program is part of the department's
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP). The overall goal of
WIP is to develop, promote, and accelerate the adoption of energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies and
practices by a wide range of customers--including state and local
governments, weatherization agencies, communities, companies, fleet
managers, building code officials, technology developers, tribal
governments, and international agencies. In fiscal year 2003, DOE
received about $224 million in budget authority for the Weatherization
Assistance Program to provide weatherization assistance for low-income
residences. The weatherization program also provides technical
assistance and formula grants to state and local weatherization
agencies to help low-income residents with weatherization services.
Also, the weatherization program, as part of WIP, addresses energy
conservation areas as it helps to reduce demand for fuels and peak
loads on constrained electricity systems and modernizes conservation
technologies and practices.[Footnote 9]
Basic Energy Science Research:
Basic energy sciences consist of general energy-related research within
DOE's Office of Science. The Office of Science's Basic Energy Science
(BES) Program (fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority of $1.0
billion) and its Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Program
(fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority of $163 million) encompass
the basic energy science research programs we identified. The BES
program is a multipurpose, scientific research effort aimed at
expanding the foundation for new and improved energy technologies and
for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy
use. BES touches virtually every aspect of energy resources--that is,
production, conversion, efficiency, and waste mitigation.[Footnote 10]
Energy-related research includes (1) advancing hydrogen production,
storage, and use and developing new concepts and (2) improving existing
models for solar energy conversion and for other energy sources. BES
states that it provided the basic knowledge that resulted in an array
of energy-related advances, including high-energy and high-power
lithium batteries, highly efficient photovoltaic solar cells, and
solutions for nuclear fuel purification/reprocessing and for cleanup of
radioactive waste. Also, the BES research for the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative is based on the BES workshop report entitled Basic Research
Needs for the Hydrogen Economy. The ASCR program supports DOE's
strategy to ensure the security of the nation and succeed in its
science, energy, and environmental quality missions. ASCR provides the
fundamental mathematical and computer science research that enables the
simulation and prediction of complex physical and biological systems.
Its energy-related objectives include providing the science base to
enable the development of bioenergy sources and laying the groundwork
for DOE's Fusion Simulation Project.
Energy Delivery Infrastructure:
The primary purpose of energy delivery infrastructure programs is to
facilitate the development, maintenance, and improvement of the
comprehensive energy delivery system--for example, electricity
transmission and distribution systems, oil refining and gas processing,
and oil and gas pipelines. We identified 13 program activities at 6
federal agencies that accounted for estimated budget authority of $882
million in fiscal year 2003 that addressed energy delivery
infrastructure. The largest investment of program dollars in energy
infrastructure that we identified in fiscal year 2003 involved
international infrastructure funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in its programs in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The total USAID infrastructure effort amounted to about
$561 million--or 64 percent of the total energy infrastructure funding-
-with the great majority of the effort in Iraq ($558 million).[Footnote
11] Domestically, several programs involve the regulation of energy
infrastructure on federal lands by DOI. In addition, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) activities related to energy
infrastructure include pipeline certification, hydropower licenses, and
dam safety inspections, while the Department of Transportation (DOT)
conducts regulatory work on pipeline safety. Table 5 provides a listing
of infrastructure estimated budget authority for fiscal year 2003, by
agency, while appendix II offers more details on specific programs.
Table 5: Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated
Budget Authority:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Estimated budget authority: $561,100.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Estimated budget authority: $119,241.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $88,384.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Estimated budget authority: $63,261.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Estimated budget authority: $37,400.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Estimated budget authority: $13,030.
Agency: Total;
Estimated budget authority: $882,416.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
Energy Conservation:
Energy conservation programs include those efforts to increase energy
efficiency and reduce the amount of energy used in all sectors, such as
buildings and transportation. We identified 27 program activities
related to energy conservation at 5 federal agencies that accounted for
about $788 million in estimated budget authority for fiscal year 2003.
Energy conservation programs at DOE represent the bulk of the
conservation efforts, accounting for about $657 million of the $788
million. In general, the program activities at DOE and the other major
agencies, particularly EPA, DOT, and the National Science Foundation
(NSF), involve research and development efforts aimed at improving
energy conservation. In addition, an income tax preference provides
$110 million in exclusions from income of conservation subsidies
provided by public utilities.[Footnote 12] Table 6 provides a listing
of energy conservation resources for fiscal year 2003, by agency, while
appendix II provides program details.
Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $656,639.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Estimated budget authority: $78,200.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Estimated budget authority: $34,340.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Estimated budget authority: $17,963.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Estimated budget authority: $793.
Agency: Total;
Estimated budget authority: $787,935.
Tax preference-conservation subsidies (outlay equivalent estimate)[A];
Estimated budget authority: $110,000.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[End of table]
In addition to these programs, the federal government has addressed
energy conservation through policies that seek to minimize the federal
government's own energy use. The federal government is the largest
institutional user of energy in the world and can influence the amount
of energy used in the marketplace. The National Energy Conservation
Policy Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to achieve reductions
in energy use. The legislation also contains provisions concerning
energy management requirements and incentives, life-cycle cost methods
for energy management decisions, and new technology requirements. In
addition, Executive Order 13123, June 3, 1999, is one of a series of
executive orders over recent years directing federal agencies to
demonstrate leadership in energy and environmental management,
including energy efficient building design, construction and operation,
and the reduction of petroleum use through improvements in fleet fuel
efficiency. Chartered in 1973, the Federal Energy Management Program,
administered by DOE, is charged with coordinating federal government
energy management efforts. DOE's most recent Annual Report to the
Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation
Programs for Fiscal Year 2002, dated September 29, 2004, provides
information on federal energy consumption and costs submitted to DOE by
29 federal agencies. Specifically, the report provides information on
(1) consumption and costs of energy by fuel type for buildings,
vehicles, and equipment and (2) agency appropriations for energy
conservation retrofits and capital equipment. In summary, the report
noted that fiscal year 2002 federal consumption costs were $9.7
billion, with 92 percent spent on two categories--62 percent on
vehicles and equipment and 30 percent on standard buildings. DOD,
through such energy uses as jet fuel and diesel, was by far the largest
federal energy consumer--DOD spent $7.1 billion of the $9.7 billion and
accounted for 73 percent of the total federal government energy use. In
addition, the report provides information on progress toward energy
conservation goals. For example, Executive Order 13123 requires a 30
percent reduction by 2005 in energy consumption per square foot for
buildings and a 35 percent reduction by 2010 from the base year of
1985. The report indicates that energy consumption per square foot for
buildings in fiscal year 2002 was about 24 percent less than the fiscal
year 1985 base year.
Energy Assurance and Physical Security:
Energy assurance and physical security activities incorporate federal
programs designed to respond to or prevent energy emergencies and major
reliability and supply disruptions. This includes energy supply
reserves, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and protection of
energy production and delivery infrastructure from natural events,
accidents, equipment failures, or deliberate sabotage. DOE has two
programs to provide oil reserves to offset supply disruptions: the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. In
addition, DOE's Energy Security and Assurance Program supports the
national security of the United States by working in close
collaboration with state and local governments and the private sector
to protect the nation against severe energy supply disruptions. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating
the national effort to enhance critical infrastructure protection,
including energy-related infrastructure.[Footnote 13] However, DOE is
the sector-specific agency for the energy sector. DOE's Office of
Energy Assurance is responsible for fulfilling the roles of critical
infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection for the
energy sector, which includes the production, refining, and
distribution of oil and gas and electric power--except for commercial
nuclear power facilities. NRC has programs that address security for
commercial nuclear power facilities. Table 7 lists all of the energy
assurance and physical security-related programs that we identified and
provides estimated program funding for fiscal year 2003.
Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal Year
2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Agency/Program activity: DOE/Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: $171,732.
Agency/Program activity: DOE/Northeast Heating Oil Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: $5,961.
Agency/Program activity: DOE/Energy Security and Assurance;
Estimated budget authority: $25,990.
Agency/Program activity: NRC/Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: $44,316.
Agency/Program activity: Total;
Estimated budget authority: $247,999.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
Energy Market Competition and Education:
The issue of energy market competition and education includes efforts
to ensure that competitive domestic and international energy markets
are functioning, as well as efforts in energy education and consumer
protection and awareness. We identified 14 program activities
implemented by 11 different agencies that play some role in
facilitating competitive and informed energy markets. For those
programs for which we could obtain estimates, these programs' estimated
budget authority was at least $238 million in fiscal year 2003. Major
program focuses include providing federal oversight of the domestic
natural gas, petroleum, and propane markets; providing energy
information and education; and facilitating secure, stable, and
competitive international energy markets that support investment in
developing countries. DOE's EIA represented the largest program in this
area with estimated budget authority of $80 million. While most of
EIA's budget goes for domestic data collection and analysis activities,
these activities serve to enhance competitive domestic and, to a lesser
extent, international energy markets. EIA is responsible for providing
energy information that promotes sound policy making, efficient
markets, and public understanding.[Footnote 14] In addition, FERC,
through its competitive market and market oversight programs, was the
next significant program, with estimated budget authority of about $73
million. FERC has responsibility for ensuring "just and reasonable
rates" for the interstate transportation of natural gas and the
wholesale price of electricity sold in interstate commerce.
Internationally, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA),
Commerce, State, and USAID promote economic development and/or U.S.
commercial interests in the energy sector. It was difficult to quantify
the funding specifically associated with energy-related aspects of
various programs in this energy activity area, and some agencies were
not able to provide us with funding information for their energy-
related programs or activities.[Footnote 15] Significant among these
programs were those agencies--Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)--that can play a role in
market oversight, including energy markets. Table 8 provides a summary
of major federal agencies that play a role in energy market competition
and education and the available estimates of budget authority for
fiscal year 2003. Appendix II provides additional details on individual
programs.
Table 8: Energy Market Competition and Education, Fiscal Year 2003
Estimated Budget Authority:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $80,087.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Estimated budget authority: $72,759.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Estimated budget authority: $39,300.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Estimated budget authority: $31,202.
Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Estimated budget authority: $14,509.
Agency: Department of State;
Estimated budget authority: $865.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Estimated budget authority: $140.
Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Federal Trade Commission;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Total;
Estimated budget authority: $238,862.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
While the federal government has a limited role in setting energy
prices or dictating buyer purchasing strategies, the federal government
has an interest in promoting a competitive and informed energy
marketplace that protects the public from unnecessary price volatility.
Recent investigations of market manipulation, by companies such as
Enron, have heightened the relevancy of the federal government's role
in ensuring that a lack of competition or reliable market information
do not exacerbate energy prices. Tools available to federal agencies to
promote a competitive energy marketplace and protect the public from
price volatility include monitoring for anticompetitive behavior;
taking appropriate enforcement actions when necessary; and providing
decision makers with sound, up-to-date, energy marketplace information,
such as short-term price movements and long-term demand and supply
trends.
In addressing this area of market oversight, we attempted to quantify 4
relevant agencies' level of effort in energy-related activities--CFTC,
FTC, SEC, and DOJ. However, these 4 agencies, with overall budgets of
$85 million for CFTC in fiscal year 2003; $177 million for FTC; $717
million for SEC; and $22 billion for DOJ, were not able to develop
reliable estimates of the amount of effort devoted to energy-related
activities. CFTC officials roughly estimated that about 20 percent of
CFTC's annual budget of $85 million, or $17 million, could be
associated with energy-related activities. They noted that their work
has increased in recent years because of concerns about energy markets,
but they were not able to quantify the increase. DOJ officials told us
that the majority of DOJ's energy-related work falls within their
Antitrust Division and their Environment and Natural Resources Division
(ENRD). The Antitrust Division was able to provide us with an estimate
for energy-related work, which totaled almost $4 million in fiscal year
2003, but ENRD was not able to provide us with a similar estimate of
their energy-related work.[Footnote 16] Although we were not able to
quantify energy-related funding for these 4 agencies, we were able to
gather some basic information on major energy-related activities. For
example:
* CFTC resolved its natural gas manipulation case against Enron in
fiscal year 2004. CFTC also undertook a broader energy investigation
that focused on energy trading firms that allegedly engaged in (1) the
reporting of false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate market
information, including price and volume information; (2) manipulation
or attempted manipulation; and/or (3) "round tripping," which is a risk-
free trading practice that produces "wash" results and the reporting of
non-bona fide prices, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. As a
result of its efforts in this area, as of February 1, 2005, enforcement
actions commenced by the commission have resulted in civil monetary
penalties totaling over $297 million, among other sanctions, imposed
against approximately 27 entities and individuals.
* FTC, from 1981 to 2004, alleged that 15 proposed petroleum mergers
would have resulted in significant reductions in competition and harmed
consumers in one or more relevant markets. Four of the mergers were
abandoned or blocked as a result of FTC or court action. In the other
11 cases, FTC required the merging companies to divest substantial
assets in the markets where competitive harm was likely to occur. FTC
has, since 2000, brought seven energy-related law enforcement actions
to prevent consumer injury from unsubstantiated, false, or deceptive
claims concerning energy or energy-related products.
* SEC officials reported that in 2003, there were 23 energy-related
cases or enforcement actions brought by SEC. In addition; SEC issued
about 100 orders under the Public Utility Holding Company Act in fiscal
year 2003. Also, SEC's Division of Corporation Finance performed 4,088
full reviews and full financial reviews of filings from all types of
companies; of these, 619 were for energy-related companies. The
division also performed 190 targeted reviews related to those energy-
related companies.
* DOJ's Antitrust Division has energy-related responsibilities that
include promoting competition and enforcing antitrust laws in the
energy industries. DOJ energy-related activities within ENRD include
(1) defending EPA's more stringent clean air standards for heavy-duty
trucks and diesel fuel; (2) safety standards for the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository in Nevada; and (3) administrative enforcement
actions, such as a major clean air enforcement action against coal-
fired power plants.
Federal Government Collects Revenues through Energy-Related Programs
and Excise Taxes:
The federal government collects about $10.1 billion a year through
various energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-
related excise taxes. Most of the collections are royalties, rents, and
bonuses from oil and gas on federal lands or offshore areas; while
taxes on gasoline and other fuels account for most of the excise tax
revenue.
Energy Program Collections:
A number of energy-related programs, especially those dealing with the
use of federal energy resources, radioactive waste, and regulation of
the energy industry, involve the collection of federal revenues that
are deposited into the Treasury. In fiscal year 2003, these collections
amounted to about $10.1 billion. The majority of these collections come
from collections associated with the production of energy resources on
federal lands and in offshore areas. DOI's Minerals Management Service
(MMS) collected about $8.0 billion in royalties, rents, and bonuses in
fiscal year 2003 for the development of energy resources in federal
lands and offshore areas.[Footnote 17] The remainders of these
collections are generally fees to pay for energy-related programs. In
some cases, federal agencies are authorized to use these collections to
offset program costs. For example, the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management in DOE collected over $1 billion from generators of
nuclear waste in fiscal year 2003 to manage and dispose of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. FERC collected fees from the
entities it regulates that funded all of the cost of its regulatory
activities related to energy, while NRC collected fees from the
entities it regulates, including nuclear power plants, that cover about
90 percent of its costs. Table 9 provides a breakdown of federal energy-
related collections for fiscal year 2003.
Table 9: Federal Energy-Related Collections, Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing Receipts/Outer
Continental Shelf (royalties, rents and bonuses);
Energy-related collections: $5,933,900.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing Receipts/Onshore
(royalties, rents and bonuses);
Energy-related collections: $2,066,276.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service-Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management (offsetting collections);
Energy-related collections: $90,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management-Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures;
Energy-related collections: $7,900.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service-Indian Trust Responsibility
(offsetting collections);
Energy-related collections: $7,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Office of Surface Mining-Regulation and Technology;
Energy-related collections: $1,039.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste;
Energy-related collections: 1,038,948.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund;
Energy-related collections: $189,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Energy Related Collections estimate;
Energy-related collections: $473,966.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
Program: FERC Competitive Markets, Energy Infrastructure, Market
Oversight;
Energy-related collections: $192,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-Natural
Gas Pipeline Safety;
Energy-related collections: $57,326.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Institute of Science and Technology-Energy use and
conservation programs;
Energy-related collections: $2,000.
Total;
Energy-related collections: $10,059,355.
Source: GAO analysis and estimates based on agency data.
[End of table]
Excise Taxes:
The Internal Revenue Code, which is administered by the Department of
the Treasury, provides for federal excise taxes on energy fuels that
are used in many sectors across the United States. Revenue from these
energy-related taxes totaled over $34 billion in fiscal year 2003. The
excise taxes, some applied at the retail and some at the manufacturers'
level, were typically applied on a unit basis, typically by the gallon,
and rates varied according to the content of the fuel. In general,
these excise taxes fund certain trust funds. The largest of these, the
excise tax on gasoline and gasohol, resulted in $24.2 billion in
collections in fiscal year 2003 that support the Highway Trust Fund.
The next largest revenue raiser was the excise tax on diesel fuel,
which amounted to $8.6 billion in the same fiscal year. Most of the
excise taxes on liquid fuels include 0.1 cent per gallon to finance the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition to funding
various trust funds, excise taxes can be used as a tool to achieve
federal energy-related objectives. For example, alcohol fuels and fuels
containing a portion of alcohol are generally taxed at a lower rate.
The standard rate for gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. However, a
partial exemption of 5.4 cents per gallon from the federal excise tax
is provided for ethanol that is derived from renewable sources and used
as fuel. The exemption encourages the substitution of alcohol fuels
produced from renewable sources for gasoline and diesel to reduce
reliance on imported petroleum and to contribute to energy
independence. In addition, dyed diesel fuel and kerosene meant for use
in trains, school buses, and local and mass transit buses are exempt
from the 24.3 cents per gallon excise tax on the normal varieties of
these fuels. Another excise tax, the "gas guzzlers" levy on certain
vehicles that do not meet standards for fuel economy per gallon, raised
$127 million in fiscal year 2003. Table 10 provides a listing of fiscal
year 2003 energy-related excise tax collections and the associated
trust funds.
Table 10: Energy-Related Excise Tax Collections, Fiscal Year 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Excise tax: Alcohol fuels[A];
Excise tax collections: ($9,986)[B];
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund[C].
Excise tax: Aviation fuel (except gasoline);
Excise tax collections: $739,920;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Aviation gasoline;
Excise tax collections: $57,953;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Coal;
Excise tax collections: $517,531;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Compressed natural gas;
Excise tax collections: $1,735;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Diesel fuel, except for trains and intracity buses;
Excise tax collections: $8,581,467;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Dyed diesel fuel used in trains and regularly scheduled
buses;
Excise tax collections: $163,920;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Fuels used commercially on inland waterways;
Excise tax collections: $111,058;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Gas guzzlers;
Excise tax collections: $126,685;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: Not
applicable.
Excise tax: Gasoline and gasohol;
Excise tax collections: $24,232,426;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Kerosene;
Excise tax collections: $72,128;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Excise tax: Special motor fuels;
Excise tax collections: $14,226;
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected:
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Total;
Excise tax collections: $34,609,063.
Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates.
[A] This entry is for a retail sales excise tax on diesel fuel, special
motor fuel, or nongasoline aviation fuel containing at least 10 percent
alcohol. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-357)
has restructured the excise tax provisions for these fuels.
[B] According to the Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the
Treasury, the number for alcohol fuels collections in fiscal year 2003
is reported as negative because adjustments are being made for earlier
amounts allocated to the account incorrectly.
[C] The Highway Trust Fund includes a separate Mass Transit Account for
certain funds appropriated to the fund.
[End of table]
It Is Difficult to Assess Progress of Federal Efforts to Implement the
National Energy Policy Report Recommendations:
It is difficult to fully assess the status of progress made in
implementation of the NEP recommendations because the information DOE
has reported has been limited. Moreover, some of the recommendations
are open-ended and lack measurable goals, which contribute to the
difficulty in assessing implementation progress. Finally, because the
NEP recommendations do not reflect all federal energy-related efforts,
understanding the overall status of federal efforts to address energy
issues is challenging.
Since the May 2001 NEP report, publicly reported information on the
status of the recommendations has been limited. For example, on the
first anniversary of the NEP report, in May 2002, DOE issued a press
release highlighting progress made in implementing the NEP
recommendations. According to DOE, at that time all but 1 of the 22
recommendations, that it reported required legislative action, had
either been enacted into law or were contained in House or Senate
energy bills.[Footnote 18] However, DOE provided no detail on what the
22 recommendations that required legislation were or what the status
was of the other 84 recommendations. On the second anniversary of the
NEP report, in May 2003, DOE again issued a press release that
described progress in implementing the NEP recommendations. This
document provided the first status information on each of the 106
recommendations in the form of an NEP scorecard that characterized each
recommendation as either under way or complete. The scorecard reported
that 96 of the 106 recommendations were complete, although it noted
that 16 of the "complete" recommendations involved legislation that was
then being considered by Congress. However, DOE did not provide
information on the progress cited specifically related to the 96
recommendations the scorecard reported as complete or on what actions
were planned or then under way to complete the remaining 10
recommendations. DOE's next report on the NEP recommendations was its
January 2005 report. In contrast to the May 2003 scorecard that
characterized most of the recommendations as complete (but had provided
no specific information pertinent to each), DOE's January 2005 report
(1) characterized most recommendations as implemented but involving
ongoing activities or requiring legislation[Footnote 19] and (2)
provided the first information on specific actions taken to implement
each recommendation.
Although DOE's January 2005 report represents an improvement in the
level of information DOE has provided on the status of NEP
recommendation implementation, the information is still incomplete. For
example, the NEP report recommended the development of energy
educational programs, including possible legislation to create
education programs funded by the energy industry. However, the January
2005 status report provided only an overview of federal energy
education efforts, and it made no mention of creating education
programs through legislation. Similarly, the 2001 NEP report made a
recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation to work with Congress
to enact legislation to implement congestion mitigation strategies.
However, while the reported status outlined various DOT congestion
mitigation efforts, it did not address the legislative aspect of the
recommendation nor did it reflect DOT efforts to propose legislation to
address this recommendation. In addition, another recommendation was
made to DOE and DOI to promote new oil and gas well technology, but the
status report addressed only DOE's efforts to implement the
recommendation. Appendix IV provides a complete list of the 106 NEP
recommendations, DOE's reported status of the recommendations, and our
observations.
DOE's ability to provide consistent and complete information on the
status of NEP implementation may have been limited by a lack of
sustained, centralized efforts to monitor and report on the ongoing
implementation of the NEP recommendations. For example, one of the
first recommendations in the NEP report was that the National Energy
Policy Development Group (NEPDG) continue to work and meet on the
implementation of the NEP. However, the NEPDG was terminated on
September 30, 2001, and did not meet or work on the implementation of
the NEP recommendations after that time. Nevertheless, according to
DOE, individual agencies have continued to coordinate implementation
efforts and to measure and track implementation progress. Also,
according to DOE, an interagency working group led by DOE was
established to coordinate agencies' implementation of the NEP
recommendations. According to DOE officials, the agency's Office of
National Energy Policy is responsible for coordinating, and providing
strategic direction for, the implementation of the NEP report
recommendations. However, additional information we obtained in our
review raises questions about the extent to which centralized
monitoring of recommendation implementation has been sustained. For
example, according to DOE, its NEP Office did not assume leadership of
the interagency working group until the fall of 2003. Also, DOE
officials told us in November 2003 that the NEP Office had not been
fully staffed because of budget constraints. Finally, at that time, DOE
officials also told us that implementing the NEP recommendations was
the responsibility of individual federal agencies, and that there was
no centralized, formal system to monitor implementation and report on
the status of the NEP recommendations.
The nature of some of the NEP recommendations also makes it difficult
to assess the progress made in implementing them. Specifically, some of
the recommendations are open-ended and lack measurable goals. For
example, a NEP report recommendation is that the President make energy
security a priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on
the status of this recommendation, DOE states that the recommendation
has been implemented, with activities ongoing, because energy security
has been made a priority of our trade and foreign policy through
various bilateral and multilateral activities, such as the U.S.-China
Oil and Gas Industry Forum and the International Partnership for the
Hydrogen Economy. However, this recommendation is open-ended and does
not contain a specific, measurable goal, thereby making it difficult to
understand how or to what extent the activities described have helped
to implement the recommendation. In contrast, another NEP report
recommendation directs the Secretary of Energy to authorize the Western
Area Power Administration to explore relieving an electricity
transmission bottleneck in the western United States. The DOE status
report noted that a new transmission line to relieve this bottleneck
was completed on December 14, 2004. This recommendation sets a
measurable infrastructure-related goal, and the status report
demonstrated progress toward that goal. (See app. IV.)
Finally, some federal energy-related programs that address the same
issues as some of the NEP recommendations are not mentioned in either
the NEP recommendations or the status report, making it difficult to
assess the overall status of federal efforts to address energy issues.
For example, one NEP recommendation calls for the Secretary of Energy
to conduct a review of current funding and historic performance of
energy-efficiency research and development programs. In response, the
status report noted that DOE completed a detailed review of its
programs. However, at least one other federal agency, NSF, funds energy-
efficiency research and development activities as part of its overall
science program. These activities were not specified in the
recommendation or recognized in the status report. Other federal energy
efforts that relate to some of the same issues that the NEP
recommendations addressed, but were not specifically addressed in the
recommendations or the status report, include some NRC programs and
most USTDA and USAID programs. (See app. IV.) These agencies are not
represented on DOE's NEP interagency task force. When we spoke with
representatives from these agencies, they said that even though their
programs address some of the same issues as the NEP recommendations,
they were not involved in the development of the NEP, nor were they
charged with implementation of the recommendations. Additionally, we
found that the NEP report recommendations omit discussion of some
federal energy-related efforts and the issues they address. Such
omissions preclude a full accounting of the results of federal energy
efforts in any NEP status report. For example, the NEP report
recommendations do not address all energy-related excise taxes and
energy-related income tax preferences.[Footnote 20] Regarding programs,
our review of the NEP report did not find that it addressed basic
energy science research; DOE nondefense nuclear waste cleanup; federal
electricity support; FERC energy market oversight; and the overall
market oversight roles of agencies such as CFTC, FTC, DOJ, and SEC.
