Detailed Information on the
Coal Energy Technology Assessment

Identify quantitative test criteria that will be used to validate all Current Year and Budget Year performance goals when test results become available.

Hold Federal managers and program partners accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results.

Develop guidance that specifies a consistent framework for analyzing the costs and benefits of research and development investments, and use this information to guide budget decisions.

Conduct periodic, independent evaluations of all program components in order to focus program activities and target resources toward achieving relevant and beneficial outcomes that otherwise would not have occurred without the program intervention.

No longer fund the molten carbonate or tubular solid oxide fuel cell programs since they have reached completion.

Measure: Efficiency from advanced, coal-based, gasification energy plants. Efficiency is the percent of fuel energy converted to electricity.

Explanation:Goal is to develop advanced coal-based power systems capable of achieving 45-50 percent thermal efficiency at a capital cost of $1,000 per kilowatt or less (in 2002 dollars, which can be escalated using the IHS CERA PCCI without nuclear; see gasification capital cost goal below for more information on cost escalation). Complete one or more pilot or pre-commercial scale demonstration projects that validate the commercial feasibility of achieving the target. Output ties to outcome of assuring availability of economic and environmentally sound sources of energy. Efficiency is measured in terms of higher heating value (HHV). The original baseline of 40% in 2003 was based on estimated performance. DOE revised the baseline efficiency from 40% to 35% based on actual gasification power plant performance and recent analysis in DOE's report titled "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants".

Measure: Capital cost of advanced, coal-based, gasification energy plants in $/kW.

Explanation:Target values are demonstrated at pre-commercial scale which validates feasibility of targets. Baseline plant characteristics: slurry gasifier, 7FA turbine, cryogenic air separation unit, Selexol acid gas removal, and double reheat steam cycle. Gas cleaning (~10% of plant cost) can be reduced by $60 to $120/kW, air separation (12-15% of plant cost) can be reduced by $75 to $100/kW, and turbine systems (~30% of plant cost) can be reduced by $60 to $100/kW. Output ties to outcome of assuring availability of economic and environmentally sound sources of energy. Current gasification plants cost ~$1300/kW to construct. Current pulverized coal plants cost ~$1,100/kW to construct. These costs from the original 2002 estimates are escalated in the targets listed below to 2007 dollars using the IHS CERA Power Capital Costs Index (PCCI) without nuclear: 2002 index value of 111; 2007 index value of 178; 2002 - 2007 escalation of 60%. Cost is overnight construction cost, for second-of-a-kind project (defined as not first-of-a-kind such that significant process contingencies for technologies are low or zero). Cost includes: bare erected costs, engineering costs, and contingencies. Cost excludes: project development fees, land and site infrastructure improvements, pre-production costs, inventory capital, and allowance for funds used during construction, which add 50-70% to the overnight construction costs. The 20-year levelized cost of electricity that corresponds to the 2010 goal of $1,600/kW is approximately 6.5 cents/kWh. The modeled actual cost for 2008 is higher than 2007 because of revisions to the modeled system configuration and higher contingencies.

Measure: Net cost of CO2 capture and sequestration as measured by percent of cost of electricity.

Explanation:Target values are demonstrated at pilot or pre-commercial scale which validates feasibility of targets. Actual target values will be determined through system and engineering analysis using data obtained from testing as noted in GPRA (Government Performance Results Act) Program Plan. Output ties to outcome of assuring availability of economic and environmentally sound sources of energy. Carbon capture level is 90%. Cost of electricity (COE) for capture and sequestration includes: capture, compression, transport, injection, and monitoring. Baseline technology is IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) with amine scrubbing at $200/ton of carbon (in 2002 dollars, which can be escalated to 2007 dollars using a factor of 1.60 derived from the IHS CERA PCCI without nuclear; see gasification capital cost goal above for more information on cost escalation). The cost of carbon capture and sequestration is measured as a percent increase over the cost of gasification without carbon capture and sequestration using 2003 state-of-the-art technology: slurry gasifier, 7FA turbine, cryogenic air separation unit, Selexol acid gas removal, and double reheat steam cycle.

Measure: Capital cost of solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system.

Explanation:The specific cost goals are set at levels that are expected to result in economically competitive, free market deployment of fuel cell systems for distributed generation and hybrid applications. Produce 3-10 kilowatt solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) modules having a capital cost of $400/kilowatt, which is expected to be competitive with natural gas combined cycle power generation; by 2010 stack modules will be commercial ready; by 2012 complete 1 MW demos; by 2015, demonstrate 5 MW fuel cell/turbine hybrids, using aggregated SOFC modules adaptable to coal; and by 2017 have demonstrated the integration of fuel cell and heat recovery (turbines) sufficiently to warrant sponsoring a Clean Coal Power Initiative resulting in a 250