Federal Resources Devoted to Energy-Related Activities Have Grown since
2000:
Federal energy-related program resources have grown since the release
of the NEP report as programs continue to address the major energy
activity areas. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000 estimated
budget authority, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority funding
grew by about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion for those
programs where we could identify estimated budget authority for both
years. In addition, over the same time period, outlay equivalent
estimates for energy-related income tax preferences grew by over 60
percent, from $2.7 billion to about $4.4 billion. While we did not
review changes within individual programs and tax policies, federal
efforts have continued to address the eight major energy activities of
supply, environment and health, low-income assistance, basic science,
infrastructure, conservation, assurance and security, and competition
and education. Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the
federal efforts, accounting for a majority of the growth. For example,
income tax preferences associated with energy supply have represented
almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in income tax preferences. Within
energy supply income tax preferences, growth has occurred primarily
with efforts targeting fossil and renewable energy supplies. Table 11
shows changes in program estimated budget authority, by major energy
issue, in fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Appendix V provides a breakdown
of the change in estimated budget authority for each program addressing
the major energy issues.
Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Energy activity area: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,591,377;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,391,566.
Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,658,668;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,865,793.
Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,979,350;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,211,837.
Energy activity area: Basic energy science research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $874,369;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,165,126.
Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $136,835;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $763,175.
Energy activity area: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $724,087;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $787,935.
Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $160,500;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $247,999.
Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $219,101;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $166,103.
Energy activity area: Total[A];
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,344,287;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,599,533.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
Note: This table does not include a comparison of estimated budget
authority for the three programs under FERC, totaling $192 million in
fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority, because FERC did not
allocate its $175 million in fiscal year 2000 estimated budget
authority among the same three programs of Energy Infrastructure,
Market Oversight and Investigations, and Competitive Markets.
[A] Numbers may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
Income tax preferences do not compete in the budget process and do not
have to seek budget authority--they are already "fully funded" as long
as they remain in effect. However, as has been demonstrated, they can
represent significant resources. Current fiscal year 2005 projected
estimates indicate energy-related income tax preferences have continued
to grow--to $5.15 billion in outlay equivalent estimates. Table 12
provides a profile of changes in energy-related income tax preferences
in outlay equivalent estimates between fiscal years 2000 and 2003.
Table 12: Energy-Related Income Tax Preferences as Reported for Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Tax preference: Alternative (nonconventional) fuel production credit;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $1,310,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $1,720,000.
Tax preference: Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $90,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $140,000.
Tax preference: Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $410,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $620,000.
Tax preference: Exception from passive loss limitation for working
interests in oil and gas properties;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $20,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $20,000.
Tax preference: Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $450,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $910,000.
Tax preference: Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Renewable;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $130,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $130,000.
Tax preference: Expensing of exploration and development costs, fuels;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Fossil;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $30,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $230,000.
Tax preference: Income tax credits for alcohol fuels;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Alternatives;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $20,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $30,000.
Tax preference: New technology credit;
Activity area: Energy supply;
Supply type: Renewable;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $50,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $380,000.
Tax preference: Exclusion from income of conservation subsidies
provided by public utilities;
Activity area: Energy conservation;
Supply type: Not applicable;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $110,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $110,000.
Tax preference: Tax credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning
vehicles;
Activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Supply type: Not applicable;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $80,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $90,000.
Tax preference: Total;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2000: $2,700,000;
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year
2003: $4,380,000.
Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates published in the Analytical
Perspectives Budget of the United States Government, for selected
years.
[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[End of table]
Along with the growth in energy-related federal resources, budget
requests for federal energy-related programs have also grown since
2000. However, budget request information is not available for all of
the programs identified in our inventory for which we have obtained
estimates because many energy-related programs are part of larger
programs and separate, distinct budget requests are not made for them.
For those programs that had specific, energy-related budget requests,
budget requests grew between fiscal years 2000 and 2003 by about 27
percent--from $5.9 billion to $7.5 billion. This growth continued into
fiscal year 2005, when requests reached $8.4 billion. Table 13 shows
budget requests in fiscal years 2000, 2003, and 2005 by major energy
activity area. Appendix VI provides a breakdown of requests for each
program that has a budget request under the major energy areas.
Table 13: Budget Requests, by Major Energy Activity Area, Fiscal Years
2000, 2003, and 2005:
Dollars in thousands.
Energy activity area: Energy supply;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,027,280;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,818,261;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,754,579.
Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,398,931;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,781,433;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,400,712.
Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,700,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,001,000.
Energy activity area: Basic energy science;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,086,959;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,189,225;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,267,870.
Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $106,401;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $169,252;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $203,353.
Energy activity area: Energy conservation;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $579,668;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $534,248;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $514,764.
Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $164,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $201,029;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $187,700.
Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $100,444;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $110,211;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $89,700.
Energy activity area: Total;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,863,683;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $7,503,659;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,419,678.
Source: GAO analysis of budget request information.
[End of table]
Observations:
The nation's energy problems are not new. In the 1970s, we issued a
series of reports to Congress on the need for both a focal point for
dealing with energy problems and a coherent set of energy policies that
would stand the tests of the future. While the United States does have,
and has had, a series of energy-related programs and tax policies,
calls for a "national energy policy" persist. Currently, hundreds of
energy-related programs funded by the federal government, energy-
related income tax preferences, and federal regulatory requirements
that impact energy encompass the federal government's role in energy
policy. At the federal level, development and implementation of our
national energy policy is a shared responsibility of the executive and
legislative branches of government. Any progress toward understanding
the role that the federal government plays in energy policy and
improving upon it must start with a comprehensive inventory of these
federal energy-related programs, tax policies, and regulatory activity.
The NEP report, as other national energy policies have in the past,
offers such a start toward the development of this inventory.
Furthermore, although we are not making recommendations in this report,
we have noted a lack of information on the results of federal energy-
related efforts. DOE's Office of National Energy Policy has an
opportunity to serve as a key focal point in improving upon the
measurement of results made in federal energy-related efforts.
Establishing clear and measurable goals and having the ability to
track, measure, and transparently report on results achieved toward
those goals will give policy makers the information they need to
provide continually improving direction to the federal government's
energy-related efforts.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comment and
asked DOE to coordinate any formal written comments from the other
federal agencies included in this report. In addition, we provided a
draft of this report to the other federal agencies in order to obtain
comments on specific information about particular agencies' energy-
related activities. In summary, DOE responded in its written comments
that it did not believe our report accurately reflected the goals or
intent of the NEP, its implementation, or the Administration's ongoing
energy security efforts. Overall, we believe DOE's comments reflect a
basic misunderstanding about the report's objectives and the approaches
we used to address these objectives. Specifically, with respect to our
first objective (an inventory of major federal energy programs and
their cost) DOE commented that our presentation of estimated budget
authority for programs and outlay equivalent estimates for tax
preferences represented a quantitative approach to evaluating the NEP
report that is not consistent with its purpose. However, our first
objective and the resulting inventory of major federal energy programs
laid out in our report does not in any way reflect an evaluation of the
NEP report. We prepared this inventory independent of the NEP report
and did not intend to suggest that the NEP report was intended to
reflect an inventory and accounting of resources comparable to the one
we prepared.
Our second and third objectives--dealing with the results of NEP report
recommendation implementation and changes in resources since the NEP
report's issuance--do have obvious connections to the NEP report. Here
too, however, we believe DOE's comments confuse the issue by suggesting
that our report is somehow an evaluation of the NEP report rather than
simply a presentation of observations on actions taken and reported
results achieved since the report's issuance. In this connection, DOE
defends the NEP report "as an overall blueprint" and that it "is not
sufficient to look at the President's energy policies through specific
NEP recommendations alone." We agree and note that our report suggests
nothing to the contrary. However, our report does focus on the reported
results achieved in implementing these important NEP recommendations
that, as the NEP report states, "taken together, offer the thorough and
responsible energy plan our nation has long needed." Moreover, DOE
implies that when we point out that many of the NEP recommendations are
open-ended in nature, we were being critical of the recommendations.
This is not our intent. We were simply stating as a matter of fact that
the open-ended, nonspecific nature of many of the NEP recommendations
complicated our reporting on recommendation implementation status. With
respect to NEP report recommendation implementation, DOE further
commented that DOE's own NEP status report was not intended to be
comprehensive and that supplementary material could be found in
unidentified "budget documents and other means." We recognize that
status information may be available from a variety of sources, and we
explored those sources in performing our analysis. However, in
reviewing the status of efforts to implement the recommendations, we
believe it was appropriate to focus on DOE's most recent report on the
status of these recommendations. In our view, it does not seem
unreasonable to expect that Congress and the American people could find
relatively complete information on NEP implementation status in a
direct format through one centralized source, especially if that source
is entitled NEP Status Report.
DOE and other federal agencies provided numerous technical
clarifications, observations, and editorial comments, and we have made
changes to this report as appropriate. DOE's written comments are
reproduced in appendix VII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Energy and other interested parties. We will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge at GAO's Web site at http:www.gao.gov.
Questions about this report should be directed to me at (202) 512-3841.
Key contributors to this report are James Cooksey, Nancy Crothers,
Doreen Feldman, Mark Gaffigan, Michael Gilbert, Erica Haley, Elisabeth
Helmer, Chir Huang, Arthur James, Alan Kasdan, Frank Rusco, John Scott,
Karla Springer, Anne Stevens, Jena Whitley, and Monica Wolford.
Signed by:
Jim Wells:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to (1) identify the federal government's major energy-
related efforts, (2) review the status of efforts to implement the May
2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report recommendations, and (3)
determine the extent to which resources associated with federal energy-
related efforts has changed since the release of the NEP report.
To identify the federal government's major energy-related efforts, we
reviewed the federal agencies that have the most responsibility for
implementing the recommendations of the NEP report--the Departments of
Energy (DOE), the Interior (DOI), Commerce, Transportation (DOT),
State, and Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). We asked these key agencies, and other agencies as time allowed,
to identify their energy-related work, and we developed an inventory of
the energy-related programs that we identified. Other agencies we
included were the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of
Justice (DOJ), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade
Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, National Science Foundation (NSF), Securities and Exchange
Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Trade and Development
Agency (USTDA), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
In addition to identifying energy-related programs, we relied on the
list of energy-related tax expenditures published in the President's
annual budget that provided income tax preferences.[Footnote 21] We
also obtained data on energy-related federal collections, including
revenue from royalties and user fees from the agencies. In addition, we
also attempted to identify collections from energy-related excise
taxes. Although the Department of the Treasury does not provide a
specific listing of energy-related excise taxes, we used information on
the collection of excise taxes that was published by Treasury's
Internal Revenue Service to identify these taxes. While this
information is updated quarterly, the last full fiscal year available
is 2003. We collected and analyzed agency-reported program and tax
preference descriptions and budget request and funding information at
these key agencies. Based on our review of the NEP report and the
program and tax preference descriptions and our discussions with
applicable program officials, we identified eight categories of energy-
related activities and grouped the programs and tax preferences by
these eight areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy's impact on the
environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer assistance, (4)
basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6)
energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and physical security, and
(8) energy market competition and education. Because it was often
difficult to quantify the resources associated with energy-related
aspects of various programs, where possible, we relied on agency
estimates of budget authority[Footnote 22] for fiscal year 2003--the
most recent year for which data were readily available for most of the
programs during our review. Since we began our review in late 2003,
fiscal year 2003 was the most complete year for which data were readily
available.
It was often difficult to quantify the resources associated with energy-
related aspects of various programs because agencies could not provide
specific estimates. We used the following method to arrive at an
estimate of the magnitude of federal energy resources for fiscal year
2003--the most recently completed fiscal year readily available--and
for fiscal year 2000.[Footnote 23] For many programs, we obtained
budget request, budget authority, outlay, and obligation information
for programs from agency officials and documents to the extent that
these numbers were available. To ensure the accuracy of the financial
information provided by the agencies, we attempted to obtain
documentation and agency verification, but we could not independently
verify the estimates for energy-related programs or activities. In
obtaining information on resources associated with most programs, we
were able to obtain actual budget authority or estimated budget
authority from agency officials. However, some programs do not have
readily available estimates of budget authority available for their
energy-related activities because they are part of a larger
appropriation that addresses both energy-related and nonenergy-related
activities. For such programs, agencies had to estimate the portion of
budget authority associated with the energy-related program activity.
In these cases, we asked knowledgeable agency officials to estimate the
amount of resources dedicated to the energy-related activities. In some
cases, agencies provided estimates of energy-related outlays or
obligations. For the following agencies, in consultation with agency
officials, we used these agency outlay or obligation estimates as
estimates for budget authority: State, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
NSF, USAID, USTDA, and some USDA, DOT, and EPA programs. On the basis
of our examination of the supporting information, we believe that the
estimates of budget authority for federal energy-related programs
gathered are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report,
which is to provide the best available estimate of federal resources
for energy-related programs.
In addition to obtaining budget authority estimates for energy-related
programs, we also obtained outlay equivalent estimates for energy-
related income tax preferences--federal income tax provisions that
provide preferential tax treatment related to energy supply and use.
Revenue losses resulting from these tax preferences--also called tax
expenditures--may, in effect, be viewed as spending channeled through
the tax system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974
requires that the budget include a list of tax expenditures.[Footnote
24] Each year, revenue loss estimates for tax expenditures are prepared
by Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Treasury also produces
outlay equivalent estimates--the amount of budget outlays that would be
required to provide the taxpayer with the same after-tax income as
would be received through the tax expenditure. We used the outlay
equivalent measure in quantifying the energy-related tax preferences
because it allows the tax preference programs to be compared with
federal outlay programs on a more even footing. While the aggregate
value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging their
general magnitude, summing does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions. In addition, tax preferences below $5
million annually are not reported on Treasury's list and, therefore,
are not included in this report.
We focused on federal resources associated with key federal agencies
that have direct responsibility for issues addressed in and for
implementing the recommendations of the NEP report. We attempted to
address other agencies as time allowed, but the inventory did not
evaluate the efforts of every federal agency. Principally, in this
review, we did not attempt to inventory DOD spending and
activities.[Footnote 25] However, DOD is a large user of energy and
engages in a wide range of activities that may impact the energy
sector. For example, DOD installations have about 2,600 electric,
water, wastewater, and natural gas utility systems valued at about $50
billion. These systems include the equipment, fixtures, and structures
used in the distribution of electric power and natural gas; the
treatment and distribution of water; and the collection and treatment
of wastewater. Because we did not evaluate DOD spending, or every
federal agency that may have energy-related activities, this report
reflects a significant, but minimum amount of resources associated with
federal programs that may play a role in energy.
In addition, although the federal government has a major impact on the
energy industry through regulatory actions, this review did not attempt
to inventory the federal regulatory actions that affect energy, but
rather focused on federal energy-related programs and tax policies.
Federal regulatory actions that impact energy have a cost to the
industry but are offset by benefits accruing to the population at large
or targeted groups. For example, in its report entitled Progress in
Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the
annual costs of all major federal rules implemented between fiscal
years 1994 and 2003 at about $35 billion to $40 billion and annual
benefits of these rules at between $63 billion to $169 billion. A large
fraction of these costs and benefits may be related to energy in that
(1) they have come about as the result of regulations to reduce public
exposure to fine particulate matter, such as some emissions from
burning fuels, or (2) they pertain to regulations promulgated by DOE,
in part to address energy efficiency and renewable energy. In this
report, we have primarily focused on direct federal programs and tax
policies, rather than trying to assess the total economic impact of the
federal government on the energy sector. However, the magnitude of the
OMB estimates of the costs and benefits of regulation indicates that
the federal impact on energy issues may be greater than the sum of
resources associated with direct programs and tax preferences.
To review the status of federal efforts to implement the
recommendations contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed
publicly reported status information on the implementation of the NEP
recommendations, focusing on DOE's most recent January 2005 report on
the status of the 106[Footnote 26] NEP recommendations. We discussed
efforts to monitor and report on the status of these recommendations
with DOE's Office of National Energy Policy and other federal agencies
involved in energy-related efforts. We also discussed the energy-
related programs with the appropriate agency personnel and, when
possible, determined whether and how the programs were related to the
NEP report recommendations.
To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP
report, we compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report)
federal programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003
programs and budget authority estimates. However, we were not able to
identify estimates of budget authority for every program for both
fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Thus, we compared only those programs for
which we could identify an estimate for both years. As a result, three
FERC programs that were included in the inventory of fiscal year 2003
programs and resources were not included in the fiscal years 2000 to
2003 comparison. In addition, we compared outlay equivalents for energy-
related tax preferences between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. We were
able to obtain outlay equivalent estimates for all 11 energy-related
tax preferences for both years as well as projections for fiscal year
2005. Finally, we compared fiscal years 2000, 2003, and 2005
Presidential budget requests for those major energy-related programs
that have specific budget requests. However, many of the smaller
programs we identified in our inventory do not have specific budget
requests. Thus, those programs are not included in the comparison of
energy-related budget requests and cannot be compared with the
estimates of budget authority provided for all energy-related programs
we identified in our inventory.
Finally, due to the constraints of developing an inventory of federal
energy-related efforts and associated resources within the review time
frame, we did not assess the changes within the objectives of the
individual program activities within our inventory. Instead, we
compared the resources and budget requests associated with federal
energy-related efforts in the eight major activity areas. We conducted
our review between December 2003 and May 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity, Agency,
and Energy Type:
Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency
Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Dollars in actual amounts.
Energy activity: Energy supply:
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II;
Estimated budget authority: $1,656,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III;
Estimated budget authority: $1,373,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV;
Estimated budget authority: $884,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy
Program;
Estimated budget authority: $150,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy
Efficiency, and Conservation Research;
Estimated budget authority: $2,400,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 3;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 2;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency;
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Clean Coal Technology;
Estimated budget authority: ($47,000,000).
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems research and
development (R&D);
Estimated budget authority: $84,898,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program;
Estimated budget authority: $1,445,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $5,297,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Geothermal technology;
Estimated budget authority: $28,390,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology;
Estimated budget authority: $38,113,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydropower;
Estimated budget authority: $5,016,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities;
Estimated budget authority: $14,449,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Program direction;
Estimated budget authority: $12,615,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Solar energy;
Estimated budget authority: $82,330,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Wind energy;
Estimated budget authority: $41,640,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings;
Estimated budget authority: $7,572,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences Program
Review;
Estimated budget authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects;
Estimated budget authority: $6,954,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research;
Estimated budget authority: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems;
Estimated budget authority: $410,340,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development;
Estimated budget authority: $8,186,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative;
Estimated budget authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization;
Estimated budget authority: $2,981,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies;
Estimated budget authority: $47,013,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology;
Estimated budget authority: $42,025,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support;
Estimated budget authority: $87,229,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves;
Estimated budget authority: $17,715,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Nuclear Energy R&D;
Estimated budget authority: $114,441,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Fusion energy sciences program;
Estimated budget authority: $240,695,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs;
Estimated budget authority: $3,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management;
Estimated budget authority: $9,526,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Oil and Gas Management;
Estimated budget authority: $86,100,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Workforce/Organizational Support;
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust
Responsibility;
Estimated budget authority: $22,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management;
Estimated budget authority: $239,430,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund;
Estimated budget authority: $2,153,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: OSM: Regulation and Technology;
Estimated budget authority: $104,209,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program;
Estimated budget authority: $23,705,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR): New Source Review;
Estimated budget authority: $1,200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $920,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $87,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: $790,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $930,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: $1,310,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $30,540,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $7,330,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and
Fusion/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $70,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable
Energy/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $2,000,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $60,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: International Nuclear Safety Support;
Estimated budget authority: $8,026,645.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and
Inspection;
Estimated budget authority: $21,420,704.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing;
Estimated budget authority: $26,464,865.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance
Assessment;
Estimated budget authority: $147,123,812.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal;
Estimated budget authority: $22,870,187.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing;
Estimated budget authority: $95,316,734.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research;
Estimated budget authority: $70,870,929.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $2,391,565,876.
Energy Activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs, Agency-wide;
Estimated budget authority: $91,900,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service R&D: Global Change Research/Climate Change
Science Program/Climate Change Technology Program;
Estimated budget authority: $18,778,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
National Marine Fisheries Habitat;
Estimated budget authority: $103,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations;
Estimated budget authority: $2,539,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: National Weather Service;
Estimated budget authority: $5,962,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Management;
Estimated budget authority: $341,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research;
Estimated budget authority: $1,987,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration;
Estimated budget authority: $5,700,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste;
Estimated budget authority: $457,010,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental restoration;
Estimated budget authority: $9,652,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Environmental Services;
Estimated budget authority: $161,852,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion;
Estimated budget authority: $156,129,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Biological and environmental research;
Estimated budget authority: $494,360,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund;
Estimated budget authority: $320,563,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Management;
Estimated budget authority: $13,148,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS: Oil Spill Research;
Estimated budget authority: $6,000,000.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development;
Estimated budget authority: $1,440,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Office of the Secretary of Transportation: National Climate
Change Technology;
Estimated budget authority: $650,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Boutique Fuels;
Estimated budget authority: $400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological Advances (Clean Car
Program);
Estimated budget authority: $21,700,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies Legislation;
Estimated budget authority: $2,100,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $41,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $60,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $10,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Low Level
Waste Management;
Estimated budget authority: $4,563,957.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation;
Estimated budget authority: $30,457,514.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of Decommissioning;
Estimated budget authority: $21,628,121.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
Licensing and Inspection;
Estimated budget authority: $27,021,284.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Program: Regulatory Program;
Estimated budget authority: $9,696,726.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $1,865,792,602.
Energy Activity: Low-income energy consumer assistance.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Weatherization;
Estimated budget authority: $223,537,000.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
Estimated budget authority: $1,988,300,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $2,211,837,000.
Energy Activity: Basic energy science research.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Advanced scientific computing research;
Estimated budget authority: $163,185,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Basic energy sciences;
Estimated budget authority: $1,001,941,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $1,165,126,000.
Energy Activity: Energy delivery infrastructure.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Afghanistan;
Estimated budget authority: $3,100,000.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Iraq;
Estimated budget authority: $558,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Electric Transmission and Distribution;
Estimated budget authority: $88,384,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Lands and Realty Management;
Estimated budget authority: $27,200,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Oregon and California Grant Lands;
Estimated budget authority: $2,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures;
Estimated budget authority: $7,900,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety;
Estimated budget authority: $63,261,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
Program: FERC: Energy Infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $119,241,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Superconductivity/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: $110,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $340,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Superconductivity/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $12,130,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering:
Superconductivity/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $450,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $882,416,000.
Energy Activity: Energy conservation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 1;
Estimated budget authority: $793,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D;
Estimated budget authority: $24,050,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Building technologies;
Estimated budget authority: $58,327,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Distributed energy resources;
Estimated budget authority: $60,054,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Energy efficiency science initiative;
Estimated budget authority: $2,440,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Federal energy management program;
Estimated budget authority: $19,299,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Fuel cell technologies;
Estimated budget authority: $53,906,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Industrial technologies;
Estimated budget authority: $96,824,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Intergovernmental Activities;
Estimated budget authority: $90,618,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Program management;
Estimated budget authority: $76,950,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Vehicle technologies;
Estimated budget authority: $174,171,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Intelligent Traffic
Systems;
Estimated budget authority: $7,541,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: FHWA: Office of Operations Energy Related Obligations;
Estimated budget authority: $4,903,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Transit Administration: Fuel Cell-Powered Transit
Buses;
Estimated budget authority: $20,896,397.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Corporate
Average Fuel Economy;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Clean School Bus;
Estimated budget authority: $5,000,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Industry;
Estimated budget authority: $26,800,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart Way Transport Partnership
Initiative;
Estimated budget authority: $4,400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change/Buildings;
Estimated budget authority: $41,600,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Locomotive Idling;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Truck Idling;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Computer and Information Science and Engineering: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $9,560,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $33,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $400,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: $830,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: $6,970,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: $170,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $787,935,397.
Energy Activity: Energy assurance and physical security.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Security and Assurance Program;
Estimated budget authority: $25,990,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: $171,732,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: $10,388,139.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: $28,884,439.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: $5,043,223.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $247,998,801.
Energy Activity: Energy market competition and education.
Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal-State Marketing
Improvement Programs;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: National Agricultural Statistics Service: Price Paid by
Farmers/Fuel;
Estimated budget authority: $140,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: International Trade Administration: Trade Development/Office
of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $1,101,713.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Institute of Standards and Technology: Energy use and
conservation programs;
Estimated budget authority: $30,100,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Information Administration;
Estimated budget authority: $80,087,000.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State: Economic and Business Affairs: Energy;
Estimated budget authority: $865,181.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Program: FERC: Competitive Markets;
Estimated budget authority: $36,824,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Program: FERC: Market Oversight;
Estimated budget authority: $35,935,000.
Agency: Federal Trade Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: $14,508,784.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs: Agency-wide;
Estimated budget authority: $39,300,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $238,861,678.
Total;
Estimated budget authority: $9,791,533,354.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy
Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Dollars in actual amounts.
Agency: U.S Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Afghanistan;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $3,100,000.
Agency: U.S Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Iraq;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $558,000,000.
Agency: U.S Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs, Agency-wide;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $91,900,000.
Agency: U.S Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs, Agency-wide;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $39,300,000.
Agency: U.S Agency for International Development: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $692,300,000.
Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal-State Marketing
Improvement Programs;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,656,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,373,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $884,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy
Program;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $150,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Agency: Forest Service Research and Development (R&D): Global
Change Research/Climate Change Science Program/Climate Change
Technology Program;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $18,778,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service R&D: Bioenergy, Energy Efficiency, and
Conservation Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $2,400,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: National Agricultural Statistics Service: Price Paid by
Farmers/Fuel;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $140,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 1;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $793,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 3;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 2;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $201,024,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: International Trade Administration: Trade Development/Office
of Energy;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $1,101,713.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Institute of Standards and Technology: Energy use and
conservation programs;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $30,100,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
National Marine Fisheries Habitat;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $103,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $2,539,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: National Weather Service;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $5,962,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Management;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $341,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $1,987,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $5,700,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $47,833,713.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $457,010,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Clean Coal Technology;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: ($47,000,000).
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Electric Transmission and Distribution;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $88,384,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $24,050,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Building technologies;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $58,327,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Distributed energy resources;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $60,054,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Energy efficiency science initiative;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $2,440,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Federal energy management program;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $19,299,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Fuel cell technologies;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $53,906,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Industrial technologies;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $96,824,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Intergovernmental Activities;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $90,618,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Program management;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $76,950,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Vehicle technologies;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $174,171,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation: Weatherization;
Energy activity: Low-income energy consumer assistance;
Estimated budget authority: $223,537,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Information Administration;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $80,087,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Security and Assurance Program;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $25,990,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $84,898,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,445,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $5,297,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Geothermal technology;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $28,390,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $38,113,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydropower;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $5,016,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $14,449,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Program direction;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $12,615,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Solar energy;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $82,330,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Wind energy;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $41,640,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $7,572,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences Program
Review;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $6,954,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $410,340,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $8,186,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental restoration;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $9,652,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $2,981,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $47,013,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $42,025,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $87,229,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $17,715,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Environmental Services;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $161,852,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $156,129,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Nuclear Energy Research and Development;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $114,441,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Advanced scientific computing research;
Energy activity: Basic energy science research;
Estimated budget authority: $163,185,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Basic energy sciences;
Energy activity: Basic energy science research;
Estimated budget authority: $1,001,941,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Biological and environmental research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $494,360,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Fusion energy sciences program;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $240,695,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $171,732,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $320,563,000.
Agency: Department of Energy: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $5,276,321,000.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
Energy activity: Low-income energy consumer assistance;
Estimated budget authority: $1,988,300,000.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $1,988,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $3,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $9,526,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Lands and Realty Management;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $27,200,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Oil and Gas Management;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $86,100,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Oregon and California Grant Lands;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $2,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $7,900,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Workforce/Organizational Support;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Management;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $13,148,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust
Responsibility;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $22,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS: Oil Spill Research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $6,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $239,430,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $2,153,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: OSM: Regulation and Technology;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $104,209,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $23,705,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $569,971,000.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Energy-Related Activities;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of Justice: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $1,440,000.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State: Economic and Business Affairs: Energy;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $865,181.
Agency: Department of State: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $2,305,181.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Intelligent Traffic
Systems;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $7,541,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: FHWA: Office of Operations Energy Related Obligations;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $4,903,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Transit Administration: Fuel Cell-Powered Transit
Buses;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $20,896,397.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Corporate
Average Fuel Economy;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Office of the Secretary of Transportation: National Climate
Change Technology;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $650,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $63,261,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $98,251,397.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Office of Air and Radiation;
(OAR): Boutique Fuels;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Clean School Bus;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $5,000,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Industry;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $26,800,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart Way Transport Partnership
Initiative;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $4,400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological Advances (Clean Car
Program);
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $21,700,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Climate Change/Buildings;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $41,600,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Locomotive Idling;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation/Clear Skies Legislation;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $2,100,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: New Source Review;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,200,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR: Truck Idling;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $103,600,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
Program: FERC: Competitive Markets;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $36,824,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
Program: FERC: Energy Infrastructure;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $119,241,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
Program: FERC: Market Oversight;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $35,935,000.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $192,000,000.
Agency: Federal Trade Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Federal Trade Commission: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $920,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $87,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Computer and Information Science and Engineering: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $9,560,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $33,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $400,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Superconductivity/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Applied Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $830,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $6,970,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $790,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $930,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $1,310,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied Research;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $110,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $340,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy conservation;
Estimated budget authority: $170,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $30,540,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $7,330,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Superconductivity/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $12,130,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and
Fusion/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $70,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable
Energy/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $2,000,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering:
Superconductivity/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy delivery infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: $450,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $41,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $60,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $60,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other Energy/Basic
Research;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $10,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $75,341,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: International Nuclear Safety Support;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $8,026,645.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and
Inspection;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $21,420,704.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland Security;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $10,388,139.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland Security;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $28,884,439.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $26,464,865.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance
Assessment;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $147,123,812.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $22,870,187.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $95,316,734.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research;
Energy activity: Energy supply;
Estimated budget authority: $70,870,929.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Low Level
Waste Management;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $4,563,957.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $30,457,514.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Security;
Energy activity: Energy assurance and physical security;
Estimated budget authority: $5,043,223.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of Decommissioning;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $21,628,121.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
Licensing and Inspection;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $27,021,284.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $520,080,553.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available.
Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Energy activity: Energy market competition and education;
Estimated budget authority: $14,508,784.
Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $14,508,784.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Program: Regulatory Program;
Energy activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health;
Estimated budget authority: $9,696,726.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: $9,696,726.
Total;
Estimated budget authority: $9,791,533,354.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major Energy
Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority:
Dollars in actual amounts.
Energy type: Fossil.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Clean Coal Technology;
Estimated Budget Authority: ($47,000,000).
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D): National Academy
of Sciences Program Review;
Estimated Budget Authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects;
Estimated Budget Authority: $6,954,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor;
Estimated Budget Authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems;
Estimated Budget Authority: $410,340,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development;
Estimated Budget Authority: $8,186,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative;
Estimated Budget Authority: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization;
Estimated Budget Authority: $2,981,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies;
Estimated Budget Authority: $47,013,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology;
Estimated Budget Authority: $42,025,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support;
Estimated Budget Authority: $87,229,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves;
Estimated Budget Authority: $17,715,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs;
Estimated Budget Authority: $3,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management;
Estimated Budget Authority: $9,526,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM: Oil and Gas Management;
Estimated Budget Authority: $86,100,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust Responsibility;
Estimated Budget Authority: $22,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management;
Estimated Budget Authority: $239,430,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund;
Estimated Budget Authority: $2,153,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: OSM: Regulation and Technology;
Estimated Budget Authority: $104,209,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program;
Estimated Budget Authority: $23,705,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Office of Air and Radiation: New Source Review;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,200,000.
Agency: Subtotal;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,074,021,000.
Energy type: Renewable.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I;
Estimated Budget Authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,656,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,373,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV;
Estimated Budget Authority: $884,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy
Efficiency, and Conservation Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $2,400,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 3;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses: 2;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency;
Estimated Budget Authority: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D;
Estimated Budget Authority: $84,898,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,445,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure;
Estimated Budget Authority: $5,297,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Geothermal technology;
Estimated Budget Authority: $28,390,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydropower;
Estimated Budget Authority: $5,016,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities;
Estimated Budget Authority: $14,449,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Program direction;
Estimated Budget Authority: $12,615,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support;
Estimated Budget Authority: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Solar energy;
Estimated Budget Authority: $82,330,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Wind energy;
Estimated Budget Authority: $41,640,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings;
Estimated Budget Authority: $7,572,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $87,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $1,310,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $30,540,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable
Energy/Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $2,000,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $60,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated Budget Authority: $348,962,000.
Energy type: Nuclear.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Nuclear Energy R&D;
Estimated Budget Authority: $114,441,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: International Nuclear Safety Support;
Estimated Budget Authority: $8,026,645
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and
Inspection;
Estimated Budget Authority: $21,420,704
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing;
Estimated Budget Authority: $26,464,865
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance
Assessment;
Estimated Budget Authority: $147,123,812
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal;
Estimated Budget Authority: $22,870,187
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing;
Estimated Budget Authority: $95,316,734
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $70,870,929
Agency: Subtotal;
Estimated Budget Authority: $506,534,876
Energy type: Alternative.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy
Program;
Estimated Budget Authority: $150,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology;
Estimated Budget Authority: $38,113,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science: Fusion energy sciences program;
Estimated Budget Authority: $240,695,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $920,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $790,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate: Other Energy: Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $930,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $7,330,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and
Fusion/Basic Research;
Estimated Budget Authority: $70,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated Budget Authority: $439,048,000.
Total;
Estimated Budget Authority: $2,368,565,876
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Federal Electricity Support:
PMAs and TVA Market and Deliver Power Generated at Federal Facilities:
The four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)--Bonneville
Power Administration, Southeast Power Administration, Southwest Power
Administration, and Western Power Administration--market power produced
primarily at federal hydroelectric dams and projects. These facilities
are owned and operated by either DOI's Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, or the International Boundary and Water
Commission. In contrast, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) markets
electricity produced at its own fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric
energy facilities. Most electricity marketed by the PMAs is generated
from facilities built with federal funding through appropriations or
Treasury financing. Sales of this electricity are intended to pay back
these appropriated funds or financing as well as offset any ongoing
expenses associated with operating or upgrading the facilities,
including the construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric
facilities by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps, or the
International Boundary and Water Commission.
The Corps has developed hydroelectric power as part of many of its
multipurpose water resources projects. The Corps reports that it has an
$18 billion investment in hydropower facilities, which include 75
plants and 350 generating units. Hydropower represents 13 percent of
the electrical power generated in the United States, and the Corps
reports that its facilities generate 24 percent of it. The Corps is the
largest owner/operator of hydroelectric power plants in the United
States. The Corps reports that its objective is to keep the plants
operating at peak efficiency and reliability by replacing aging
turbines, generators, and control systems with state-of-the-art
equipment. In fiscal year 2003, the Corps received budget authority of
$414 million to fund a portion of these activities. The revenues from
the power collected were either deposited in the Treasury by the PMAs
or, as in the case of the Bonneville Power Administration, used
directly to fund the Corps activities. In fiscal year 2003, Bonneville
provided $336 million directly for the Corps' hydroelectric power
program in Bonneville's region. The Bureau of Reclamation's central
mission is to manage water resources for multiple benefits, including
the generation of electricity, at its multipurpose water projects in
the western United States. Electricity produced at Reclamation
facilities either is used internally at projects or sold as surplus
power. Surplus power marketed by the PMAs produces revenues used to
repay project costs. In fiscal year 2003, Reclamation received $58.6
million in budget authority for operations of hydroelectric facilities
in three of its five regions. In the other two regions, PMAs directly
fund the hydroelectric facilities. Finally, the International Boundary
and Water Commission operates the Falcon-Amistad Project. The project
consists of two dams on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico,
which share and operate separate power plants on each side of the
river.
By law, the federal utilities are nonprofit and provide selected
classes of customers with preference in purchasing their power. These
"preference customers" include municipal utilities; cooperatives;
state utilities; irrigation districts; and, in some instances, state
governments and federal agencies. According to the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), in 2003, federal utilities sold about 300 million
megawatt-hours of wholesale and retail electricity, a volume equivalent
to about 8 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption. In 2000, EIA
published a report on federal financial interventions and subsidies in
energy markets that included an assessment of subsidies to PMA and TVA
customers.[Footnote 27] In its 2000 report, EIA presented three
different methodologies for estimating the value of the implicit
support to these customers measured by the extent to which (1) electric
power was sold by federal utilities at below-market prices, (2) federal
utilities paid below-market rates on debt they had incurred, or (3)
federal utilities' rates of return were below those of their private
utility counterparts. The estimated value of the implicit support
varied significantly, depending on which methodology was used. Further,
EIA's report noted that there are potential problems with each of the
methodologies that EIA discussed that make it impossible to choose the
best methodology or to conclude that any one of the three methodologies
is likely to give a "most accurate" estimate of the actual
value.[Footnote 28] In table 17, we present EIA's measures of implicit
support for 1998 for the PMAs and TVA.
Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998
(1999 dollars):
Dollars in millions.
Agency: Bonneville Power Administration;
Support under the market price methodology: $732;
Support under the below-market interest rate methodology: $24-$116;
Support under the rate of return methodology: $190-$466.
Agency: Southeastern Power Administration;
Support under the market price methodology: $152.
Agency: Southwestern Power Administration;
Support under the market price methodology: $106;
Agency: Western Power Administration;
Support under the market price methodology: $407.
Support under the below-market interest rate methodology: $80-224[A];
Support under the rate of return methodology: $237-530[A].
Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority;
Support under the market price methodology: $0[B];
Support under the below-market interest rate methodology: $77-248;
Support under the rate of return methodology: $228-557.
Source: Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Energy
Transformation and End Use (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[A] Figures presented are total for the Southeastern Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Power
Administration.
[B] Tennessee Valley Authority power prices were higher than the
adjacent regions' prices, so there was no implicit subsidy using the
price comparison methodology.
[End of table]
Rural Utilities Service Provides Federal Loans and Loan Guarantees:
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an agency of USDA that provides
support to rural communities, including loans and loan guarantees for
the development and improvement of electricity services. Under the
authority of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and
amendments,[Footnote 29] RUS loans and loan guarantees are (1) to
finance the construction of electric transmission and generation
facilities, as well as electric system improvements and replacements in
rural areas, and (2) to be used for energy conservation programs and
renewable energy systems.
As of September 30, 2003, RUS had approximately $28 billion in
outstanding loans and about $520 million in outstanding loan
guarantees. Some RUS loans and loan guarantees provide access to
financing at below-market rates, which amounts to a subsidy for some
rural users of electricity. The size of this subsidy depends on the
interest rates at which RUS loans are made as well as the prevailing
market interest rates; therefore, the amount of support varies from
year to year and according to which measure of market interest is used.
In its May 2000 report on federal financial interventions in energy
markets, EIA estimated that the value of the subsidy provided by RUS
loans and loan guarantees was between $144 million and $1.557 billion
in 1998. We asked RUS to estimate the value of the subsidy associated
with these loans and loan guarantees for fiscal year 2003, but RUS does
not estimate such values. However, RUS did provide us with a figure
derived by OMB of about $5 million that reflects the net cost to the
government of the program, which is the amount of direct appropriations
to the program that is not recaptured by loan repayments. This figure
does not reflect the implied interest rate support as measured by the
EIA report.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO
Observations:
This appendix provides a complete list of the 106 recommendations
contained in the May 2001 National Energy Policy report, DOE's January
2005 reported status of these recommendations, and our observations on
the reported status. For each of the 106 NEP recommendations, table 18
contains the following information:
* The first column contains the number and text of the NEP
recommendation as printed in the May 2001 NEP report. This number is
used to track the recommendations and refers to the chapter and the
order within which the recommendations appear in the NEP. Thus, "4-3"
refers to the fourth chapter of the NEP and the third recommendation
within that chapter.
* The second column contains DOE's overall assessment of the
recommendation, such as "Implemented, Activities Ongoing, or
Legislation Proposed," and DOE's description of the actions taken to
implement the recommendation. This status information was reported by
DOE in its January 2005 National Energy Policy Status Report on
Implementation of NEP Recommendations.
* The third column contains our observations on the status of the
recommendation provided by DOE as reported in the second column. Our
observations may discuss reported status of the recommendations and
observations about it, such as the lack of specific goals and measures
that make it difficult to assess the progress of federal energy-related
efforts to implement the recommendations. In some cases, we include
additional information in this column from (1) DOE's responses to
questions we raised about its status report or (2) agency comments on a
draft of this report. Our observations on the status report should not
be viewed as either an endorsement or a critique of the NEP
recommendations.
Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO
Observations:
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 1-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President issue an executive order to direct all federal agencies to
include in any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, a detailed statement on
(1) the energy impact of the proposed action, (2) any adverse energy
effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, and
(3) alternatives to the proposed action. The agencies would be directed
to include this statement in all submissions to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) of proposed regulations covered by
Executive Order 12866, as well as in all notices of proposed
regulations published in the Federal Register;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In May 2001, President
Bush issued Executive Order 13211 requiring federal agencies to include
in any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use, a detailed "Statement of Energy
Effects" in submissions to OMB;
GAO observations: Executive Order 13211 remains in effect and is being
implemented. However, the status report does not provide information
about the regulatory actions for which such statements of energy effect
have been prepared or what impact, if any, these statements have had on
regulatory actions. According to DOE, most regulatory actions do not
have impacts sufficient to warrant a Statement of Energy Effects
because the order sets forth a $100 million level of economic effect
for a statement to be necessary.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 1-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the executive agencies to work closely with Congress
to implement the legislative components of a national energy policy;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
President Bush and his Administration have consistently urged Congress
to enact comprehensive energy legislation as recommended by the NEP.
Many of the NEP legislative recommendations were reflected in the
comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 6, which was adopted by both the House
and Senate in 2003. The House approved the H.R. 6 conference report in
November 2003, but it was still pending in the Senate when Congress
adjourned. Several energy tax provisions were contained in H.R. 4520,
signed into law by the President on October 22, 2004. The President
will continue to work with Congress on comprehensive energy legislation
that will ensure safe, affordable, and reliable energy supplies for the
growing U.S. economy;
GAO observations: Of the 106 recommendations, 26 have a legislative
element. However, according to DOE, 5 of these recommendations have
been addressed by enacted legislation, 18 have been the subject of
proposed legislation, and 3 have not been addressed by proposed
legislation. (Two of the 26 recommendations that have a legislative
element are duplicates.) NEP recommendation, May 2001: 1-3: The NEPD
Group recommends to the President that the NEPD Group continue to work
and meet on the implementation of the NEP and explore other ways to
advance dependable, affordable, and environmentally responsible
production and distribution of energy;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented in modified form:
Although the NEPD Group terminated on September 30, 2001, by the terms
of the memorandum that established the group, an interagency working
group led by DOE was established to coordinate agency implementation of
the NEP. This interagency group meets on a regular basis;
GAO observations: DOE's Office of National Energy Policy is responsible
for coordinating and providing strategic direction for the
implementation of the NEP report recommendations. However, although the
NEPD Group was terminated on September 30, 2001, DOE's NEP Office did
not assume leadership of the interagency working group until the Fall
of 2003.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to explore potential
opportunities to develop educational programs related to energy
development and use. This should include possible legislation to create
public education awareness programs about energy. Such programs should
be long term in nature, should be funded and managed by the respective
energy industries, and should include information on energy's
compatibility with a clean environment;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Through DOE and other agencies, the Bush Administration has supported
extensive energy education programs at all levels, in all regions, and
in all sectors. Activities include development of instructional
materials, Web sites, field trips, and career education materials. DOE,
directly and through the national labs, sponsors higher education,
extension programs, and research programs for residential, commercial,
agricultural, and industrial energy users. EPA, USDA, and DOI sponsor
programs on resource conservation and protection. Federal agencies also
work with the energy industry and trade associations to support
educational programs on energy efficiency, new technologies, consumer
safety, and environmental protection;
GAO observations: The status report does not include information on
whether possible legislation was considered as outlined in this
recommendation. In addition, while the status report mentions federal
agencies working with industry, the funding of these programs by energy
industries was not addressed. There is a precedent for industry funding
of education programs. For example, the Propane Education and Research
Act of 1996 established a "check-off" program where a portion of the
wholesale cost of the product is set aside in a common fund for the
benefit of producers and consumers. The funding generated can be
significant--in FY 2003 alone, a $38 million budget was projected to
support various propane-related programs, including education.
Recommendations 4-15 and 6-6 also address federal education programs.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President take steps to mitigate impacts of high energy costs on low-
income consumers. These steps would include: (1) Strengthening the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program by making $1.7 billion available
annually. This is an increase of $300 million over the regular FY 2001
appropriation; (2) Directing the Secretaries of Interior and Health and
Human Services to propose legislation to bolster LIHEAP funding by
using a portion of oil and gas royalty payments; (3) Redirecting
royalties above a set trigger price to LIHEAP, whenever crude oil and
natural gas prices exceed that trigger price, as determined by the
responsible agencies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented in part; activities
ongoing: The President's FY 2005 budget provided $2 billion in total
funding for the LIHEAP program, including a $100 million increase in
contingency funds, which allows the Administration to respond to both
winter and summer emergencies. This represents a $600 million increase
over the $1.4 billion requested for LIHEAP in the FY 2001 budget
request;
GAO observations: The FY 2005 budget request was $2.001 billion for
LIHEAP. Although the budget request increased by $600 million, the
increase in actual funding varied. FY 2001 funding was $1.856 billion,
while a recent estimate of FY 2005 funding is $2.182 billion, which is
an increase of $326 million in actual funding; Regarding legislation,
the status report does not address the second and third parts of this
recommendation related to legislation. No legislation has been proposed
by DOI/Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bolster LIHEAP
funding by using a portion of oil and gas royalty payments, or to
redirect royalties above a set trigger price to LIHEAP. According to an
HHS official, there were meetings with a group from DOE and DOI
regarding this aspect of the recommendation, but action was postponed.
According to DOE, in June 2001, the President transmitted to Congress
the legislative recommendations contained in the NEP, and Congress
chose not to pursue this particular recommendation.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by
$1.2 billion over 10 years. This will roughly double the spending
during that period on weatherization. Consistent with that commitment,
the FY 2002 budget includes a $120 million increase over 2001. DOE will
have the option of using a portion of those funds to test improved
implementation approaches for the weatherization program;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
President's budget has consistently sought increased funding for low-
income weatherization, from a baseline of $153 million in FY 2001 to
$291 million in the FY 2005 budget. As a result, about 275,000 low-
income homes have been weatherized in the last 4 FYs;
GAO observations: Actual funding was $153 million in FY 2001, $230
million in FY 2002, $224 million in FY 2003, $227 million in FY 2004,
and $228 million in FY 2005. The FY 2006 budget request is $230
million. Compared with the FY 2001 baseline, a funding level of about
$230 million per year represents an increase of about $80 million per
year, or $800 million over 10 years.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President support legislation to allow funds dedicated for the
Weatherization and State Energy Programs to be transferred to LIHEAP if
DOE deems it appropriate;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Congress has not
considered legislation to allow transfer between the Weatherization and
State Energy Programs and LIHEAP. Both programs serve important
functions to reduce overall energy costs to low-income families;
GAO observations: It is not clear why the status report notes that this
recommendation is implemented when no legislation has been considered.
According to an internal draft document on NEP status from May 2003, an
internal determination was made that it was not appropriate to support
transfer of Weatherization and State Energy funds to LIHEAP at that
time. According to DOE, in June 2001, the President transmitted to
Congress the legislative recommendations contained in the NEP, and
Congress chose not to pursue this particular recommendation. However,
the 2001 transmittal to Congress did not include a legislative
recommendation to allow funds to be transferred.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President recognize unique regional energy concerns by working with the
National Governors Association and regional governor associations to
determine how to better serve the needs of diverse areas of the
country;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
August 2001, DOE, DOI, USDA, EPA, and CEQ signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Western Governors' Association (WGA)
regarding energy development and conservation activities in the Western
United States. The group subsequently developed a "Transmission Siting
and Permitting Protocol" in June 2002 that established a systematic,
coordinated review process for the siting and permitting of electric
power transmission in the west. Other agency programs include
cooperative efforts with the WGA to address wind energy resource
development on the public lands administered by DOI;
GAO observations: This recommendation is much broader than transmission
siting, but it is unclear from the status report what other ongoing
activities have taken place subsequent to the June 2002 protocol. In
response to questions about other activities, DOE noted that the
described activities are illustrative, not exhaustive, and that most
NEP agencies have worked to implement this recommendation. Also, from
the status report, it appears that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), which plays a major role in transmission management,
was not a party to the MOU and did not play a role in the development
of the subsequent protocol. In addition, the related role of the energy
project streamlining task force established under recommendation 3-3 is
not clear.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 2-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct FEMA to prepare for potential energy emergencies; *
FEMA should work with states' Offices of Emergency Management as they
expand existing emergency operations plans to identify potential
problems and address consequences of the power shortages. FEMA should
use its current Regional Incident Reporting System to identify any
situations that might demand immediate attention; * Using the structure
of the already existing Federal Response Plan, FEMA should conduct
Regional Interagency Steering Committee (RISC) meetings for states
affected by the energy shortfalls. The RISC is a FEMA-led interagency
committee comprised of agencies and departments that support the
Federal Response Plan. Either an upcoming, scheduled RISC meeting or a
special-focus RISC meeting can be held to identify the short-term
energy outlook, as well as any expected consequences, in each of the
states during the peak summer season;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
FEMA is working with states to prepare for natural disasters and the
consequences of power system failures using communications tools,
including the Regional Incident Reporting System. DOE has been working
with the electric power industry, states, FERC, and the Canadian
government to implement recommendations from the report on the August
2003 blackout and is establishing an energy assurance approach for
dealing with energy emergencies;
GAO observations: FEMA is now under the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). DOE has an Energy Assurance and Security Program that is
responsible for fulfilling the roles of critical infrastructure
identification, prioritization, and protection for the energy sector,
which include the production, refining, and distribution of oil and
gas, and electric power--except for commercial nuclear power
facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also has programs
that address homeland security for commercial nuclear power facilities.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 3-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to propose multipollutant
legislation. The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the
EPA Administrator to work with Congress to propose legislation that
would establish a flexible, market-based program to significantly
reduce and cap emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
mercury from electric power generators. Such a program (with
appropriate measures to address local concerns) would provide
significant public health benefits even as we increase electricity
supplies: (1) establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of
three main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury;
(2) phase in reductions over a reasonable period of time, similar to
the successful acid rain reduction program established by the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act; (3) provide regulatory certainty to
allow utilities to make modifications to their plants without fear of
new litigation; (4) provide market-based incentives, such as emissions
trading credits, to help achieve the required reductions;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
In February 2002, President Bush proposed Clear Skies legislation to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from
electricity generators and improve air quality throughout the country.
Using a proven, market-based approach that can save American consumers
millions of dollars in compliance costs, Clear Skies will cut air
pollution emissions from electric power plants by approximately 70
percent over 15 years. This historic proposal will bring cleaner air to
Americans faster, more reliably, and more cost-effectively than under
current law, and it would also, for the first time, reduce emissions of
mercury from electric power plants. This legislation was not enacted in
the 108th Congress, but the Administration will continue to work with
Congress to achieve passage as early as possible in the 109th Congress;
GAO observations: Clear Skies legislation was reintroduced earlier this
year as S. 131. However, in the absence of the legislation, EPA has
issued two rules with similar goals as Clear Skies. In March 2005, EPA
issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which addresses sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides. The reduction goals for this rule are similar to
those under Clear Skies, but it only affects facilities in 28 eastern
states and the District of Columbia, while Clear Skies would have been
a national program. The second is the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which EPA
issued later in March 2005. This rule limits mercury emissions to
similar levels as the Clear Skies legislation. However, it is possible
that implementation of the mercury rule may be delayed by litigation.
See related recommendations 5-12 and 5-13.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 3-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to work with Congress to
create the "Royalties Conservation Fund." This fund will earmark
potentially billions of dollars in royalties from new oil and gas
production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to fund land
conservation efforts. This fund will also be used to eliminate the
maintenance and improvements backlog on federal lands;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
As in past years, in his 2005 Budget, President Bush proposed to create
the Royalty Conservation Fund that would use royalties from new oil and
gas exploration in ANWR to fund land conservation efforts and address
the backlog in maintenance and improvement projects on federal lands,
including national parks. The House of Representatives has twice
approved legislation that would have authorized environmentally
sensitive oil and gas exploration in ANWR and created the Royalty
Conservation Fund, consistent with the President's request. However,
the Senate failed to act on similar legislation;
GAO observations: The potentially billions of dollars available
(according to the recommendation) for the federal fund would be
affected by the portion of the royalties Alaska would receive. In 1999,
DOI's Minerals Management Service (MMS) reported that Alaska receives
about 90 percent of all royalties, rents, and bonuses for mineral
production on public domain leases in Alaska.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 3-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President issue an executive order to rationalize permitting for energy
production in an environmentally sound manner by directing federal
agencies to expedite permits and other federal actions necessary for
energy-related project approvals on a national basis. This order would
establish an interagency task force chaired by the Council on
Environmental Quality to ensure that federal agencies responsible for
permitting energy-related facilities are coordinating their efforts.
The task force will ensure that federal agencies set up appropriate
mechanisms to coordinate federal, state, tribal, and local permitting
activity in particular regions where increased activity is expected;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
President Bush issued Executive Order 13212 on May 18, 2001, directing
federal agencies to take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent
with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the
production, transmission, or conservation of energy. The executive
order established an interagency task force to "work with and monitor
Federal Agencies' efforts to expedite their review of permits or take
other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of energy-
related permits, while maintaining safety, public health, and
environmental protections." By acting to foster interagency
cooperation, the task force has helped accelerate completion of
permitting on specific energy projects, acted to streamline redundant
processes, and increased opportunities for environmental stewardship
and energy production at the same time. In April 2004, the President
signed Executive Order 13337, which updates the Secretary of State's
authority to issue presidential permits for cross-border petroleum or
natural gas pipelines after consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other
agencies;
GAO observations: The reported status does not provide reference to any
comprehensive analysis of what the task force has accomplished. For
example, information on the activities of the task force can be found
at www.etf.energy.gov. In addition, the task force charter ended in
January 2005, and the reported status does not make it clear whether
the work of the task force will continue. In response to our questions,
DOE notes that the task force will continue to meet as a senior-level
interagency group. Finally, many NEP recommendations relate to the
issue of providing regulatory certainty and expediting approval of
energy projects. However, it is not clear what role the task force has
played or will play in addressing these recommendations.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to
review and make recommendations on using the nation's energy resources
more efficiently;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In February 2003, PCAST
issued a report: Improving Efficiency in the Nation's Electrical
System. The report focused on the nation's electricity generation,
transmission and distribution, and management systems and makes
recommendations to improve the efficiency of each piece of the system.
PCAST identified four areas where technological progress could have a
potentially significant impact, including (1) efficiency of coal-fired
generation plants, (2) efficiency of electricity transmission systems,
(3) distributed energy technologies, and (4) demand-side management;
GAO observations: This recommendation refers to the broader issue of
reviewing and making recommendations on using energy resources more
efficiently, but DOE's status report refers to a specific PCAST report
on Improving Efficiency in the Nation's Electrical System. The reported
status does not indicate whether any further study of the use of energy
resources beyond electrical system efficiency is ongoing or planned. In
response to our questions, DOE stated that the PCAST report completely
satisfies this recommendation. Also, the reported status does not
indicate what the results of the February 2003 study have been. For
example, the study makes six specific recommendations to address the
four areas where technological progress could have a potentially
significant impact.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a review of current
funding and historic performance of energy efficiency research and
development programs in light of the recommendations of this report.
Based on this review, the Secretary of Energy is then directed to
propose appropriate funding of those research and development programs
that are performance-based and modeled as public-private partnerships;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In 2002, DOE completed
a full review of all energy efficiency research and development
programs. After a series of public meetings and receipt of other public
comments, a report addressing the strengths and weaknesses of these
programs was released. The findings focused management on the need for
reorganization. Research that was performed in multiple areas was
consolidated into one office. This led, for example, to the
establishment of the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure
Technologies program and the transfer of the Zero-Energy Buildings
design activity from the Solar program to the Buildings Technologies
program. Moreover, layers of management were reduced so that all
programs would have a more direct link to senior management and
individual program managers would have greater accountability;
GAO observations: DOE reports it completed a review with findings that
focused management on the need for reorganization. However, the
reported status does not indicate how this review addressed the
recommendation to "review current funding and historic performance of
energy efficiency research and development programs in light of the
recommendations of the report." For example, outside of the
reorganization, it is not clear how research efforts have changed and
what developments have been made. In addition, DOE completed a detailed
report on DOE programs. However, there are other energy-efficiency
research and development activities, funded by the federal government
through agencies such as the National Science Foundation, that were not
addressed by the review. See related recommendation 6-3 on renewable
energy funding.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to promote greater energy
efficiency: (1) expand the Energy Star Program beyond office buildings
to include schools, retail buildings, health care facilities, and
homes; (2) extend the Energy Star labeling program to additional
products; appliances, and services; (3) strengthen DOE public education
programs relating to energy efficiency;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Under the Bush Administration, the DOE/EPA Energy Star program has been
expanded to include home ventilation fans, small commercial HVAC units,
ceiling fans, reach-in commercial refrigerators, portable telephones,
home insulation and air leak sealing, commercial cooking equipment, and
vending machines. Energy Star specifications have been upgraded for
residential windows, compact fluorescent bulbs, residential light
fixtures, central air conditioners, televisions, and VCRs. The Energy
Star program has also been extended to new categories of commercial
buildings, including hospitals, supermarkets, hotels, financial
centers, bank branches, courthouses, warehouses, and residence halls.
DOE has launched several public awareness campaigns to help consumers
and businesses save energy, including the DOE Energy Savers campaign to
educate consumers and businesses on smart energy use. In May 2004, DOE
and the Alliance to Save Energy initiated a "Powerful Savings" campaign
to provide consumers with the information to make smart energy choices.
In December 2004, DOE launched a new Web site,
www.EnergySavingTips.gov, as a consumer-friendly portal to detail
energy-saving information from various federal agencies;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to improve the energy
efficiency of appliances: * Support the appliance standards program for
covered products, setting higher standards where technologically
feasible and economically justified; * Expand the scope of the
appliance standards program, setting standards for additional
appliances where technologically feasible and economically justified;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
April 2001, DOE approved energy efficiency standards for clothes
washers and water heaters and in 2004 DOE finalized new Seasonal Energy
Efficiency Ratio standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Further, DOE has issued advanced notices of proposed rulemaking for new
energy efficiency standards covering (1) residential furnaces and
boilers, (2) certain classes of commercial central air conditioners,
and (3) electric distribution transformers. Public meetings have been
held, and DOE is assessing comments from those meetings. DOE has
received public comments and is working on its next steps in the
standard-setting process;
GAO observations: The energy efficiency standards for clothes washers
and water heaters was completed in April 2001, before the NEP was
released in May 2001. Since the NEP's release, new standards for
residential central air conditioners were finalized with an effective
date of 2006. These standards have been in process since at least FY
2000. During FY 2006, DOE will focus on developing Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking for energy efficiency standards for three priority products:
(1) residential furnaces and boilers, (2) certain classes of commercial
air conditioners, and (3) electric distribution transformers. DOE has
requested $8.3 million in FY 2006 to develop standards. This is a 19
percent decrease from FY 2005 funding of $10.1 million (FY 2004 funding
was about $10.3 million; FY 2000 funding was about $10.5 million).
National appliance standards have been statutorily mandated by a series
of laws dating back to enactment of the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987. DOE provided a schedule of the rulemaking
status for updates to the appliance standards in its FY 2006 budget
request for Interior and Related Agencies (pp. 430-431). According to
DOE, the schedule is incomplete, but it lists the majority of the
schedule.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct heads of executive departments and agencies to take
appropriate actions to conserve energy use at their facilities to the
maximum extent consistent with the effective discharge of public
responsibilities. Agencies located in regions where electricity
shortages are possible should conserve, especially during periods of
peak demand. Agencies should report to the President, through the
Secretary of Energy, within 30 days on the conservation actions taken;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
2001, President Bush directed executive branch departments and agencies
to use energy more efficiently. A report, Energy Conservation Actions
Taken at Federal Government Facilities, was subsequently sent to the
President outlining actions taken by federal agencies to reduce energy
consumption, including updating and implementing agency Energy
Management Plans, implementing immediate measures to reduce peak load,
and participating in the May 2001 Load Reduction Test conducted by
California. DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) provides
technical and financial energy assistance to government agencies. FEMP
has a formal contact list to access all Federal Building Managers. With
this list and an inventory of potential back-up supply and demand-side
options, federal agencies can be requested to adjust consumption in
areas of energy shortages. Each year, the White House has honored
energy management teams from federal agencies, including the Department
of Defense, HHS, and the U.S. Postal Service, for their dedication and
leadership in conserving energy;
GAO observations: The reported status does not provide information on
federal conservation goals, agency-reported actions or progress made
toward those goals, or the costs and benefits of achieving those goals.
For example, one federal government goal is to reduce energy use in
buildings by 35 percent in 2010 from a baseline year of 1985. According
to DOE, the most recent report on federal programs is a September 2004
report entitled Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation
Programs for Fiscal Year 2002. This report indicated that energy
consumption for buildings in FY 2002 was about 24 percent less than the
FY 1985 base year.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress to
encourage increased energy efficiency through combined heat and power
(CHP) projects by shortening the depreciation life for CHP projects or
providing investment tax credits;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed an investment tax credit for qualified CHP projects. Congress
considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have provided
such a tax credit;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-7: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to work with local and state
governments to promote the use of well-designed CHP and other clean
power generation at brownfields sites, consistent with the local
communities' interests. EPA will also work to clarify liability issues
if they are raised at a particular site;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA
has established a Combined Heat and Power partnership that now works
with more than 100 organizations to promote CHP projects across the
country. Through EPA's CHP/Brownfields Initiative, two brownfields
communities have been selected to receive CHP/clean energy technical
assistance, and EPA has established a Web site that includes a
CHP/clean energy screening tool for brownfields stakeholders. In
addition, in 2002, DOE provided assistance to Iowa to co-fund
feasibility studies and engineering work to accelerate installation of
CHP facilities at brownfields sites;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to promote CHP through
flexibility in environmental permitting;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE
and EPA have worked together to organize regional CHP Initiatives that
foster the use of CHP, develop tools and services to support the
development of new projects, and address permitting and other barriers
within their regions. Several states have issued permitting rules or
are drafting permitting rules that address CHP. EPA has developed a
handbook, Output-based Regulations: A Handbook for Regulators, to
assist air regulators in developing regulations that recognize the
pollution prevention benefits of efficient energy generation, like CHP,
and renewable energy technologies. EPA continues to work with key
states to investigate output-based approaches, providing technical
support;
GAO observations: See related recommendation 6-13.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Transportation to: * Review and
provide recommendations on establishing Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards with due consideration of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) study to be released in July 2001. Responsibly crafted
CAFE standards should increase efficiency without negatively impacting
the U.S. automotive industry. The determination of future fuel economy
standards must therefore be addressed analytically and based on sound
science; * Consider passenger safety, economic concerns, and disparate
impact on the U.S. versus foreign fleet of automobiles; * Look at other
market-based approaches to increasing the national average fuel economy
of new motor vehicles;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Following extensive review of the NAS fuel economy report,
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta sent a letter to Congress in
2001 asking Congress to remove restrictions on implementing new CAFE
standards, and calling on Congress to allow reform of the CAFE system
consistent with the NAS recommendations. In 2003, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized regulations increasing
CAFE standards for light trucks, from the current level of 20.7 mpg to
21.0 mpg for model year 2005, 21.6 mpg for 2006, and 22.2 mpg for 2007.
The new standards are expected to save approximately 3.6 billion
gallons of gasoline over the lifetime of these vehicles. In addition,
on December 29, 2003, NHTSA issued an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking to consider revisions to the CAFE program within the scope
of current legislation to address some key issues identified by the
NAS;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on
what has happened since December 29, 2003, when NHSTA issued an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to consider revisions to the
CAFE program within the scope of current legislation to address some
key issues identified by the NAS. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) commented on a draft of this report that NHTSA is currently
preparing a further light truck rulemaking, covering the years 2008 and
beyond, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to appear in the near
future.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-10: The new NEPD Group recommends that
the President direct the Secretary of Transportation to review and
promote congestion mitigation technologies and strategies and work with
Congress on legislation to implement these strategies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Department of Transportation, through the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), has offered public and private owners of
highways a number of tools to reduce growing highway congestion. The
most important of these is a 15-state pilot program (which the
Administration has proposed to expand to all states) that permits the
imposition of variable pricing on all federal-aid highways, including
the interstate system. By giving drivers a choice to pay more for
premium "high-speed" service, this pilot has received widespread public
acceptance and has significantly reduced congestion on the roads
incorporated into the program. FHWA is also engaged in significant
other congestion relief activities, including guidance and training
products on reducing delays caused by traffic incidents and in work
zones; implementing and sustaining congestion partnerships in
metropolitan areas; implementing traveler information services such as
511 telephone numbers; anticipating and mitigating the transportation
impacts of adverse weather; reducing delays at traffic signals; and
developing and using congestion performance measures;
GAO observations: The recommendation calls for legislation to implement
these strategies, but the status report does not address whether any
related legislation has been proposed or enacted. DOE, in response to
our questions about related legislation, noted that the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003
proposed an array of congestion relief measures.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-11: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress on
legislation to increase energy efficiency with a tax credit for fuel-
efficient vehicles. The NEPD Group recommends that a temporary,
efficiency-based income tax credit be available for purchase of new
hybrid fuel cell vehicles between 2002 and 2007;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget, and every subsequent budget request,
proposed a tax credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Congress
considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have provided
such a tax credit;
GAO observations: See duplicate recommendation 6-12.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-12: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct all agencies to use technological advances to better
protect our environment; (1) The Administration remains committed to
investing in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and encourages
the private sector to invest in ITS applications. This DOT program
funds the development of improved transportation infrastructure that
will reduce congestion, such as traveler information/navigation
systems, freeway management, and electronic toll collection. ITS
applications reduce fuel associated with travel; (2) The Administration
remains committed to the DOT's fuel-cell-powered transit bus program,
authored by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21). This program demonstrates the viability of fuel-cell power plants
for transit bus applications; (3) The Administration remains committed
to the Clean Buses Program. TEA-21 establishes a new clean fuel formula
grant program, which provides an opportunity to accelerate the
introduction of advanced bus propulsion technologies into the
mainstream of the nation's transit fleet;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: (1)
DOT continues to lead in deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in
metropolitan areas, with 62 metropolitan areas now at a medium to high
level of deployment. Recently, nine major initiatives that comprise the
centerpiece of the ITS program were announced; (2) DOT's Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Bus Initiative focuses on improving the energy efficiency,
emissions, performance, and cost-effectiveness of 40-foot, heavy-duty
transit buses. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has
collaborated with DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) on the development of a data collection and evaluation plan for
the fuel cell bus demonstration efforts; (3) The DOT Clean Buses
Program works to accelerate introduction of advanced bus propulsion
technologies into the mainstream of the nation's transit fleet;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-13: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct EPA and DOT to develop ways to reduce demand for
petroleum transportation fuels by working with the trucking industry to
establish a program to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from long-
haul trucks at truck stops by implementing alternatives to idling, such
as electrification and auxiliary power units at truck stops along
interstate highways. EPA and DOT will develop partnership agreements
with trucking fleets, truck stops, and manufacturers of idle-reducing
technologies (e.g., portable auxiliary packs, electrification) to
install and use low emission-idling technologies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
EPA, DOT, and DOE are working together on "truck stop electrification,"
a program that will permit idling trucks to shut down their engines and
run lights, heating, and air conditioning from on-site electricity.
This program promises reductions in truck fuel consumption and
emissions. Through a series of workshops and conferences aimed at anti-
idling and truck stop electrification (TSE), DOT, EPA, and DOE are
developing TSE codes and standards that will pave the way for new
technologies to reduce truck idling. EPA has created the National Idle-
Free Corridors Program designed to create TSE at truck stops and travel
centers along major interstate highways. EPA has awarded over $1
million in grants for the installation of TSE technology at nine truck
stops around the United States. There are currently over 40 idling-
control projects around the country;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate whether there
are any measures of reductions in truck fuel consumption and emissions
yet. It is not clear whether a baseline measure and goals have been
established.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-14: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a national
priority for improving energy efficiency. The priority would be to
improve the energy intensity of the U.S. economy as measured by the
amount of energy required for each dollar of economic productivity.
This increased efficiency should be pursued through the combined
efforts of industry; consumers; and federal, state, and local
governments;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: DOE has developed a Web-
based energy intensity indicator that can be used to track the energy
intensity of the United States, measured by the amount of energy
required for each dollar of economic productivity. DOE's Energy
Information Administration (EIA) Web site has a public energy
efficiency page, which shows energy intensity in various sectors of the
economy. Further, DOE continues to pursue a portfolio of efforts to
improve energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy, ranging from
research and development activities, such as the FreedomCAR Program and
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, to the low-income Weatherization program
and deployment programs such as Energy Star;
GAO observations: The status report does not indicate the actual
results found when using the indicator on trends in the amount of
energy required for each dollar of economic productivity. In responding
to our questions about the indicator results, DOE stated that the
indicator suggests that while Gross Domestic Product has increased more
than six-fold over the last 50 years, total energy consumption has
increased only three-fold.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 4-15: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to develop and implement a
strategy to increase public awareness of the sizable savings that
energy efficiency offers to homeowners across the country. Typical
homeowners can save about 30 percent (about $400) a year on their home
energy bill by using Energy Star-labeled products;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA
has launched several public awareness campaigns to help consumers and
businesses save energy. EPA's 2003 "Change a Light, Change the World"
campaign challenges Americans to switch to lighting products that save
energy. For 2004, EPA started the "Cool Change Campaign" to encourage
homeowners to learn how to increase their comfort at home during the
summer months and save energy;
GAO observations: The reported status does not provide any information
on homeowners' savings achieved through this program. See related
energy education recommendations 2-1 and 6-6.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior to promote
enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through new
technology;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: New
drill-pipe system technology, developed with DOE's support, will allow
operators to produce oil and gas more efficiently by being able to
steer the drill bit more precisely toward oil-and gas-bearing sweet
spots and away from less productive areas. DOE's programs have also
helped develop new technology to map flow of groundwater, find
previously overlooked oil deposits, reduce the cost of high angle
wells, provide a high-speed data link for better real time drilling
decisions, improve high temperature electronic components for use in
deep gas drilling, improve measurement-while-drilling tools to improve
drilling decisions, improve sealing of drill pipe annuli at high
temperatures and pressures, minimize the impact of the conventional
drilling process on the reservoir rock, and improve fundamental
understanding of physical mechanisms during drilling of deeper hard-
rock;
GAO observations: The reported status does not address DOI programs.
For example, DOI's MMS Technology Assessment and Research Program is
participating in several projects aimed at improving oil and gas
recovery.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to improve oil and gas
exploration technology through continued partnership with public and
private entities;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: To
gain access to the estimated 125 trillion cubic feet of domestic
natural gas in formations deeper than 15,000 feet below the surface,
DOE has sponsored "Deep Trek" drilling technology programs with the
goal of developing a "smart" drilling system tough enough to withstand
the extreme temperatures, pressures, and corrosive conditions of deep
reservoirs, yet economical enough to make the gas affordable to
produce. In 2003, DOE announced the successful deployment of the
environmentally sensitive prototype "Arctic Platform," a lightweight,
100-by-100-foot aluminum drilling platform elevated 12 feet above the
frozen tundra on specially designed steel legs. This compact and
modular concept could one day eliminate the need for gravel pads and
the temporary ice roads and ice pads that oil companies now must use on
the North Slope. It could also be used in the lower 48 states in
ecologically fragile areas, such as wetlands. DOE's Ocean Drilling
Program recovered almost 2 miles of methane hydrate core off the coast
of Oregon, including significant amounts of gas hydrates in sediments
collected in DOE-developed pressurized containers;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to examine land status
and lease stipulation impediments to federal oil and gas leasing, and
review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with the
law, good environmental practice, and balanced use of other resources):
* Expedite the ongoing Energy Policy and Conservation Act study of
impediments to federal oil and gas exploration and development; *
Review public lands withdrawals and lease stipulations, with full
public consultation, especially with the people in the region, to
consider modifications where appropriate;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Secretary of the Interior reported on land status and lease stipulation
impediments to federal oil and gas leasing for five initial oil and gas
basins in a study completed in January 2003. The "EPCA inventory"
grouped approximately 1,000 different lease stipulations used by
federal land management agencies into three broad levels of constraint:
lands where leasing is permitted under standard stipulations; lands
where leasing is permitted with increasing limitations on access,
principally seasonal occupancy restrictions; and lands where oil and
gas leasing is prohibited. The analysis also included consideration of
exceptions to stipulations granted after a review of on-the-ground
conditions and the use of modern technologies such as directional
drilling. The inventory results are being integrated into the land use
planning and use authorization programs. Also completed was the Powder
River Basin Study on coal bed methane development and the economics of
produced water management. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field
managers have been directed to look beyond the boundaries of their
units to ensure that the restrictions they impose are reasonable in
light of the study and practices at nearby comparable units;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to consider economic
incentives for environmentally sound offshore oil and gas development
where warranted by specific circumstances: explore opportunities for
royalty reductions, consistent with ensuring a fair return to the
public where warranted for enhanced oil and gas recovery; for reduction
of risk associated with production in frontier areas or deep gas
formations; and for development of small fields that would otherwise be
uneconomic;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Gulf of Mexico lease sales offer automatic royalty relief for
development in deepwater. Similar royalty relief incentives for the
Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet (Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) were
offered for the 2003 and 2004 lease sales. Final rules have been
published for supplemental royalty relief for deepwater leases and for
lease term extensions for subsalt exploration. In addition, a final
rule was published in January 2004 that would extend royalty relief to
natural gas from deep formations in shallow waters of the Gulf of
Mexico for existing OCS leases issued before 2001;
GAO observations: The reported status does not provide information on
the amount of royalty relief that has been provided or how that has
changed over time. For example, about 90 percent of the active leases
in the Gulf of Mexico as of December 2004 have royalty relief. Gulf of
Mexico leases could earn royalty relief valued between $1 and $2
billion annually through 2013. Also, it is not clear if any measures of
how royalty relief encourages enhanced oil and gas recovery have been
developed. In commenting on a draft of this report, MMS stated that the
reference to the $1 to $2 billion value of royalty incentives should be
qualified because of the effects of price threshold restrictions on
whether production on qualified leases will realize the incentive. They
noted that due to current high prices, the value of annual royalty
relief is likely to be considerably less. MMS estimated that less than
one-sixth of total oil and gas production will be royalty free because
prices exceed the thresholds and are expected to exceed thresholds for
the foreseeable future.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to
reexamine the current federal legal and policy regime (statutes,
regulations, and executive orders) to determine if changes are needed
regarding energy-related activities and the siting of energy facilities
in the coastal zone and on the OCS;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Departments of Commerce and the Interior issued in December 2000 a
final published rule for revision of Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
federal consistency regulations, and are reviewing CZMA regulations to
determine if further changes are needed to provide greater clarity and
predictability. In addition, DOI and DOC are working as equal partners
on the Marine Protected Areas executive order. NOAA and DOI have joined
in the cataloging of Marine Managed Areas (MMA) and establishment of
the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on the
status of the review of CZMA regulations to determine if further
changes are needed to provide greater clarity and predictability. Also,
it is not clear when the review started or if there is an end date for
the review.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue OCS oil and
gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on
predictable schedules;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOI
completed the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2002-07 in
July 2002. The program proposed up to 20 lease sales in the Gulf of
Mexico and offshore Alaska. DOI's MMS continues to process exploration
and development plans in a timely manner. The Northstar Unit produced
the first federal oil from the Alaska OCS. Several exploration plans in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico have been approved and implemented, leading
to four new discoveries in the deepwater Eastern Gulf;
GAO observations: The status report does not indicate what the criteria
or goals are for processing exploration and development plans in a
timely manner. In commenting on a draft of this report, MMS reported
that it has criteria and goals for processing exploration and
development plans. The performance measures published in the bureau
operational plan are to process 100 percent of exploration plans in
less than 30 days; and to process 100 percent of development plans in
less than 120 days.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-7: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to consider additional
environmentally responsible oil and gas development, based on sound
science and the best available technology, through further lease sales
in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Such consideration
should include areas not currently leased within the northeast corner
of the reserve;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Further lease sales in the NPR-A are ahead of schedule. BLM held a
lease sale in June 2002 for the Northeast Sector of NPR-A. Winning bids
totaled $64 million on 579,000 acres. DOI also published a final rule
for lease utilization, allowing operators to utilize leases to provide
for efficient and environmentally sound resource recovery. BLM also
finalized an EIS for the Northwest Sector of NPR-A in 2004;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to work with Congress to
authorize exploration and, if resources are discovered, development of
the 1002 Area of ANWR. Congress should require the use of the best
available technology and should require that activities will result in
no significant adverse impact to the surrounding environment;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have
proposed to authorize environmentally sensitive exploration and, if
resources are discovered, development of the 1002 Area of ANWR.
Congress considered, but did not enact legislation that would have
provided authorization for development of the 1002 Area of ANWR;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to work with Congress
and the State of Alaska to put in place the most expeditious process
for renewal of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System rights-of-way to ensure
that Alaskan oil continues to flow uninterrupted to the west coast of
the United States;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale
Norton approved a 30-year renewal of the federal right-of-way lease for
the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, effective January 23, 2004;
GAO observations: See duplicate recommendation 7-5.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-10: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to propose comprehensive
electricity legislation that promotes competition, protects consumers,
enhances reliability, promotes renewable energy, improves efficiency,
repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and reforms the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented in modified form;
legislation supported: In both the 107th and 108th Congresses, the
Administration supported comprehensive electricity reform legislation
that promotes competition, protects consumers, enhances reliability,
promotes renewable energy, improves energy efficiency, enhances the
transmission and distribution infrastructure, repeals the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, and reforms the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Congress considered, but did not
enact, legislation to address these important needs;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-11: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President encourage FERC to use its existing statutory authority to
promote competition and encourage investment in transmission
facilities;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
FERC promotes competition and encourages investment through the use of
effective market rules administered by independent grid and market
managers. FERC's April 2003 White Paper on the wholesale market
emphasized the need for independent transmission system and market
operations, while underscoring an increasingly flexible approach to
regional needs. The White Paper also highlighted other key principles
to increase the benefits of wholesale electric competition for end-use
customers. FERC encourages the continued development of Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators with sound
market rules that reduce the costs of "seams" and inconsistent
practices between regions, eliminate discriminatory or preferential
practices, monitor and address the exercise of market power, and
encourage new investment in the grid;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on the
extent to which FERC's efforts have resulted in investment in
transmission facilities. FERC has a goal to foster nationwide
competitive energy markets as a substitute for traditional regulation.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-12: The NEPD Group recognizes the
importance of looking to technology to help us meet the goals of
increasing electricity generation while protecting our environment. To
that end, the NEPD Group recommends that the President direct DOE to
continue to develop advanced clean coal technology by; (1) investing $2
billion over 10 years to fund research in clean coal technologies, (2)
supporting a permanent extension of the existing research and
development tax credit, (3) directing federal agencies to explore
regulatory approaches that will encourage advancements in environmental
technology;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Including the funds proposed for clean coal technology programs
contained in the President's FY 2005 budget request, the Administration
is on track to exceed the President's commitment to clean coal funding.
This includes the FutureGen project, a $1 billion cost-shared project
with the private sector to build and operate the world's first coal-
fired power and hydrogen producing plant with near-zero emissions. The
President's FY 2005 budget also recommended permanent extension of the
research and development investment tax credit. Finally, the
President's Clear Skies legislation largely eliminates the need for
traditional new source review for power plants, an impediment to
environmental technology investments;
GAO observations: Permanent extension of the research and development
investment tax credit has been proposed, but not enacted. Clear Skies
legislation has been proposed, but not enacted. EPA is pursuing related
rulemaking. See related recommendations 3-1 and 5-13.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-13: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct federal agencies to provide greater regulatory
certainty relating to coal electricity generation through clear
policies that are easily applied to business decisions;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Using a proven, market-based approach that can save American consumers
millions of dollars in compliance costs, the Bush Administrations'
Clear Skies proposal will cut air pollution emissions from electric
power plants by approximately 70 percent over 15 years. This historic
proposal will bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and
more cost-effectively than under current law, and it would also, for
the first time, reduce emissions of mercury from electric power plants.
This legislation, if enacted into law, could provide a more certain
regulatory environment and encourage new investments by assuring a
future for coal electricity generation in our Nation's energy mix;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what activities
are ongoing at federal agencies to provide greater regulatory certainty
as mentioned in the recommendation; Clear Skies legislation was
reintroduced earlier this year as S. 131. However, in the absence of
the legislation, EPA is implementing two rules with similar goals as
Clear Skies. In March 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule,
which addresses sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The reduction goals
for this rule are similar to those under Clear Skies, but it only
affects facilities in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia,
while Clear Skies would have been a national program. The second is the
Clean Air Mercury Rule, which EPA issued later in March 2005. This rule
would limit mercury emissions to similar levels as the Clear Skies
legislation. However, it is possible that implementation of a mercury
rule may be delayed by litigation. See related recommendations 3-1 and
5-12.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-14: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States
as a major component of our national energy policy. Following are
specific components of the recommendation: (1) Encourage the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to ensure that safety and environmental
protection are high priorities as they prepare to evaluate and expedite
applications for licensing new advanced-technology nuclear reactors;
(2) Encourage NRC to facilitate efforts by utilities to expand nuclear
energy generation in the United States by uprating existing nuclear
plants safely; (3) Encourage NRC to relicense existing nuclear plants
that meet or exceed safety standards; (4) Direct the Secretary of
Energy and the EPA Administrator to assess the potential of nuclear
energy to improve air quality; (5) Increase resources as necessary for
nuclear safety enforcement in light of the potential increase in
generation. (6) Use the best science to provide a deep geologic
repository for nuclear waste; (7) Support legislation clarifying that
qualified funds set aside by plant owners for eventual decommissioning
will not be taxed as part of the transaction; (8) Support legislation
to extend the Price-Anderson Act;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
NRC continues to review current regulatory requirements and procedures
that will be applicable to new plant licensing to ensure that they are
safe, environmentally protective, streamlined, and consistent with more
recent operating history. Through DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 Program, the
Administration is funding demonstrations using the new NRC expedited
licensing process for new nuclear plants. In the last 15 years, NRC has
approved almost 90 power uprates, which represent an additional 3,700
megawatts electric (MWe) on the electrical grid or an equivalent of
almost four "additional" nuclear power plants. Applications for future
uprates totaling just over 1,000 MWe are pending before NRC. NRC has
issued renewed licenses for 30 units at 14 sites and has license
renewal applications under review for another 16 units at 8 sites.
Following congressional approval of the Yucca Mountain repository, DOE
has advanced the process of designing, licensing, and developing the
site. NRC is undertaking an independent site review, and DOE plans to
file a license application with NRC in 2005. The President's FY 2003
budget and subsequent budget requests have proposed to clarify the tax-
free status of funds that are set aside for eventual decommissioning of
nuclear plants. Congress has considered, but has not yet enacted,
legislation that would have included this clarification or provided a
long-term extension of the Price-Anderson Act;
GAO observations: The status report does not address the part of the
recommendation that directs the Secretary of Energy and the EPA
Administrator to assess the potential of nuclear energy to improve air
quality. We found that EPA planned to complete the initial draft of the
Nuclear Energy and Air Quality report, including EPA and DOE management
review, by the spring of 2004. By the summer of 2004, EPA planned to
release the final study conclusions; Regarding NRC, the commission did
not participate in the development of this recommendation nor is NRC
tasked with implementation of this recommendation. The NRC programs
cited in the status report represent some of the NRC programs
associated with nuclear energy. Other associated programs include
nuclear materials safety, reactor safety research, and other nuclear
waste safety; Regarding Yucca Mountain, DOE missed a January 31, 1998,
contractual deadline to begin accepting nuclear waste from utilities.
About 60 lawsuits are pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for
damages for failure of the government to meet that obligation. The
federal government faces a potential liability estimated by industry to
be as high as $50 billion. DOE believes that the government's potential
liability is more likely in the range of $2 to $3 billion, if the
facility were to open in 2010. The government's plan to dispose of
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain has been the subject of extensive
litigation and debate over many years. In July 2004, a federal appeals
court rejected the radiation protection standard established by EPA for
the site. Most recently, after the status report was issued, on March
16, 2005, the Secretary of Energy announced that government employees
(U.S. Geological Survey) may have falsified documents related to
computer modeling for water infiltration and climate at the site. The
Secretary stated that DOE has initiated a scientific investigation of
these data and documentation that was part of this modeling activity.
He further stated that in addition, he referred the matter to DOE's
Office of Inspector General for a full investigation.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-15: The NEPD Group recommends that, in
the context of developing advanced nuclear fuel cycles and next
generation technologies for nuclear energy, the United States should
reexamine its policies to allow for research, development, and
deployment of fuel conditioning methods (such as pyroprocessing) that
reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance. In doing so,
the United States will continue to discourage the accumulation of
separated plutonium, worldwide;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
DOE's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program develops advanced
fuel cycle technologies, which include spent fuel treatment, advanced
fuels, and transmutation technologies, for application to current
operating commercial reactors, advanced light water reactors, and
Generation IV nuclear energy systems;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on
whether the United States has reexamined its policies to allow for
research, development, and deployment of fuel conditioning methods
(such as pyroprocessing) that reduce waste streams and enhance
proliferation resistance. It is not clear how the programs listed in
the status report address this recommendation. Also, no program goals
or results are discussed. In response to our question about the status
of this recommendation, DOE stated that prior to the NEP report in May
2001, U.S. research and development of fuel conditioning methods was
limited by the requirements to not encourage the civil use of plutonium
and to not engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or
nuclear explosive purposes. Following publication of the NEP report,
United States policy on research and development of fuel conditioning
technologies was changed to permit research in the context of
developing advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear fuel cycle, and
nuclear reactor technologies.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-16: The United States should also
consider technologies (in collaboration with international partners
with highly developed fuel cycles and a record of close cooperation) to
develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner,
more efficient, less waste intensive, and more proliferation-resistant;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Considerable expertise in nuclear fuel-cycle technologies has been
developed internationally, and the potential for significant
cooperation and collaboration is very high. DOE is currently
collaborating with France, Switzerland, the European Commission, and
the Republic of Korea in separations, fuels, transmutation, and test
facilities. Other potential international partners include Japan, South
Africa, Canada, and Brazil;
GAO observations: It is not clear from the status report what DOE
programs are involved and what results have been achieved. In response
to our question about the status of this recommendation, DOE stated
that technologies for reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that
are cleaner, more efficient, less waste intensive, and more
proliferation-resistant have not been developed and research is
continuing.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 5-17: The NEPD Group recognizes there is
a need to reduce the time and cost of the hydropower licensing process.
The NEPD Group recommends that the President encourage FERC and direct
federal resource agencies to make the licensing process more clear and
efficient, while preserving environmental goals. In addition, the NEPD
Group recognizes the importance of optimizing the efficiency and
reliability of existing hydropower facilities and will encourage the
Administration to adopt efforts toward that end; * Support
administrative and legislative reform of the hydropower licensing
process; * Direct federal resource agencies to reach interagency
agreement on conflicting mandatory license conditions before they
submit their conditions to FERC for inclusion in a license; * Encourage
FERC to adopt appropriate deadlines for its own actions during the
licensing process;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing;
legislation supported: In 2002, following consultation with
stakeholders and other federal agencies, FERC developed a new, more
efficient, Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for the licensing of
hydropower dams. To date, seven projects have elected to use the ILP
process. Through these individual cases, the commission has identified
ways of further reducing the redundancies related to commission and
state environmental reviews. In addition, in September 2004, Commerce
and DOI proposed to codify their existing mandatory condition review
process consistent with FERC's ILP, and DOI also proposed an
administrative appeals process. The Administration has generally
supported legislative initiatives to carry out this NEP recommendation;
GAO observations: The reported status does not make it clear if
legislation has been proposed or what legislation has been supported to
carry out this recommendation. In a previous report, we recommended
that FERC inform Congress of the extent that time and cost data
limitations restrict its ability to reach informed decisions on whether
further administrative reforms or legislative changes are needed to
shorten the hydropower licensing process or make it less costly. We
also recommended that the commission work with other federal and state
agencies and licensees to (1) collect complete and accurate data on
process-related time and costs by participant, project, and process
step and (2) link time and costs to projects displaying similar
characteristics in order to identify those project, process, and
outcome characteristics that can increase the time and costs to obtain
a license. In addition, we recommended that the commission (1)
establish a schedule and firm deadlines for implementing the necessary
enhancements to its management information systems that are required to
track and analyze process-related time and costs and (2) share these
data with other parties involved or interested in the process.[A]; FERC
generally agreed with our characterization of the licensing process and
the primary issues that affect time and costs. It also agreed that it
does not systematically collect complete and accurate data on process-
related time and costs by participant, project, and process step.
However, FERC believes that these data are not needed to reach informed
decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the licensing
process as well as the need for further reforms to the process. Rather,
it thinks that it can address the salient issues by developing
"targeted analyses" to determine major factors affecting licensing time
and costs based, in part, on its "years of experience" with the
licensing process. However, we continue to believe that good time and
cost data are needed to reach good decisions. Without such data, it
will not be possible for the commission to determine how much either
can be reduced. Moreover, without these data and the ability to link
time and costs to projects, processes, and outcomes, FERC increases the
risk that any reforms that it recommends may not only not reduce
process-related time and costs but also may result in unintended
consequences to the outcomes of the process. FERC did not implement our
recommendations.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to
reevaluate access limitations to federal lands in order to increase
renewable energy production, such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and
solar;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOI
and DOE hosted two renewable energy conferences to provide a public
forum to share ideas on increasing renewable energy development on
federal lands. Information garnered at these conferences was published
in August 2002 in an interagency report entitled White House Report in
Response to the National Energy Policy Recommendations to Increase
Renewable Energy Production on Federal Lands. In October 2002, BLM
issued its Wind Policy to expedite the development of wind resources on
public lands. In February 2003, BLM and NREL issued a joint report,
Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands, that will
help federal land managers make decisions on prioritizing land-use
activities that will increase development of renewable energy resources
on BLM, tribal, and Forest Service lands in the West (except Alaska).
NREL also is preparing an assessment of wind and solar energy potential
on National Forest Service lands that should be ready later this year;
GAO observations: It is not clear what has changed because of these
reports. For example, has renewable energy production increased on
federal lands and have any baseline measures been established and
comparison made? Also, it is not clear what access limitations have
been reevaluated.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-2: The NEPD Group supports the increase
of $39.2 million in the FY 2002 budget amendment for DOE's Energy
Supply account that would provide increased support for research and
development of renewable energy resources;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: For FY 2002, the total
budget request for DOE's Energy Supply account, including renewable
energy and related technologies, was $276.6 million. This figure
included the original budget request of $237.5 million and the
supplemental request of $39.2 million recommended in the NEP.
Comparable figures for FYs 2003 and 2004 were $408 million and $444
million, respectively;
GAO observations: Additional information is available on funding for
renewable energy under DOE's Energy Supply account. This account
included funding for other activities outside of renewable programs,
namely the electric energy systems program that strives to enhance
electricity delivery. In fact about one-half ($17.8 million) of the
$39.2 million supplemental request was for the electric energy systems
program. Compared with the total budget request of $276.6 million in FY
2002, actual funding for this account was $373.2 million in FY 2001 and
$385.6 million in FY 2002.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a review of current
funding and historic performance of renewable energy and alternative
energy research and development programs in light of the
recommendations of this report. Based on this review, the Secretary of
Energy is then directed to propose appropriate funding of those
research and development programs that are performance-based and are
modeled as public-private partnerships;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Program activities
within DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
are conducted in partnership with the private sector, state and local
government, DOE national laboratories, and universities. In July 2002,
after a review of past funding and performance, EERE was reorganized to
strengthen its focus on programs and these public-private partnerships.
This reorganization, "Focused on Results: Streamlining and Integrating
Program and Business Management for Better Performance," is designed to
create a more responsive performance-based research and development
effort. The results of this reorganization have been reflected in
recent budget submissions;
GAO observations: DOE reports it completed a review with findings that
focused management on the need for reorganization. However, it is not
clear how this review addressed the recommendation to conduct a review
of renewable energy and alternative energy research and development
programs in light of the recommendations of the NEP report. For
example, outside of the reorganization, how have research efforts
changed and what developments have been made? Also, DOE's review
focused on DOE programs, but there are other renewable energy and
alternative energy research and development programs funded by the
federal government through agencies, such as the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and USDA, that were not addressed by the review. See
related recommendation 4-2 on energy efficiency.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress on
legislation to expand the section 29 tax credit to make it available
for new landfill methane projects. The credit could be tiered,
depending on whether a landfill is already required by federal law to
collect and flare its methane emissions due to local air pollution
concerns;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed a tax credit for new landfill methane projects. Congress
considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have provided
such a tax credit. However, landfill methane projects were included in
the extension of the tax credit for renewable electricity contained in
the corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357) signed into law by the
President in October 2004;
GAO observations: The status report does not make it clear why the
status is characterized as "legislation proposed" when legislation has
been enacted (Pub. L. No. 108-357). Also, DOE does not indicate how
long the extension is for the tax credit for renewable energy. In
response to our inquiry, DOE noted that Pub. L. No. 108-357 does expand
the credit to landfill gas for power generation, but not for other
applications that would be covered by legislation called for by this
recommendation. However, it is still not clear what those other
applications would be.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine ways to
reduce the delays in geothermal lease processing as part of the
permitting review process;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Since 2001, BLM has
issued more than 200 new geothermal leases, a 1,000 percent increase
over the previous 4 years. In 2001, BLM-Nevada issued an action plan
for expediting the processing of geothermal leases. To help identify
new candidate sites for geothermal development, BLM and DOE completed a
collaborative resource assessment and prepared a report, Opportunities
for Near-Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western
United States, issued in April 2003. The report identifies 35 top-pick
BLM sites in 18 planning units in 6 states as having high potential for
near-term geothermal development;
GAO observations: The status report does not indicate how delays have
been reduced or what actions BLM took to increase leases by 1,000
percent. Also, it is not clear whether baselines and performance
measures for reducing delays have been established.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to develop a new renewable
energy partnership program to help companies more easily buy renewable
energy, as well as receive recognition for the environmental benefits
of their purchase, and help consumers by promoting consumer choice
programs that increase their knowledge about the environmental benefits
of purchasing renewable energy;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In 2001, EPA launched
the Green Power Marketing Program with 21 charter members. The Green
Power Partnership encourages organizations to use renewable energy as a
part of best-practice environmental management. The program now boasts
600 partners--including Fortune 500 companies, federal agencies, state
and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and universities--
committed to purchase some 2 billion kwh of electricity from "Green
Power" sources. EPA also has developed a Green Power Web site, a
comprehensive procurement guide and an online Green Power Locator to
help consumers find Green Power suppliers;
GAO observations: The status report does not indicate whether a
baseline and goal for increasing purchases of renewable energy has been
established. No information is provided on how much of the 2 billion
kwh has been purchased and whether this an annual goal or a longer term
goal. Also, regarding efforts to increase their knowledge about the
benefits of renewable energy, it is not clear how these efforts are
related to other education programs outlined under recommendations 2-1
and 4-15.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-7: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress on
legislation to extend and expand tax credits for electricity produced
using wind and biomass. The President's budget request extends the
present 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced
from wind and biomass; expands eligible biomass sources to include
forest-related sources, agricultural sources, and certain urban
sources; and allows a credit for electricity produced from biomass co-
fired with coal;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation enacted:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed extending and expanding the current Section 45 tax credit for
electricity produced from certain renewable sources, such as wind,
solar, and biomass. Congress considered, but did not enact, legislation
that would have provided such a tax credit. A 1-year extension of the
tax credit for renewable electricity was contained in the corporate tax
bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357) signed into law by the President in October
2004;
GAO observations: The status report notes that tax credits are reported
to be extended 1 year, but it is not clear from the status report
whether any expansion of tax credits was enacted as called for in this
recommendation. DOE considers this recommendation implemented by
legislation enacted because it was extended 1 year. In providing
technical comments on a draft of this report, the Department of the
Treasury noted that the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No.
108-357) expanded the wind and biomass credit (code section 45) to
include electricity produced from open-loop biomass and several other
energy sources.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress on
legislation to provide a new 15 percent tax credit for residential
solar energy property, up to a maximum credit of $2,000;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed a tax credit for residential solar energy investments.
Congress considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have
provided such a tax credit;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to work
with Congress on legislation to use an estimated $1.2 billion of bid
bonuses from the environmentally responsible leasing of ANWR for
funding research into alternative and renewable energy resources,
including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FYs 2003-05 budgets have each proposed using ANWR bid
bonuses to fund renewable energy research and development activities.
Congress considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have
opened ANWR to environmentally responsible development;
GAO observations: See related recommendation 3-2 on the use of ANWR
royalties.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-10: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress to
continue the ethanol excise tax exemption;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation enacted:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed to continue the ethanol excise tax exemption. Extension of
this tax exemption was contained in the corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No.
108-357) signed into law by the President in October 2004;
GAO observations: Our review of the provisions of The American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-357) found that the excise tax
exemption was not continued as DOE reported, but rather was repealed
and replaced by a new ethanol tax exemption that has an economically
equivalent effect on ethanol producers (but increases revenues
dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund). Thus DOE considered the
recommendation to be implemented.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-11: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to develop next-generation
technology--including hydrogen and fusion; (1) Develop an education
campaign that communicates the benefits of alternative forms of energy,
including hydrogen and fusion; (2) Focus research and development
efforts on integrating current programs regarding hydrogen, fuel cells,
and distributed energy; (3) Support legislation reauthorizing the
Hydrogen Energy Act;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a
$1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop the technologies and
infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in
fuel cell vehicles and distributed electricity generation. Combined
with the FreedomCAR Partnership, President Bush is proposing a total of
$1.7 billion over 5 years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells,
hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automotive technologies. To
implement internationally the goals of President Bush's FreedomCAR and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives, the United States hosted the first
Ministerial meeting of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen
Economy (IPHE) in November 2003. The IPHE's 15 nations and the EU are
working to advance research, development, and deployment of hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies, and to develop common codes and standards
for hydrogen use. DOE has developed extensive Web-based material to
educate the public on alternative forms of energy, including hydrogen
and fusion. In addition, in October 2003, DOE launched an effort to
introduce science students across the country to the promise of
hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Through the program, students of all
ages will be introduced to the basic concepts and principles of
hydrogen-based energy in fun and creative ways to interest them in the
vision of a hydrogen economy. DOE prepared extensive testimony and
documentation in support of proposed legislation to reauthorize the
Hydrogen Future Act as a part of any comprehensive national energy
legislation. Also, in 2003, President Bush announced that the United
States was rejoining negotiations on the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor, a research project to develop nuclear fusion's
potential as a future energy source;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-12: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress to
develop legislation to provide for a temporary income tax credit
available for the purchase of new hybrid or fuel-cell vehicles between
2002 and 2007;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation proposed:
The President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget requests have each
proposed a tax credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Congress
considered, but did not enact, legislation that would have established
this tax credit;
GAO observations: See duplicate recommendation 4-11.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 6-13: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to issue guidance to encourage
the development of well-designed CHP units that are both highly
efficient and have low emissions. The goal of this guidance would be to
shorten the time needed to obtain each permit; provide certainty to
industry by ensuring consistent implementation across the country; and
encourage the use of these cleaner, more efficient technologies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In 2001, DOE and EPA
issued a stakeholder roadmap for CHP and established the Distributed
Generation Emissions Collaborative, composed of DOE, EPA, states, and
industry, to address state emission requirements for CHP facilities.
DOE and EPA have worked together to organize regional CHP initiatives
for most regions of the country to foster the use of CHP, develop tools
and services to support the development of new projects, and address
permitting and other barriers within their regions. Several states have
issued permitting rules or are drafting permitting rules that address
CHP. EPA has developed a handbook, Output-based Regulations: A Handbook
for Regulators, to assist air regulators in developing emissions
regulations that recognize the pollution prevention benefits of
efficient energy generation, like CHP, and renewable energy
technologies;
GAO observations: See related recommendation 4-8. The reported status
for recommendation 4-8 lists activities ongoing, while the reported
status for this recommendation does not. DOE confirmed that both
recommendations have activities ongoing.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to work with FERC to improve
the reliability of the interstate transmission system and to develop
legislation providing for enforcement by a self-regulatory organization
subject to FERC oversight;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing,
legislation supported: The President has repeatedly called on Congress
to develop legislation that would improve the reliability of the
interstate electric transmission system by providing for enforcement by
a self-regulatory organization subject to FERC oversight. FERC and DOE
worked together on the U.S. Canada Power System Outage Task Force,
which investigated the August 2003 blackout and recommended that
Congress make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable, with
penalties for noncompliance. DOE's newly created Office of Electric
Transmission and Distribution is working with reliability experts from
the power industry, state governments, and their Canadian counterparts
to improve grid reliability and increase investment in our electric
infrastructure. For example, following the August 2003 blackout, DOE's
Transmission Reliability Program accelerated efforts to install real-
time grid early-warning equipment and software in the Eastern United
States;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate whether any
legislation has been developed. In response to our question about
legislation, DOE stated that Title XII of last year's energy bill
conference report included a provision for enforcement by a self-
regulatory organization subject to FERC oversight. In addition, the
status report does not note that FERC acted on the recommendations of
the Task Force with a Policy Statement (Docket No. PL04-5) identifying
specific initiatives the commission should undertake to promote
reliable transmission service. Also, the commission formed a new
reliability division to specifically address the reliability of the
transmission system.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to expand the department's
research and development on transmission reliability and
superconductivity;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Through its electricity transmission and distribution research and
development activities, DOE supports superconductivity and breakthrough
grid reliability technologies. The President's FY 2005 budget sought
$45 million for these programs, up from a FY 2003 request of $32.3
million. With DOE funding support, two American firms, American
Superconductor Corp. and IGC Superpower, announced in March 2004 world-
record performance in its second generation high temperature
superconductor (HTS) wire. The companies reported that the electrical
current carrying capacity of its new wire is now twice that of the best
industrial HTS wires anywhere in the world, and 50 percent higher than
previous results;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on
what actual funding for these programs has been. In addition, other
federal programs conduct superconductivity research that may be related
to this recommendation. For example, the National Science Foundation
funds superconductivity research.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to authorize the Western Area
Power Administration to explore relieving the "Path 15" bottleneck
through transmission expansion financed by nonfederal contributions;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: A transmission line to
relieve the California "Path 15" bottleneck was energized on December
14, 2004, following considerable facilitation from DOE and FERC, which
approved an incentive rate agreement among users providing for the
recovery of the upgrade costs borne by the private sector;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the appropriate federal agencies to take actions to
remove constraints on the interstate transmission grid and allow our
nation's electricity supply to meet the growing needs of our economy.
(1) Direct the Secretary of Energy, by December 31, 2001, to examine
the benefits of establishing a national grid, identify transmission
bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove transmission bottlenecks;
(2) Direct the Secretary of Energy to work with FERC to relieve
transmission constraints by encouraging the use of incentive rate-
making proposals; (3) Direct the federal utilities to determine whether
transmission expansions are necessary to remove constraints. The
Administration should review the Bonneville Power Administration's
(BPA) capital and financing requirements in the context of its
membership in a regional transmission organization, and, if additional
Treasury financing appears warranted or necessary in the future, the
Administration should seek an increase in BPA's borrowing authority at
that time; (4) Direct the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
appropriate federal agencies and state and local government officials,
to develop legislation to grant authority to obtain rights-of-way for
electricity transmission lines, with the goal of creating a reliable
national transmission grid. Similar authority already exists for
natural gas pipelines in recognition of their role in interstate
commerce;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
May 2002, DOE provided the President with the National Transmission
Grid Study, which made 51 recommendations to facilitate investment in
the Nation's transmission infrastructure to improve reliability and
reduce electricity costs to consumers. Following completion of the
study, DOE and FERC worked to develop incentive rate proposals,
including higher rates of return for new grid investments, for
investments in new technologies and sophisticated grid operating
practices, and for grid owners who join a regional transmission
organization and let that organization operate the grid. FERC has since
issued a Proposed Pricing Policy for public comment. DOE also started a
process to identify and make known "National Interest Transmission
Bottlenecks" that need to be addressed. In July 2003, FERC approved
standardized procedures and agreements for the interconnection of
electricity generators (larger than 20 megawatts) to the interstate
transmission grid. In November 2003, FERC issued market behavior rules
to help prevent market abuse, provide a more stable marketplace, and
create an environment that will attract investment capital in the
electricity and natural gas sectors, and, in April 2004, FERC adopted
new methods to assess "market power" in the electric sector and
clarified its standards of conduct that govern the relationship between
transmission providers and their energy affiliates. In both the 107th
and 108th Congresses, the Administration supported comprehensive
electricity reform legislation that would have established last-resort
federal siting authority for high-priority transmission lines. Congress
considered, but did not enact, legislation to address this important
need;
GAO observations: The DOE status report does not address whether the
administration reviewed the BPA's capital and financing requirements in
the context of its membership in a regional transmission organization
as called for in this recommendation. Thus, it is not known if
additional Treasury financing appears warranted or necessary in the
future, or whether the Administration sought an increase in BPA's
borrowing authority. According to DOE, the Administration did review
BPA's financing requirements, and, for the FY 2003 budget, requested an
additional $700 million in BPA borrowing authority.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of the Interior to work with Congress
and the State of Alaska to put in place the most expeditious process
for renewal of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System lease to ensure that
Alaskan oil continues to flow uninterrupted to the west coast of the
United States;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale
Norton approved a 30-year renewal of the federal right-of-way lease for
the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline bringing that oil to Port Valdez,
effective January 23, 2004;
GAO observations: See duplicate recommendation 5-9.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Energy and State, coordinating with
the Secretary of the Interior and FERC, to work closely with Canada,
the State of Alaska, and all other interested parties to expedite the
construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas to the lower 48
states. This should include proposing to Congress any changes or
waivers of law pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of
1976 that may be required;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing;
legislation enacted: An interagency working group, including FERC, DOE,
EPA, and DHS, was convened in July 2001 and continues to meet regularly
to facilitate interagency coordination. In April 2004, the President
signed Executive Order 13337, which updated the Secretary of State's
authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border petroleum or
natural gas pipelines after consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other
agencies. In October 2004, Congress enacted and the President approved
the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Pub. L. No. 108-324) to expedite
and streamline federal permitting for an Alaska natural gas pipeline
and authorize $18 billion in federal loan guarantees for the project;
GAO observations: While the status information reports that Congress
enacted Pub. L. No. 108-324, it does not state what changes this law
made to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. The status
report also does not set out the Secretary of Energy's role under Pub.
L. No. 108-324 in issuing loan guarantees. In response to our
questions, DOE noted that the 2004 Act included minor modifications to
the 1976 Act and that DOE is the lead agency concerning loan
guarantees. DOE also told us that FERC is prepared to work with project
proponents as soon as an application is filed, possibly as early as
November 2005. We observed that Executive Order 13337 does not address
cross-border gas pipelines. Specifically, the executive order states
that "except for facilities covered by Executive Order 10485" the
Secretary of State is designated to receive applications for cross-
border permits. Executive Order 10485, as amended, empowers the
Secretary of Energy to issue permits for the importation or exportation
of natural gas to or from a foreign country. Accordingly, it is not
clear how Executive Order 13337, which by its terms excludes cross-
border natural gas pipelines, is relevant to this recommendation; See
duplicate recommendation 8-9.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-7: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President support legislation to improve the safety of natural gas
pipelines, protect the environment, strengthen emergency preparedness
and inspections, and bolster enforcement;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; legislation enacted: In
December 2002, the President signed into law the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-355), which will improve the
safety of natural gas pipelines, protect the environment, strengthen
emergency preparedness and inspections, and bolster enforcement;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct agencies to continue their interagency efforts to
improve pipeline safety and expedite pipeline permitting in an
environmentally sound manner and encourage FERC to consider
improvements in the regulatory process governing approval of interstate
natural gas pipeline projects;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOT
has led cooperative action to implement provisions of the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2002, finalizing gas integrity management
regulations, developing standards to evaluate operator qualification,
reviewing gas integrity management plans, and inspecting operator
qualification plans. DOT and other agencies are cooperating to
implement the legislation through the development of an interagency
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides for expedited permit
reviews for repair instances where best management practices are
applied. Through use of the NEPA pre-filing process, FERC has reduced
the time for permitting a major pipeline from 16 months or longer to as
few as 9 months;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on the
status of the development of the interagency MOU that provides for
expedited permit reviews. According to DOE, the MOU was signed in the
summer of 2004, and the agencies are still developing implementation
protocols.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator to study opportunities to
maintain or improve the environmental benefits of state and local
"boutique" clean fuel programs, while exploring ways to increase the
flexibility of the fuels distribution infrastructure, improve
fungibility, and provide added gasoline market liquidity. In concluding
this study, the administrator shall consult with DOE, USDA, and other
agencies as needed;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Following extensive
interagency consultation, EPA completed a series of analyses of
"boutique fuel" issues in October 2001, resulting in a report to the
President. The report identified several regulatory changes that can be
made in the near term that could help to moderate gasoline price spikes
during future transition periods when fuel producers switch from winter
to summer grade cleaner-burning gasoline. The report also sought public
comment on longer term changes to EPA's fuels programs. These changes
may require amendments to the Clean Air Act or wide-scale changes to
current fuel regulations. Congress considered, but did not enact,
legislation that would have addressed this issue;
GAO observations: The status report does not indicate what the status
is of the regulatory changes that can be made in the near term. Also,
it is not clear what specific legislation was proposed to address
longer term changes or whether activities are ongoing to address these
changes. In response to our questions, DOE stated that a number of
short-term provisions were finalized, but that longer term actions
still require enacted legislation.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-10: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Energy to
take steps to ensure America has adequate refining capacity to meet the
needs of consumers; (1) Provide more regulatory certainty to refinery
owners and streamline the permitting process where possible to ensure
that regulatory overlap is limited; (2) Adopt comprehensive regulations
(covering more than one pollutant and requirement) and consider the
rules' cumulative impacts and benefits;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
2002, EPA released a background paper on impacts of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program on power plants, refineries, and energy
efficiency; held four public "hearings"; toured communities near
refineries in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Houston. EPA finalized rules
to implement several improvements to the NSR Program, including "Plant
Applicability Limits," that will make it easier for refineries to
upgrade or expand their facilities while maintaining stringent
environmental standards. The Executive Order 13212 Task Force is
currently reviewing opportunities to simplify and expedite the refinery
permitting process by working collaboratively with federal agencies,
states, and local communities to eliminate regulatory delay or overlap;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on the
status of the task force review of opportunities to simplify the
refinery permitting process. (See related recommendation 3-3 on the
work of the task force.) Further information is available on EPA's
rules. In June 2001, EPA issued a NSR background paper as a partial
response to recommendation 7-11 that sought a report on NSR within 90
days. EPA's June 2002 final report found that NSR had not affected
investments in new power plants and refineries but had discouraged some
energy-efficiency projects at existing facilities, including some that
would have reduced air emissions. However, EPA noted that the report's
conclusions about the effect of NSR on energy-efficiency projects are
based on anecdotal information from industry because the agency lacked
comprehensive data on the number of projects that did not go forward as
a result of NSR. Because of a lack of data and uncertainties about
NSR's impact, we recommended that EPA determine what data are
available, identify additional data needs, and use the monitoring
results to determine whether NSR has created adverse effects that EPA
needs to address. While EPA generally agreed with these
recommendations, EPA is still collecting data on the rules' effects;
EPA's modifications to the NSR Program are contained in rules issued in
December 2002 and October 2003. However, lawsuits challenging the
legality of these two rules were filed in court. The 2002 rule, which
is intended to provide incentives for facilities to reduce emissions,
removes barriers to energy-efficiency and pollution control projects
and offers greater regulatory flexibility. It is currently being
implemented in 10 states while other rules are awaiting EPA approval.
The 2002 rule included plant applicability limits. However, the 2003
rule, which is intended to allow companies to modernize facility
operations in ways that will maintain and improve safety, reliability,
and efficiency, has been prevented from going into effect by legal
challenges. On December 24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit stayed this equipment replacement rule
pending further review of the legal challenges brought by a coalition
of primarily mid-Atlantic and northeastern states and environmental and
public health groups; See related recommendation 7-11.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-11: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and other relevant agencies, to review NSR
regulations, including administrative interpretation and
implementation, and report to the President within 90 days on the
impact of the regulations on investment in new utility and refinery
generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Following several
public outreach meetings, EPA sent to the President in June 2002 a
final report on its review of the NSR Program. EPA has since issued
modifications to the NSR Program to facilitate power plant and refinery
maintenance, enabling safety and efficiency improvements to move
forward without penalizing industry and the consumers who need
affordable electric power and refined fuels, while also preserving air
quality;
GAO observations: Further information is available on the status of
this recommendation. For example, in June 2001, EPA issued a NSR
background paper as a partial response to the recommendation that
sought a report within 90 days. EPA's June 2002 final report found that
NSR had not affected investments in new power plants and refineries but
had discouraged some energy-efficiency projects at existing facilities,
including some that would have reduced air emissions. However, EPA
notes that the report's conclusions about the effect of NSR on energy-
efficiency projects are based on anecdotal information from industry
because the agency lacked comprehensive data on the number of projects
that did not go forward as a result of NSR. Because of a lack of data
and uncertainties about NSR's impact, we recommended that EPA determine
what data are available, identify additional data needs, and use the
monitoring results to determine whether NSR has created adverse effects
that EPA needs to address. While EPA generally agreed with these
recommendations, EPA is still collecting data on the rules' effects;
EPA's modifications to the NSR Program are contained in rules issued in
December 2002 and October 2003. However, lawsuits challenging the
legality of these two rules were filed in court. The December 2002
rule, which is intended to provide incentives for facilities to reduce
emissions, removes barriers to energy-efficiency and pollution control
projects and offers greater regulatory flexibility, is currently being
implemented in 10 states, while other rules are awaiting EPA approval.
State and local agencies that operate under delegation agreements were
required to implement this rule by March 2003 or return responsibility
for implementing the rule to EPA. Those agencies operating under state
implementation plans have until January 2006 to revise their
regulations accordingly. However, the October 2003 rule, which is
intended to allow companies to modernize facility operations in ways
that will maintain and improve safety, reliability, and efficiency, has
been prevented from going into effect by legal challenges. On December
24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit stayed this equipment replacement rule pending further review
of the legal challenges brought by a coalition of primarily mid-
Atlantic and northeastern states and environmental and public health
groups; See related recommendation 7-10.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-12: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Attorney General to review existing enforcement
actions regarding NSR to ensure that the enforcement actions are
consistent with the Clean Air Act and its regulations;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In January 2002, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewed the applicable law, agency
actions, and representative pleadings and concluded that the EPA's NSR
enforcement actions were consistent with the Clean Air Act and its
regulations. DOJ concluded that EPA's civil actions to enforce the NSR
provisions of the Clean Air Act were supported by a reasonable basis in
law and fact;
GAO observations: Further information is available on the status of
enforcement actions. The January 2002 DOJ report focused principally on
enforcement actions against coal-fired power plants because defendants
in other industries, such as petroleum refining, generally had not
alleged that EPA's actions were inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
However, NSR modifications made in December 2002 and October 2003 rules
could affect current enforcement cases. According to DOJ, as of March
2005, there were eight pending cases brought against coal-fired power
plants. Settlements have been reached in three of those cases, but the
settlements are awaiting public comment and court approval. In
addition, two cases are pending that involve petroleum refineries.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 7-13: The NEPD Group supports the
President's budget proposal to provide $8 million to maintain the 2-
million-barrel Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. Operated by the private
sector, the reserve helps ensure adequate supplies of heating oil in
the event that colder-than-normal winters occur in the northeast United
States;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
During its first 2 years, the Bush Administration requested and
received $8 million annually for maintenance of the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve (NHHOR). Since then, DOE has cut costs and only
requires funding around $5 million per year to maintain the NHHOR.
Leases have been signed to ensure continued storage of 2 million
barrels in New Haven, Connecticut; Woodbridge, New Jersey; and
Providence, Rhode Island, with options to extend for up to 4 additional
years;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign
policy;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
President has made energy security a priority of our trade and foreign
policy through various bilateral and multilateral dialogues,
initiatives, and activities. Examples of these activities include the
U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, the International Partnership
for the Hydrogen Economy, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum,
the U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Dialogue, the U.S.-Russia Energy
Working Group, and the U.S.-African Energy Ministerial process;
GAO observations: It is not clear what the overall energy security goal
is or how the initiatives outlined in the reported status have enhanced
energy security.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-2: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President support initiatives by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar,
the UAE, and other suppliers to open up areas of their energy sectors
to foreign investment;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Senior officials from the Departments of State, Energy, and Commerce
have been engaged to support initiatives by Saudi Arabia (Gas
Initiative), Kuwait (Northern Oilfields), Qatar (LNG), and Algeria
(LNG). The United States is active in the International Energy Forum
(IEF) and uses these and other fora to consult with energy ministers on
trade and investment and to advocate energy sector liberalization.
Specifically, DOE has reestablished U.S.-Saudi bilateral consultations
and assisted Algeria in the creation of New Energy Algeria, a renewable
energy venture intended to attract U.S. and other foreign investment
and technology with up to 70 percent foreign ownership;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what areas of
these energy sectors have been opened as a result of these initiatives.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-3: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Energy, and Commerce to work
to improve dialogue among energy producing and consuming nations;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Multilaterally, the United States actively participates in ministerial-
level meetings of the IEF to exchange views on key energy issues. Other
important dialogues initiated by President Bush are the U.S.-U.K.
Energy Dialogue, U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group, and the North
American Energy Working Group. The United States continues to support
the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), a joint activity launched by the
Asia Pacific Energy Research Center, the statistics office of the
European Union, International Energy Agency (IEA), the Latin-American
Energy Organization, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries, and the United Nations Statistical Division as an effort to
improve the quality and transparency of international oil statistics;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what the
results of these dialogues have been. For example, how has the quality
and transparency of international oil statistics been improved?.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
continue supporting American energy firms competing in markets abroad
and use our membership in multilateral organizations--such as the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Energy Services Negotiations, the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA)--and our bilateral relationships to implement a
system of clear, open, and transparent rules and procedures governing
foreign investment; to level the playing field for U.S. companies
overseas; and to reduce barriers to trade and investment;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Through bilateral commercial policy fora (U.S.-China Oil and Gas
Industry Forum, U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Summits, North American
Energy Working Group, etc.) and through leadership and participation in
multilateral organizations (APEC, WTO, etc.), the federal agencies are
working to create a level and transparent playing field for U.S.
companies (e.g., promoting best practices for LNG trade and financing
of cleaner and more efficient energy among APEC members);
GAO observations: The reported status does not identify barriers to
trade and investment that have been reduced. Also, other federal
agencies may play a role in addressing this recommendation. For
example, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) funds various
forms of technical assistance, feasibility studies, training,
orientation visits, and business workshops (in energy and other
sectors) in developing and middle-income countries to support the
development of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open trading
environment. USTDA provides grants directly to overseas project
sponsors who, in turn, select U.S. companies to perform USTDA-funded
activities. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) works to support the reform of energy sectors in the countries
where it works, improve the functioning of markets, increase private
sector participation, expand access to energy services, and support
regional energy trade and integration.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-5: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, and the U.S.
Trade Representative, to support a sectoral trade initiative to expand
investment and trade in energy-related goods and services that will
enhance exploration, production, and refining, as well as the
development of new technologies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Commerce's Office of Energy has led missions to support expanded
investment and trade in energy-related goods and services that enhance
exploration, production, and refining, as well as the commercialization
of new energy technologies. The Industry Trade Advisory Committee on
Energy and Energy Services (ITAC 6), a federal advisory group composed
of U.S. private sector energy industry representatives and overseen by
Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR),
bolsters Commerce and USTR's work in these areas by providing ongoing
advice on global energy trade, investment, and market access policy
matters. DOE efforts have focused on regional (e.g., Sixth Western
Hemisphere Energy Ministers Meeting) and energy sector-specific
activities (e.g., Oil and Gas Services and Equipment Trade Mission to
Sakhalin Island, Russia), such as investment and trade in energy-
related goods and services enhancing exploration, production, refining,
and new technologies with China, Russia, UK, Angola, Kazakhstan, and
other key energy markets. DOE and State participated in a meeting of
the U.S.-UK Energy Dialogue in February 2004. The Dialogue's Commercial
Working Group, led by Commerce, sponsored a Clean Coal Technology
Reverse Trade Mission in June 2003. Commerce, State, and DOE also
regularly participate in Free Trade Agreement negotiations (e.g.,
Australia and Morocco);
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate how expanded
investment and trade in energy-related goods and services that enhances
exploration, production, and refining, as well as the development of
new technologies, is being measured. For example, DOE reports that
Commerce tracks expanded investment and trade in energy-related goods
and services through its commercial service performance measures
database.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to
initiate a comprehensive review of sanctions. Energy security should be
one of the factors considered in such a review;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
United States has liberalized trade and investment sanctions with
respect to Libya and Iraq, and other sanctions are under continuous
review. Energy security is generally one of the factors considered in
such a review. While the actions related to Iraq and Libya offer the
potential to improve energy security, these steps were not taken on the
basis of energy security considerations;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate whether there
has been a comprehensive review of sanctions, in particular those that
impact energy security as called for in the recommendation. Also, it is
not clear what the universe of sanctions is that can impact energy
security.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-7: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
engage in a dialogue through the North American Energy Working Group
(NAEWG) to develop closer energy integration among Canada, Mexico, and
the United States and identify areas of cooperation, fully consistent
with the countries' respective sovereignties;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
NAEWG was created to increase U.S., Canadian, and Mexican energy
cooperation and enhance the energy and economic security of North
America. The group has worked together to further integrate and
strengthen North American energy markets by overcoming policy and
technical obstacles to increased energy production and delivery. NAEWG
technical discussions have occurred in working groups covering energy
markets, electricity, energy efficiency, science and technology, and
infrastructure security;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation. In
commenting on a draft of this report, State reported that it
participates at each principals' meeting of the NAEWG and works with
DOE and Commerce to make certain that the expert groups' goals are
consistent with the foreign policy goals of the Administration.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Energy and State, in consultation
with FERC, to review their respective oil, natural gas, and electricity
cross-boundary "Presidential Permitting" authorities and to propose
reforms as necessary in order to make their own regulatory regimes more
compatible for cross-border trade;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: In April 2004, the
President signed Executive Order 13337, which updated the Secretary of
State's authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border
petroleum pipelines in consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other
appropriate agencies;
GAO observations: It is not clear from the reported status whether a
complete review of oil, natural gas, and electricity cross-boundary
"Presidential Permitting" authorities was conducted. For example,
Executive Order 13337 updated the Secretary of State's authority to
issue Presidential Permits for cross-border petroleum pipelines, but it
is not clear if electricity authorities were reviewed or how FERC was
consulted. See related recommendations 7-6 and 8-9.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Energy and State, coordinating with
the Secretary of the Interior and FERC, to work closely with Canada,
the State of Alaska, and all other interested parties to expedite the
construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas to the lower 48
states. This should include proposing to Congress any changes or
waivers of law pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of
1976 that may be required;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing;
legislation enacted: An interagency working group, including FERC, DOE,
EPA, and DHS, was convened in July 2001 and continues to meet regularly
to facilitate interagency coordination. In April 2004, the President
signed Executive Order 13337, which updated the Secretary of State's
authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border petroleum or
natural gas pipelines after consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other
federal agencies. In October 2004, Congress enacted and the President
approved the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Pub. L. No. 108-324) to
expedite and streamline federal permitting for an Alaska natural gas
pipeline and authorize $18 billion in federal loan guarantees for the
project;
GAO observations: While the status information reports that Congress
enacted Pub. L. No. 108-324, it does not state what changes this law
made to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. The status
report also does not set out the Secretary of Energy's role under Pub.
L. No. 108-324 in issuing loan guarantees. In response to our
questions, DOE noted that the 2004 Act included minor modifications to
the 1976 Act, and that DOE is the lead agency concerning loan
guarantees. DOE also told us that FERC is prepared to work with project
proponents as soon as an application is filed, possibly as early as
November 2005. We observe that Executive Order 13337 does not address
cross-border gas pipelines. Specifically, the executive order states
that "except for facilities covered by Executive Order 10485" the
Secretary of State is designated to receive applications for cross-
border permits. Executive Order 10485, as amended, empowers the
Secretary of Energy to issue permits for the importation or exportation
of natural gas to or from a foreign country. Accordingly, it is not
clear how Executive Order 13337, which by its terms excludes cross-
border natural gas pipelines, is relevant to this recommendation. See
duplicate recommendation 7-6.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-10: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State and Commerce to conclude
negotiations with Venezuela on a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), and
propose formal energy consultations with Brazil, to improve the energy
investment climate for the growing level of energy investment flows
between the United States and each of these countries;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
2001, an interagency group from the United States met with their
Venezuelan counterparts and discussed terms for the possible
reinitiation of BIT negotiations. The interagency group also met with
private sector and Venezuelan government representatives on the
Venezuela hydrocarbons law and held bilateral energy consultations with
Venezuelan officials in Caracas in 2001, and in Washington in 2001 and
2003. There have been no further official contacts with Venezuela on
these issues since 2003 because of concerns over the political and
investment climate in Venezuela. In December 2003, a DOE team visited
Brazil to identify areas of cooperation in the permitting of oil and
gas exploration and production activities. DOE Secretary Abraham and
Brazilian Energy Minister Rousseff signed an MOU on June 20, 2003, to
establish a mechanism for consultations on energy cooperation. In
addition to continuing collaboration in energy science and technology,
the MOU established a mechanism for consultations on issues of mutual
interest, such as energy planning, analysis, trade, and investment. DOE
and FERC teams visited Brazil and held discussions on energy planning,
information collection, and regulatory experiences and practices. DOE
and the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy co-hosted an Energy
Investment Symposium on November 21, 2003, in Washington for U.S.
companies investing in Brazil;
GAO observations: From the reported status, it is not clear what
Commerce and State programs are involved in implementing this
recommendation. DOE appears to have taken the lead role since
information is provided on its program efforts. In commenting on a
draft of this report, State reported that the interagency group that
met with Venezuelan counterparts in 2001 included staff of the U.S.
Trade Representative, DOE, and State.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-11: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce, and State to work
through the Summit of the Americas Hemispheric Energy Initiative to
develop effective and stable regulatory frameworks and foster reliable
supply sources of all fuels within the region;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
sixth Western Hemisphere Energy Ministers Meeting was held in Trinidad
on April 19-21, 2004. The theme was enhancing hemispheric energy
security and cooperation through agreement on actions to increase oil
and gas development and trade, including the development of stable
markets;
GAO observations: This recommendation is to foster reliable supply
sources of all fuels within the region, yet the theme on the reported
actions taken to implement this recommendation was to increase oil and
gas development and trade. It is not clear if other reliable sources of
fuel were addressed. Also, it is not clear what other meetings or work
through the Summit of the Americas Hemispheric Energy Initiative have
occurred and what the respective programmatic roles of State, Commerce,
and DOE have been. In commenting on a draft of this report, State
reported that the Western Hemisphere Energy Ministers' Meeting included
discussions of alternate energy sources, including wind and nuclear.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-12: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Energy, and Commerce to
reinvigorate the U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum and
the U.S.-African Energy Ministerial process; deepen bilateral and
multilateral engagement to promote a more receptive environment for
U.S. oil and gas trade, investment, and operations; and promote
geographic diversification of energy supplies, addressing such issues
as transparency, sanctity of contracts, and security;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Senior Administration officials met with African government officials
twice in 2003 to reinvigorate the U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic
Cooperation Forum. A similar meeting was held for the U.S.-African
Energy Ministerial process in Casablanca in June 2002, and another
meeting will be held in Senegal in 2005. Participating officials
include those from Angola, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Morocco, Algeria, South Africa, and Republic of
Congo-Brazzaville. Ongoing programs include cooperation with the
following: Nigeria on privatization reforms, transparency, increased
access to energy, and regional integration; Angola and Equatorial
Guinea on policy reforms and oil and gas development; South Africa on
renewable energy, nuclear energy, and electricity and natural gas
regulatory training; Botswana on clean coal technology; Ghana on energy
policy; Kenya on geothermal; and Uganda on commercialization of solar
ovens;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation.
Also, it is not clear how the various initiatives reported resulted in
increases in diverse energy supplies. Furthermore, other federal
programs may play a role in addressing this recommendation. For
example, according to USTDA, it has supported activities advancing a
regional integration approach to economic partnership in Africa, with
the aim of facilitating development and enhancing trade capacity. For
example, in FY 2003 USTDA supported a small oil refinery project in
Nigeria and a Forest Oil offshore gas project in South Africa. Also,
USAID has supported relevant efforts in Africa, such as the
construction of the West Africa Gas Pipeline.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-13: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Energy, and Commerce to
recast the Joint Economic Partnership Committee with Nigeria to improve
the climate for U.S. oil and gas trade, investment, and operations and
to advance our shared energy interests;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE
has established a comprehensive energy reform and technical assistance
program with Nigeria, which included assignment of a senior energy
advisor in Abuja, implementation of price liberalization, and
development of a draft natural gas strategy in 2002. Other activities
have included advocacy support on sanctity of contracts and investment
issues, assistance for advanced power sector reform and natural gas
policy development, and ongoing programs on privatization reforms,
increased access to energy, and regional integration;
GAO observations: It is not clear what Commerce and State programs are
involved in implementing this recommendation. DOE appears to have taken
the lead role as information is provided on its program efforts. In
commenting on a draft of this report, State reported that, with
interagency assistance, it has organized formal bilateral meetings with
Nigeria, and agencies maintain an active dialogue with Nigeria on
issues that affect investment by U.S. energy producers.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-14: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
support more transparent, accountable, and responsible use of oil
resources in African producer countries to enhance the stability and
security of trade and investment environments;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Administration has pursued stronger bilateral ties, geographic
diversification of energy sources, growing oil and gas trade with the
United States, good governance, free markets, rule of law, and stable
regulatory structures in African producing countries. For example,
Nigeria, Africa's largest energy producer, has publicly committed to
the G-8 Transparency and Anticorruption Compact in 2004, and to the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which aims for effective
and transparent use of oil revenues to fund development;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation. See
related recommendations 8-23 and 8-36 on transparency.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-15: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
support the BTC oil pipeline as it demonstrates its commercial
viability;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: Construction on the
$3.2 billion BTC pipeline began in April 2003 and should be completed
on schedule in 2005. OPIC has approved up to $125 million in political
risk insurance for the project, and the Export-Import Bank approved
financing for up to $160 million;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
State, Commerce, or DOE have played in construction of the BTC pipeline
or what role they will play to support it as it demonstrates commercial
viability. In addition, USAID and USTDA programs and activities appear
to support this recommendation. For example, USAID provided technical
assistance and training for the establishment of the Georgia
International Oil Company (GIOC), which was involved in the process for
establishment of the BTC pipeline, and USTDA has also provided support
for the BTC pipeline.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-16: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce, State, and Energy to
continue working with relevant companies and countries to establish the
commercial conditions that will allow oil companies operating in
Kazakhstan the option of exporting their oil via the BTC pipeline;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
United States has signed an Energy Partnership Declaration with
Kazakhstan that will help develop a stable and transparent legal and
regulatory climate for the development of the energy sector. The
Administration has promoted a market environment that will allow Kazakh
oil companies the option of exporting their oil via the BTC pipeline,
facilitating discussions between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to move
Kazakh oil through the BTC system;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation. In
addition, other federal programs may play a role in addressing this
recommendation. For example, USAID's energy activities in Kazakhstan
focus on improving transparency and public participation in the
management of energy resources. According to USAID, the work helps
reinforce the agency's overall goals for enhancing resource management
by providing the foundations for public disclosure of key sector data
and transparency operations within the industry, all of which are
required for Kazakhstan to become recognized as a key supplier to the
east-west corridor pipelines.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-17: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
support the efforts of private investors and regional governments to
develop the Shah Deniz gas pipeline as a way to help Turkey and Georgia
diversify their natural gas supplies and help Azerbaijan export its gas
via a pipeline that will continue diversification of secure energy
supply routes;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Bush Administration has promoted the Shah Deniz gas pipeline (now known
as the "South Caucasus" gas pipeline) that will run along the BTC
route. The $1 billion Shah Deniz project and the BTC project will
provide alternate energy supply routes to market for Caspian energy
resources, providing regional stability and much-needed transit
revenues for the participating countries. With U.S. encouragement,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey have ratified an agreement to construct
the pipeline. Construction has started and completion is expected at
the end of 2006;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation. In
addition, other federal programs may play a role in addressing this
recommendation. For example, USTDA has provided support for the Shah-
Deniz gas pipeline.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-18: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct appropriate federal agencies to complete the current
cycle of oil spill response readiness workshops and to consider further
appropriate steps to ensure the implementation of the workshops'
recommendations;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Administration cosponsored an April 2002 oil spill response workshop in
Kazakhstan, cosponsored in June 2001 the newly launched Black and
Caspian Sea Environmental Information Web site, and cohosted a meeting
of marine scientists from the five Caspian nations in August 2001. In
2003, Secretary Abraham signed a Statement of Intent to cooperate with
Russia on oil spill response, with a first workshop held in Moscow in
December 2003. Under the U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group, the United
States signed a Protocol on Oil Spill Response cooperation with Russia.
DOE and the Navy will hold a desktop exercise to test the regional oil
spill response plan developed by the Black Sea states upon availability
of funds;
GAO observations: The reported status does not mention other federal
programs that may play a role in oil spill response. For example, MMS,
NOAA, and USTDA have oil spill response efforts. MMS reports that it is
the principal U.S. agency funding oil spill response research and has
been actively involved in international oil spill conferences and
workshops for more than 20 years. MMS helps organize the Biennial
International Oil Spill Conference. In addition, NOAA's Office of
Response and Restoration is responsible for preventing, planning for,
and responding to oil spills in coastal environments and restoring
affected resources. Also, in May 2005, USTDA planned to sponsor an
orientation visit to familiarize a delegation of Pakistani officials
with U.S. policy and practices in oil spill response and recovery. The
delegation will also attend the 2005 International Oil Spill Conference
in Miami, Florida.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-19: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of State to encourage Greece and Turkey
to link their gas pipeline systems to allow European consumers to
diversify their gas supplies by purchasing Caspian gas;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: With U.S.
encouragement, Greece and Turkey signed an agreement in December 2003
to build a natural gas pipeline connecting the two countries. By 2006,
the Greek-Turkish interconnector should deliver 500 million cubic
meters of natural gas from Azerbaijan to Greece via Turkey;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what role State
played in implementing this recommendation. In addition, other federal
programs may play a role in addressing this recommendation. For
example, USAID reported that its Europe and Eurasia Bureau programs
provide technical assistance to the Energy Community in Southeast
Europe to create electricity and gas markets. According to USAID, the
expansion of natural gas markets in Southeast Europe from Caspian gas
resources destined to the rest of Europe strengthens the commercial
viability of the Greek-Turkish gas interconnector and of the proposed
pipelines that will transport this gas from Greece to Europe through
the countries of Southeast Europe. In FY 2005, USAID is providing
analysis related to expansion of gas distribution networks in Southeast
Europe and the Southeast Europe Regulators Working Group on the Gas
Sector.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-20: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and State to
deepen their commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and other
Caspian states to provide a strong, transparent, and stable business
climate for energy and related infrastructure projects;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
third annual U.S. Kazakhstan Energy Partnership meeting will have
working groups on Oil and Gas, Electric Power, Environmental Protection
and Alternative Energy Technologies, Facilities Security, and
Commercial Nuclear Technologies. The Energy Partnership's declaration
advocates support for market-based development of the energy sector on
the basis of a stable and transparent legal and regulatory climate and
honoring sanctity of existing contracts. Other initiatives include
working on the formation of an Investors Council and an Energy
Partnership in Azerbaijan, and a dialogue with Georgia on development
of a long-term "National Energy Strategy" and possible utilization of
distributed energy technologies;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this recommendation. In
addition, other federal programs may play a role in addressing this
recommendation. For example, USTDA supported technical assistance in
the restructuring of SOCAR (State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan
Republic), Azerbaijan's state-owned oil company. Also, relevant USAID
programs include efforts in Kazakhstan that focus on improving
transparency and public participation in the management of energy
resources. According to USAID, the work helps reinforce the agency's
overall goals for enhancing resource management by providing the
foundations for public disclosure of key sector data and transparency
operations within the industry, all of which are required for
Kazakhstan to become recognized as a key supplier to the east-west
corridor pipelines.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-21: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
deepen the focus of the discussions with Russia on energy and the
investment climate;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
Bush Administration has devoted much effort to strengthening our energy
relationship with Russia, which is now competing with Saudi Arabia to
be the world's largest crude oil producer and is a major exporter. In
2002, the Administration initiated a cooperative effort to help improve
commercial cooperation and the regulatory and investment conditions
required to increase energy and infrastructure development in Russia.
Private sector participants at two U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy
Summits presented recommendations on increased energy cooperation to
both governments in September 2003. Additionally, a U.S.-Russia Energy
Working Group has been formed and has hosted workshops on energy
efficiency, LNG, oil spill response, oil markets, investment, and
taxation. However, advancement of this relationship has been hampered
by recent actions that have raised concerns with the investment climate
in Russia;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE programs play in implementing this
recommendation. In commenting on a draft of this report, State reported
that it helped develop positions for and participated in both
Commercial Energy Summits, meetings of the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue,
and Energy Working Groups.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-22: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce, State, and Energy to
assist U.S. companies in their dialogue on the investment and trade
climate with Russian officials, to encourage reform of the PSA law and
other regulations and related tax provisions, as well as general
improvements in the overall investment climate. This will help expand
private investment opportunities in Russia and will increase the
international role of Russian firms;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Since the summer of 2001, there have been several ministerial-level
meetings with the Russian Ministers of Energy and Economic Development
and Trade, where U.S. officials have stressed the importance of the PSA
framework as well as the importance of a fair and transparent legal
regime in encouraging investment in the energy sector. In 2001, the
United States agreed to the establishment of a bilateral business
dialogue. Supporting the business dialogue was a key component of
Secretary Evans' trip to Russia in October 2001. The U.S.-Russia Energy
Working Group between DOE and the Ministry of Energy had its first
meeting in April 2002, agreeing on a program of continued cooperation
and information sharing. Real progress in reform and investment has
been limited for many reasons, including concerns with the investment
climate in Russia following recent activity; however, follow-up
activities will continue in the context of the G-8 Energy Ministers'
Meeting and the Bush-Putin Summits in February and May 2005;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what role State
programs played in implementing this recommendation. In commenting on a
draft of this report, State reported that its officials helped develop
implementing tactics for this recommendation and frequently raised
investment climate issues with its Russian counterparts and the
legislature.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-23: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Energy to
continue to work in the APEC forum Energy Working Group to examine oil
market data transparency issues and the variety of ways petroleum
stocks can be used as an option to address oil market disruptions;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Significant activities over the past year have improved the timeliness
and coverage of data collection among APEC members. An Action Plan to
enhance energy security endorsed by APEC leaders in 2003 includes a
mandate to identify best practice principles for strategic oil stocks.
Other actions include efforts on building petroleum stocks: China,
Thailand, and the Philippines have announced stockholding plans. IEA
has improved participation in the Joint Oil Data Initiative by
nonmembers and has improved data quality through consultation with
participants;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what roles
Commerce, State, and DOE programs play in implementing this
recommendation. Also, the reported status is not specific about how
data transparency has been improved. Also see related recommendations 8-
31 and 8-32 on oil stocks and recommendations 8-14 and 8-36 on
transparency.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-24: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of State and Energy to work with
India's Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to help India maximize
its domestic oil and gas production;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE
organized a 1-week Coal Bed Methane Mission in January 2003 for senior
Indian officials that included the Secretary of Petroleum, the
Secretary of Coal, and the Secretary of Labor. In June 2003, senior DOE
officials joined Indian Oil Minister Naih in meeting with U.S. oil
companies to encourage them to invest in India's oil and gas sector.
This was followed by a visit to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
by the Minister and a SPR visit by an Indian technical team in
September 2003. India passed legislation in December 2003 authorizing
the establishment of the first part of an Indian SPR. Throughout this
period, negotiations have continued on a draft MOU with DOE's EIA on
energy data exchange, which among other things, could facilitate
greater investment in India's oil and gas sector;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what role State
played in implementing this recommendation. Also, it is not clear what
the status is of the draft MOU with DOE's EIA on energy data exchange,
which among other things, could facilitate greater investment in
India's oil and gas sector. Further, other federal programs may play a
role in addressing this recommendation. For example, in September 2004,
USTDA awarded a $690,000 grant to GAIL (India) Ltd. (Erstwhile Gas
Authority of India Ltd.) to partially fund a feasibility study for the
National Gas Grid project in India. GAIL (India) Ltd. is a public
sector enterprise under India's Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-25: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretaries of Commerce, State, and Energy to
promote market-based solutions to environmental concerns; support
exports of U.S. clean energy technologies and encourage their overseas
development; engage bilaterally and multilaterally to promote best
practices; explore collaborative international basic research and
development in energy alternatives and energy-efficient technologies;
and explore innovative programs to support the global adoption of these
technologies;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Several significant initiatives have been undertaken to support exports
of U.S. clean energy technologies and encourage their overseas
development both bilaterally and multilaterally. The multilateral
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), launched in June 2003,
sets a framework for international cooperation on sequestration
technologies. The forum's 17 partners also are eligible to participate
in FutureGen, the joint DOE/private sector near-zero emission power and
hydrogen producing plant. The Administration led the 2003 formation of
the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE) to
coordinate and leverage multinational hydrogen research programs. IPHE
will address the technological, financial, and institutional barriers
to the hydrogen economy and develop internationally recognized
technology standards to speed market penetration of new technologies.
The Administration also launched the new international "Methane to
Markets Partnership" in a ministerial conference in Washington, D.C.,
in November 2004. This is an innovative partnership of developed and
developing countries working together to help promote energy security,
improve environmental quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
capturing methane that is currently wasted from leaky oil and gas
systems, from underground coal mines, and from landfills and using it
as a clean energy source. The Administration's Clean Energy Technology
Exports (CETE) initiative is designed to promote the global adoption of
these and other energy-efficient technologies and create international
energy markets for trade and investment. The United States has also
supported locally based market solutions to address energy and
environmental concerns in developing and transitional economies. In
2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa,
the United States announced the Clean Energy Initiative to reduce
poverty and promote economic growth by creating access to clean
efficient energy services;
GAO observations: It is not clear from the reported status what role
State and Commerce played in implementing this recommendation. In
contrast, information is provided on specific DOE program efforts. In
addition, it is not clear if any goals and measures of success in the
use of clean energy technologies have been established. For example, is
there a measure to compare current use of clean energy technologies
against future use as a progress measurement tool? In response to our
question, DOE stated that no uniform measure of success is in place
under CETE, but efforts are being designed to promote best practices
with measures of success being a component. Finally, other federal
programs may be related to implementation of this recommendation. For
example, USAID is a cochair (with DOE and Commerce) of the interagency
Clean Energy Technology Export Working Group. Also, USTDA supports
activities related to clean energy technology exports as described in
DOE's April 2001 Status Report to Congress on Current and Proposed
Activities under the Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE) Initiative.
In commenting on a draft of this report, State reported that it was
integrally involved in the establishment of these initiatives and
continues to be involved in maintaining them.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-26: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct federal agencies to support continued research into
global climate change; continue efforts to identify environmentally and
cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives; continue
development of new technologies; and cooperate with allies, including
through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based
incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of
global climate change;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
President Bush is committed to addressing the long-term challenge of
global climate change while ensuring continued economic growth and
prosperity for America. Domestically, the President has committed
America to reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy by
18 percent by 2012, preventing the emission of more than 500 million
tons of carbon over this period. To address this issue, the Bush
Administration is carrying out a comprehensive, innovative program of
domestic and international initiatives to (1) improve our understanding
of the science of climate change; (2) encourage near-term voluntary and
cost-effective emissions reductions; (3) develop transformational
energy technologies, such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, safer and more
proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants, and zero-emission coal
power plants, to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
longer term; and (4) build international partnerships (such as the
Earth Observations initiative, the IPHE, the CSLF, and the Methane to
Markets partnership) with developed and developing nations alike in a
global, long-term effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change;
GAO observations: The reported status sets an overall goal, but it is
not clear what the baseline measure is against which the goal of an 18
percent reduction by 2012 is to be compared. DOE explained that EIA,
taking into account current and anticipated factors in energy markets,
projects a greenhouse gas emissions intensity improvement of about 14
percent from a 2002 baseline to 2012. The President's goal is to
increase that improvement to 18 percent.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-27: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President seek to increase international cooperation on finding
alternatives to oil, especially for the transportation sector;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE
and USAID have provided grants for Clean Cities Coalitions and training
programs in New Delhi, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh; cities in the
Philippines; Mexico City, Mexico; and Lima, Peru, to assist with the
conversion of vehicles to cleaner fuels. The Administration led the
2003 formation of the IPHE to coordinate and leverage multinational
hydrogen research programs. The IPHE will address the technological,
financial, and institutional barriers to the hydrogen economy and
develop internationally recognized technology standards to speed market
penetration of new technologies;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-28: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of State to reinvigorate its dialogue
with the European Union on energy issues, and resume the consultative
process this year in Washington;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
November 2001, DOE and State hosted a bilateral consultation on energy
issues with the EU, which was followed by an expert discussion on
electricity and gas in May 2002. The EU has also joined several
multilateral international energy initiatives launched by the United
States, including the IPHE and the CSLF. The United States and the EU
also are partners in a climate change bilateral agreement that has a
strong focus on energy technologies;
GAO observations: It is not clear what activities have continued after
the May 2002 example provided in the status report. In commenting on a
draft of this report, State reported that the international
partnerships, CSLF and IPHE, were both launched in 2003 and are
chartered to continue indefinitely, providing an ongoing energy
dialogue.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-29: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President promote a coordinated approach to energy security by calling
for an annual meeting of G-8 Energy Ministers or their equivalents;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing:
Secretary Abraham co-chaired with Canada a meeting of G-8 Energy
Ministers in May 2002, resulting in the issuance of a Joint Statement
committing to cooperation in energy security; emergency responses;
energy dialogue among producers and consumers; research, development,
and deployment; and fostering open markets and a favorable/stable
investment climate. An informal meeting of G-8 Energy Ministers, hosted
by France in April 2003, continued the dialogue on oil markets,
producer/consumer relations, Iraqi production, and market transparency.
At the G-8 Summit in Evian, France, in 2003, a science and technology
action plan was endorsed which included cooperation in the CSLF and the
IPHE. Many individual G-8 countries and the EU are participating in
these initiatives. The G-8 Summit in June 2004 called for continued G-8
action to implement the Evian Action Plan and achieve concrete results;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-30: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President reaffirm that the SPR is designed for addressing an imminent
or actual disruption in oil supplies, and not for managing prices;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented: The Administration has
continually resisted calls to use the SPR for manipulating prices. The
United States will use the SPR only during a severe supply disruption,
if necessary to protect American consumers and our economy. The SPR is
vital to our national security and filling it to capacity is necessary
to maximize protection for American consumers and our economy against
severe oil supply disruptions, which could result from a variety of
events, including natural disasters, industrial accidents, and
terrorist attacks;
GAO observations: None.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-31: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to work within the
International Energy Agency (IEA) to ensure that member states fulfill
their stockholding;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
United States has worked with the IEA to ensure that member states
fulfill their stockholding requirements. Currently, IEA members
collectively hold 116 days' worth of imports in oil stocks. The United
States supported new, tougher measures to address certain members'
failure to maintain emergency reserves equal to 90 days' worth of
national oil imports. IEA held an energy emergency response exercise to
evaluate readiness for an international emergency;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what the
stockholding requirements are and whether those requirements are met by
the 116 days' worth of imports. Also, it is not clear who is party to
this agreement, what members are failing to meet requirements, and the
status of U.S. stockholding requirements.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-32: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to encourage major oil-
consuming countries that are not IEA members to consider strategic
stocks as an option for addressing potential supply disruptions. In
this regard, we should work closely with Asian economies, especially
through APEC;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
United States has worked with Asian countries through APEC to encourage
the build-up of oil stocks by non-IEA members as a cushion against
market disruptions and to address oil market transparency. China,
India, Thailand, and the Philippines have announced stockholding plans.
The IEA has held workshops for China, India, and Association of
Southeast Asian Nations countries, all of which have indicated a desire
to hold strategic stocks. China has plans to begin construction of an
SPR, and India recently passed legislation in December 2003 authorizing
establishment of the first part of an Indian SPR. DOE has hosted
Chinese and Indian delegations to study the SPR. State and DOE have
used APEC as another forum in which to urge non-IEA members to hold
strategic stocks, and stockholding is now part of the APEC Energy
Security Initiative, endorsed by APEC Leaders in Bangkok in November
2003;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate what the status
is on the strategic stocks for non-IEA members. See related
recommendation 8-23.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-33: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy offer to lease excess SPR
storage facilities to countries (both IEA and non-IEA members) that
might not otherwise build storage facilities or hold sufficient
strategic stocks, consistent with statutory authorities;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Not implemented: In November 2001,
the President directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to its
700 million barrel capacity in a cost-effective manner using
principally royalty oil from federal offshore leases; the SPR is
expected to reach its capacity during FY 2005. The United States and
the IEA continue to promote and support workshops and other actions to
encourage holding of strategic oil stocks in both IEA and non-IEA
member countries;
GAO observations: The SPR leases facilities that are not required for
standby operational readiness and have no adverse impact on the SPR
mission. All of the leases specify that DOE can take control of the
facilities if needed for an oil sale from the SPR.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-34: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President, at such time that exchanged SPR barrels are returned to the
SPR, should determine whether offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil
deposits to the SPR should be resumed, thereby increasing the size of
our reserve;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: In
November 2001, the President directed the Secretary of Energy to fill
the SPR to its 700 million barrel capacity in a cost-effective manner
using principally royalty oil from federal offshore leases. In August
2004, DOE awarded three new contracts to deliver crude oil to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve under the Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) exchange
program. The RIK program is managed by the Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service and represents a practical means of filling
the reserve in keeping with the President's objective to do so in a
deliberate and cost-effective manner;
GAO observations: The status report does not provide information on the
current status of the SPR. According to DOE, the SPR inventory stands
at 681 million barrels of oil as of February 2005. The SPR is expected
to reach 700 million barrels in August 2005.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-35: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to work closely with Congress
to ensure that our SPR protection is maintained;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: The
SPR is now at its highest level and continues to grow as additional
crude oil is received. In 2001, the SPR contained enough oil to cover
the loss of U.S. imports for 54 days. When the SPR reaches 700 million
barrels in mid-2005, as directed by the President, the SPR will provide
nearly 60 days of import protection. The Administration recommended to
Congress in 2003 that the optimal size of the SPR be analyzed before
determining whether further expansion of the SPR is warranted;
GAO observations: The reported status does not indicate the status of
plans to analyze the optimal size of the SPR to ensure that protection
is maintained. According to DOE, the SPR has a capacity of 727 million
barrels, the SPR is authorized to have a capacity of 1 billion barrels,
and the Administration is continually looking at the optimal size of
the SPR.
NEP recommendation, May 2001: 8-36: The NEPD Group recommends that the
President direct the Secretary of Energy to work with producer and
consumer country allies and the IEA to craft a more comprehensive and
timely world oil data reporting system;
DOE reported status, January 2005: Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE
continues participation in the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI) to
improve international oil market transparency. Over the past year, the
timeliness and coverage of APEC member data collection has
significantly improved. DOE is supporting the International Energy
Forum Secretariat and the African Energy Information System data
reporting initiatives. The United States has also highlighted the "oil
data" issue as a key objective of the producer-consumer dialogue;
GAO observations: See related recommendations 8-14 and 8-23 on oil
market transparency.
Sources: The May 2001 National Energy Policy report, the January 2005
National Energy Policy Status Report on Implementation of NEP
Recommendations, and GAO's observations on the reported status, along
with DOE's responses to GAO's questions or agency comments on a draft
of this report.
[A] See GAO, Licensing Hydropower Projects: Better Time and Cost Data
Needed to Reach Informed Decisions About Process Reforms. [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01499.pdf] (Washington, D.C.: May 2,
2001).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget Authority for
Agency Programs, by Energy Activity Area:
Dollars in actual amounts.
Energy activity area: Energy supply:
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,378,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,656,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $735,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,373,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,993,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $884,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Farm Service Agency-Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy
Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $150,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy
Efficiency, and Conservation Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,590,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,400,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses-3;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses-2;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Clean Coal Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: ($146,000,000);
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: ($47,000,000).
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Biomass And Biorefinery Systems Research and
Development (R&D);
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $69,868,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $84,898,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Departmental Energy Management Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,445,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Facilities and Infrastructure;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,100,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,297,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Geothermal Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $23,333,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $28,390,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Hydrogen Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $24,287,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $38,113,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Hydropower;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $4,861,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,016,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Intergovernmental Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $10,033,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $14,449,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Program Direction;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $17,720,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $12,615,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Renewable Program Support;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Solar energy;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $82,034,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $82,330,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Wind energy;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $32,085,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $41,640,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Zero energy buildings;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $7,572,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-National Academy of Sciences Program Review;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Plant and Capital Projects;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,590,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $6,954,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced Metallurgical Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $4,980,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Black Liquor;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $13,939,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and Other Power Systems;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $111,881,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $410,340,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Cooperative Research And Development;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,408,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $8,186,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Energy Efficiency Science Initiative;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $497,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Import/Export Authorization;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,173,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,981,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Natural Gas Technologies;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $120,279,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $47,013,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Petroleum Oil Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $57,324,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $42,025,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Program Direction and Management Support;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $75,192,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $87,229,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $17,715,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Nuclear Energy Research and Development;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $34,864,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $114,441,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Fusion Energy Sciences Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $238,260,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $240,695,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Indian Affairs-Operation of Indian Programs;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,200,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $3,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Coal Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,285,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,526,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Oil and Gas Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $57,793,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $86,100,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Workforce/Organizational Support;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $20,960,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $23,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS)-Indian Trust Responsibility;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $19,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $22,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS-Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $213,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $239,430,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Office of Surface Mining (OSM)-Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,111,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,153,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: OSM-Regulation and Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $95,401,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $104,209,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: U.S. Geological Survey-Energy Resource Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $22,783,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $23,705,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)-New Source Review;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences-Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,910,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $920,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Biological Sciences-Renewable Energy, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $20,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $87,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources-Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $490,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Hydrogen and Fusion, Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $490,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $790,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Other Energy, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,880,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $930,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Renewable Energy, Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $900,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,310,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Renewable Energy, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $4,540,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $30,540,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $6,010,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $7,330,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering-Hydrogen and
Fusion, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $10,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $70,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering-Renewable
Energy, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $20,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences-Renewable Energy, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $60,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: International Nuclear Safety Support;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,117,465;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $8,026,645.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety-Fuel Facilities Licensing and
Inspection;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $22,057,943;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $21,420,704.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-New Reactor Licensing;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $26,464,865.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Inspection and Performance
Assessment;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $132,942,192;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $147,123,812.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor License Renewal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $15,786,830;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $22,870,187.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Licensing;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $80,098,135;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $95,316,734.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Safety Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $81,664,869;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $70,870,929.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,591,377,434;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,391,565,876.
Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs, Agency-wide;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $92,400,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $91,900,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development-Global Change
Research, Climate Change Science Program and Climate Change Technology
Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $16,900,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $18,778,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-
National Marine Fisheries Habitat;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $8,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $103,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,415,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,539,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-National Weather Service;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,962,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Ocean and Coastal Resource Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $206,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $341,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,987,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Office of Response and Restoration;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $5,100,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,700,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $351,175,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $457,010,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Environmental Restoration;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $9,963,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,652,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Environmental Services;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $301,600,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $161,852,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $156,129,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Biological and Environmental Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $416,037,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $494,360,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $336,100,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $320,563,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Fish and Wildlife Service-Resource Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $9,646,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $13,148,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS-Oil Spill Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $6,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $6,000,000.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State-Climate Change and Sustainable Development;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,135,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,440,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Office of the Secretary of Transportation-National Climate
Change Technology;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $650,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Boutique Fuels;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Climate Change Programs-Technological Advances, Clean Car
Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $27,200,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $21,700,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies Legislation;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,100,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Energy
Efficiency, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $41,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences-Energy Efficiency, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $220,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $60,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences-Other Energy, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $60,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $10,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety-Environmental Protection and Low Level
Waste Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,129,469;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $4,563,957.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety-High Level Waste Regulation;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $24,804,276;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $30,457,514.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety-Regulation of Decommissioning;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $23,483,756;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $21,628,121.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety-Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
Licensing and Inspection;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $20,373,831;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $27,021,284.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Program: Regulatory Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $6,711,537;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,696,726.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,658,667,869;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,865,792,602.
Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance.
Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Weatherization;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $135,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $223,537,000.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,844,350,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,988,300,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,979,350,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,211,837,000.
Energy activity area: Basic energy science research.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Advanced Scientific Computing Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $122,338,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $163,185,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Basic Energy Sciences;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $752,031,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,001,941,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $874,369,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,165,126,000.
Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Afghanistan;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $3,100,000.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Activities in Iraq;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $558,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Electric Transmission and Distribution;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $37,336,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $88,384,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Lands and Realty Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $23,101,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $27,200,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Oregon and California Grant Lands;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,975,500;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,300,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $6,671,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $7,900,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-Natural
Gas Pipeline Safety;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $37,331,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $63,261,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources-Superconductivity, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Superconductivity, Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $780,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $110,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Superconductivity, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $400,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $340,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Superconductivity, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $28,170,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $12,130,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering-
Superconductivity, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $70,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $450,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $136,834,500;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $763,175,000.
Energy activity area: Energy conservation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy Policy and New Uses-
1;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $793,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $793,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $3,700,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $24,050,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Building Technologies;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $58,877,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $58,327,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Distributed Energy Resources;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $44,450,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $60,054,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Energy Efficiency Science Initiative;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $11,490,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,440,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Federal Energy Management Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $20,731,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $19,299,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Fuel Cell Technologies;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $3,550,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $53,906,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Industrial Technologies;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $109,243,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $96,824,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Intergovernmental Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $80,589,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $90,618,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Program Management;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $76,300,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $76,950,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Vehicle Technologies;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $206,271,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $174,171,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-Intelligent Traffic
Systems;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $11,175,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $7,541,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: FHWA-Office of Operations Energy Related Obligations;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $5,008,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $4,903,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Federal Transit Administration-Fuel-Cell-Powered Transit
Buses;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $5,469,596;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $20,896,397.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-Corporate
Average Fuel Economy;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $60,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,000,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Clean School Bus;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,000,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Climate Change Programs, Industry;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $22,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $26,800,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Climate Change Programs, Smart Way Transport Partnership
Initiative;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,600,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $4,400,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Climate Change, Buildings;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $42,600,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $41,600,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Locomotive Idling;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $200,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: OAR-Truck Idling;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $200,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Computer and Information Science and Engineering-Energy
Efficiency, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,070,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,560,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources-Renewable Energy, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,000,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $33,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Education and Human Resources-Energy Efficiency, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $100,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $400,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Energy Efficiency, Applied Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,790,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $830,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Engineering Directorate-Energy Efficiency, Basic Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $4,500,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $6,970,000.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Energy Efficiency, Basic
Research;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $4,720,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $170,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $724,086,596;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $787,935,397.
Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Security and Assurance Program;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $2,100,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $25,990,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,961,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $158,400,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $171,732,000.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety-Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $10,388,139.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety-Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $28,884,439.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety-Homeland Security;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $5,043,223.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $160,500,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $247,998,801.
Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Agricultural Marketing Service-Federal-State Marketing
Improvement Programs;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: National Agricultural Statistics Service-Price Paid by
Farmers, Fuel;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $129,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $140,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: International Trade Administration-Trade Development, Office
of Energy;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $628,385;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,101,713.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Institute of Standards and Technology-Energy Use And
Conservation Programs;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $27,800,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $30,100,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Information Administration;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $72,400,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $80,087,000.
Agency: Department of State;
Program: State-Economic and Business Affairs, Energy;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $779,045;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $865,181.
Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Program: Energy Related Activities;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $17,764,831;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $14,508,784.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Program: Energy Programs-Nationwide;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $99,600,000;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $39,300,000.
Subtotal;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $219,101,261;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $166,102,678.
Total;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,344,286,660;
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,599,533,354.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003,
and 2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity:
Dollars in actual amounts.
Energy activity area: Energy supply:
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service-
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service-
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,580,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $3,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $4,097,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service-
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service-
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,747,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,005,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,097,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Farm Service Agency-Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy
Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $150,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $100,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development-Bioenergy, Energy
Efficiency, and Conservation Research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,590,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $7,400,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,400,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy Policy and New Uses-
3;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,000,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy Policy and New Uses-
2;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,500,000.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Rural Development Business Programs-Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $22,800,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $10,700,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Clean Coal Technology;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: ($246,000,000);
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $40,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: ($140,000,000).
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research and
Development (R&D);
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $92,391,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $86,005,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $72,596,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Departmental Energy Management Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $3,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,967,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Facilities and Infrastructure;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,100,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $5,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $11,480,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Geothermal Technology;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $29,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $26,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $25,800,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Hydrogen Technology;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $28,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $39,881,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $95,325,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Hydropower;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $7,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $7,489,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $6,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Intergovernmental Activities;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $7,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $18,807,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $16,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Program Direction;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $19,171,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $16,907,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $20,711,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Renewable Program Support;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Solar Energy;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $117,659,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $79,625,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $80,333,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Wind Energy;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $45,600,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $44,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $41,600,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Supply-Zero Energy Buildings;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $8,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-National Academy of Sciences Program Review;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Plant and Capital Projects;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $2,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced metallurgical research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $5,300,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Black Liquor;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and Other Power systems;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $110,682,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $365,100,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $470,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Cooperative Research and Development;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,836,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $6,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $3,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Energy Efficiency Science Initiative;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Import/Export Authorization;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,799,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Natural Gas Technologies;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $105,314,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $22,590,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $26,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Petroleum Oil Technology;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $50,166,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $35,400,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $15,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Program Direction and Management Support;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $72,079,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $84,700,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $106,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $21,069,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $20,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Nuclear Energy Research and Development;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $30,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $71,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $96,046,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Fusion Energy Sciences Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $222,614,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $257,310,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $264,110,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Coal Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $7,527,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $9,588,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,944,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Oil and Gas Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $55,326,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $84,936,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $85,600,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS)-Indian Trust Responsibility;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $19,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $22,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $22,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS-Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $213,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $240,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $250,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: U.S. Geological Survey-Energy Resource Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $21,898,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $25,349,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $24,474,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,027,280,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,818,261,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,754,579,000.
Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Forest Service Research and Development-Global Change
Research,Climate Change Science Program, Climate Change Technology
Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $16,900,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $18,778,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $19,396,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-
National Marine Fisheries Habitat;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $8,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $103,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $585,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,415,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,539,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $3,923,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-National Weather Service;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $6,900,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Ocean and Coastal Resource Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $206,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $341,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $216,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $17,556,000.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: NOAA-Office of Response and Restoration;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,100,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $5,700,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $5,700,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $370,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $590,802,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $880,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Fossil Energy R&D-Environmental Restoration;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $10,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $9,715,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $6,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Environmental Services;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $330,934,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $172,970,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $291,296,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $167,581,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $151,850,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Biological and Environmental Research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $411,170,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $504,215,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $501,590,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $240,198,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $298,489,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $500,200,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: MMS-Oil Spill Research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $6,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $6,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $7,000,000.
Environmental Protection Agency;
Program: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)-Multi-pollutant
Legislation,Clear Skies Legislation;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $7,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $2,200,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,500,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,398,931,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,781,433,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,400,712,000.
Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,700,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,001,000,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,700,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,001,000,000.
Energy activity area: Basic energy science research.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Advanced Scientific Computing Research;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $198,875,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $169,625,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $204,340,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Science-Basic Energy Sciences;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $888,084,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,019,600,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,063,530,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,086,959,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,189,225,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,267,870,000.
Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Electric Transmission and Distribution;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $41,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $76,506,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $90,880,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Lands and Realty Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $23,214,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $27,121,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $27,900,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Program: BLM-Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $4,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,115,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $14,500,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-Natural
Gas Pipeline Safety;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $38,187,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $64,510,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $70,073,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $106,401,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $169,252,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $203,353,000.
Energy activity area: Energy conservation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy Policy and New Uses-
1;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $793,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $793,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $793,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $4,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $23,939,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,420,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Building Technologies;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $88,163,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $52,563,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $56,586,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Distributed Energy Resources;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $31,300,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $54,784,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $52,867,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Energy Efficiency Science Initiative;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Federal Energy Management Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $28,968,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $23,425,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $17,683,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Fuel Cell Technologies;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $41,380,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $57,500,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $77,500,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Industrial Technologies;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $114,300,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $91,477,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $57,762,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Program Management;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $80,504,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $74,954,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $86,731,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Conservation-Vehicle Technologies;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $190,200,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $153,563,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $155,139,000.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-Corporate
Average Fuel Economy;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $60,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,250,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,283,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $579,668,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $534,248,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $514,764,000.
Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Security and Assurance Program;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $4,275,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $10,600,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $8,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $5,000,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $164,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $188,754,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $172,100,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $164,000,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $201,029,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $187,700,000.
Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: Agricultural Marketing Service-Federal-State Marketing
Improvement Programs;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Program: National Agricultural Statistics Service-Price Paid by
Farmers, Fuel;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $0;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $0.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Program: National Institute of Standards and Technology-Energy Use and
Conservation Programs;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $27,800,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $30,100,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $4,700,000.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Program: Energy Information Administration;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $72,644,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $80,111,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $85,000,000.
Subtotal;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $100,444,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $110,211,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $89,700,000.
Total;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,863,683,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $7,503,659,000;
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,419,678,000.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
May 12, 2005:
Mr. Jim Wells:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D. C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Wells:
The Department of Energy appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report
entitled, "National Energy Policy: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs
and Status of Policy Recommendations" (GAO-05-379).
Early in 2001, President Bush laid out a comprehensive plan to address
many of the significant energy challenges we face today. This
framework, or National Energy Policy (NEP), is a balanced approach that
seeks to promote dependable, affordable, environmentally sound energy
for the future.
Since that time, our Administration has aggressively worked to improve
America's energy independence and security, capitalizing on our
technology investments and implementing many of the NEP recommendations
through executive action. While we have made significant progress,
there is still an acute need for Congress to approve a comprehensive
energy bill containing several items of critical importance. We remain
optimistic that this important legislation will be sent to the
President this year.
You indicated that your study sought to: (1) identify the federal
government's current energy-related efforts; (2) review the status of
efforts to implement the May 2001 National Energy Policy ("NEP") report
recommendations; and (3) determine the extent to which resources
associated with federal energy-related efforts have changed since the
release of the NEP report. In this regard, you have employed a
quantitative methodology in setting forth your information. For
example, you have presented estimated budget authority for programs in
eight major energy activity areas and outlay equivalent estimates for
energy-related income tax preferences.
The quantitative approach you have taken in evaluating the NEP report
and the Status Report is not consistent with the purpose and nature of
these documents. The NEP report and the recent Status Report were never
intended by the Administration to provide a "full accounting" of all
federal energy-related programs and all energy-related excise taxes and
income tax preferences that is the focus of your study. Moreover, we
believe other sources of publicly available information exist that
provide the quantitative information more appropriate to your
objectives and methodology.
The National Energy Policy should, however, be recognized as an overall
blueprint which, in addition to laying out specific policy objectives,
seeks to fundamentally reconfigure the way government agencies address
our energy needs. The broad policy objectives contained in the NEP
provide the basis for subsequent Administration actions,
accomplishments and initiatives, whether specifically related to an NEP
recommendation or not. It is not sufficient to look at the President's
energy policies through the specific NEP recommendations alone.
We have additional concerns regarding specific aspects of your study:
Your observation that the NEP report and the Status Report is the start
of work on an inventory is similarly misplaced. The Administration has
been tracking implementation of all NEP recommendations and related
actions on a continuous basis, and status updates have been provided
periodically to the Congress via budget documents and other means.
As to your concern that many of the policy recommendations are open-
ended in nature and do not include measurable targets, agencies have
developed strategic goals and performance measures under the
"Government Performance and Results Act" (GPRA), the vehicle through
which measurable goals and performance is reported. These performance
measures have been included in every budget submission to Congress,
along with an evaluation of results against previous performance
measures as dictated by GPRA.
Moreover, we take exception to your observation that public information
about NEP implementation is limited to the NEP Status Report and press
releases at the time of the NEP anniversary date. These documents were
designed to provide the public a general overview of progress being
made. As stated above, volumes of information related to energy policy
implementation are generated during each annual budget and
appropriations cycle. During these annual processes, agency programs
and activities have been the subject of considerable Congressional
oversight.
In short, we believe that your analysis of the NEP and Status Report
does not accurately reflect the goals or intent of the National Energy
Policy, its implementation or the Administration's ongoing efforts to
provide greater energy security for the American people.
Comments on technical and resource issues, editorial remarks, and
corrections are being forwarded to your office directly by the GAO
liaison offices at DOE and other interested agencies.
If you have additional questions, please call me at 202-586-8660.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Karen A. Harbert:
Assistant Secretary:
Office of Policy and International Affairs:
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Tax preferences are federal income tax provisions that grant
preferential tax treatment to encourage certain behaviors or aid
taxpayers in certain circumstances. The revenue losses resulting from
these provisions--called tax expenditures--may, in effect, be viewed as
spending channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that a tax expenditure list be
included in the budget. The Department of the Treasury's list displays
tax expenditures under the budget functional categories used to
classify outlays.
[2] Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into
financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays
involving federal government funds.
[3] The "outlay equivalent" measure is the amount of budget outlays
that would be required to provide taxpayers with the same after-tax
income as received through the tax preference.
[4] The May 2001 NEP report provided 106 recommendations, including 3
duplicate recommendations, resulting in 103 distinct recommendations.
DOE's January 2005 NEP status report also provided information on 106
recommendations. For consistency, our report provides information and
analysis on the 106 recommendations as reported in DOE's January 2005
NEP status report.
[5] Distributed energy provides on-site power systems to customers to
improve reliability, support existing utility grids, and increase
efficiency.
[6] Our inventory did not include the Department of Labor. Labor has
several programs that relate to energy's impact on health, including
the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational and
Safety Health Administration oversight of the energy industry,
including the electric power generation transmission and distribution
industry.
[7] A tax credit of 10 percent (not to exceed $4,000) is provided for
purchasers of electric vehicles. Purchasers of other clean-fuel burning
vehicles and owners of clean-fuel refueling property may deduct part of
their expenditures.
[8] For example, according to the Congressional Research Service,
energy consumption is the dominant source of carbon dioxide emissions
in this country, and a substantial source of overall greenhouse gas
emissions, which contribute to global climate change. Energy-related
activities are responsible for about 85 percent of the country's
greenhouse gas emissions and 96 percent of its carbon dioxide
emissions.
[9] WIP's State Energy Program Grants, along with State Energy
Activities, assist states in developing emergency energy plans and in
fostering clean, reliable, and diverse energy supplies. State Energy
Program Grants and State Energy Activities received an additional $50
million in federal funding in fiscal year 2003.
[10] BES activities could also be included in other major activities,
such as energy supply and conservation. However, a breakdown of BES
activities by these various areas was not readily available;
therefore, the activities were all accounted for under the basic energy
sciences area.
[11] While USAID energy funding in Afghanistan totaled an estimated
$3.1 million in fiscal year 2003, the funding level increased to an
estimated $84.8 million in fiscal year 2004. Also, USAID requested an
estimated $317 million for fiscal year 2005 energy activities in
Afghanistan. In addition, USAID energy funding in Iraq increased from
an estimated $558 million in fiscal year 2003 to an estimated $1.04
billion in fiscal year 2004. A USAID official told us that USAID shares
energy-related responsibilities in Iraq with DOD. In general, DOD has
responsibility for the oil/gas sector, whereas DOD and USAID both have
responsibilities for the electric power sector. DOD programs are not
included in this inventory.
[12] This income tax preference allows individuals to exclude the value
of a subsidy from gross income that is provided by a public utility for
the purchase or installation of any conservation measures.
[13] We did not include DHS in our inventory, but we did include DOE,
which is the sector-specific agency for energy.
[14] This inventory does not capture federal policy that supports
industry funding of energy programs related to this issue. For example,
the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 established a "check-
off" program where a portion of the wholesale cost of the product is
set aside in a common fund to the benefit of producers and consumers.
Funding generated can be significant. In fiscal year 2003 alone, a $38
million budget was projected to support various propane-related
programs, including consumer and employee safety and training, research
and development, and education about safety and other issues associated
with the use of propane. In comparison, EIA's total estimated budget
authority was $80 million in fiscal year 2003.
[15] In other cases agencies were able to provide us with overall
budget information for energy activities but were not able to separate
the resources associated with this issue from other energy issues
addressed.
[16] A DOJ ENRD official estimated that ENRD's overall annual budget
was about $100 million.
[17] In addition, the MMS collects mineral leasing receipts from Indian
lands that amounted to $267.1 million in fiscal year 2003. These funds
are deposited in Treasury accounts controlled by the Office of the
Special Trustee for American Indians and are later paid to tribal and
Indian allottee accounts.
[18] We have identified 26, not 22, recommendations that have a
legislative component--although 2 were duplicates. In addition, we
could not identify any recommendations that had been implemented by
enacted legislation at the time of the May 2002 press release. As of
March 2005, only 5 of the 26 recommendations needing legislation had
been addressed by enacted legislation, according to DOE's January 2005
status report--1 in December 2002 and 4 in October 2004.
[19] In contrast, both before and after the January 2005 report, the
Administration's Web site stated that approximately 75 percent of the
NEP recommendations were administrative in nature, and that a majority
of them had been completed.
[20] The NEP report did address extension of the ethanol excise tax
exemption and extension of the tax credit for electricity produced
using wind and biomass. It also addressed the creation of new tax
credits for combined heat and power projects, hybrid and fuel cell
vehicles, new landfill methane projects, and residential solar energy
property. Finally, the NEP report addresses the permanent extension of
the general research and development tax credit in support of clean
coal technology. However, because this tax credit is not specifically
energy-related, it was not included in our inventory of income tax
preferences.
[21] Tax preferences are federal income tax provisions that grant
preferential tax treatment to encourage certain behaviors or aid
taxpayers in certain circumstances. The revenue losses resulting from
these provisions--called tax expenditures--may, in effect, be viewed as
spending channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that a tax expenditure list be
included in the budget. The Department of the Treasury's list displays
tax expenditures under the budget functional categories used to
classify outlays.
[22] Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into
financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays
involving federal government funds.
[23] Resource information provided throughout this report was not
adjusted for inflation.
[24] Tax expenditures are reductions in tax liability that result from
preferential provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, such as
exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, credits,
deferrals, and preferential tax rates.
[25] We did review civilian programs within the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
[26] The May 2001 NEP report provided 106 recommendations, including 3
duplicate recommendations, resulting in 103 distinct recommendations.
DOE's January 2005 NEP status report also provided information on 106
recommendations. For consistency, this report provides information and
analysis on the 106 recommendations as reported in DOE's NEP status
report.
[27] Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions
and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Energy Transformation and End Use
(Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[28] For example, EIA noted that with regard to comparing federal
utility prices with market prices, it requires the assumption that
fully competitive electricity prices exist, and this is not
demonstrably the case because there are really two markets for
electricity--competitive and rate regulated markets. With regard to the
comparison of interest rates between federal and nonfederal utilities,
substantial differences in borrowing practices exist between federal
and nonfederal utilities that make a simple comparison of borrowing
costs potentially misleading. Finally, with regard to measuring
different rates of return for federal and nonfederal utilities, the
federal utilities have generally not acquired their assets under
competitive conditions, and therefore, would generally not be expected
to have the same rate of return as private counterparts who invested
differently.
[29] 7 U.S.C. 901-950bb.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: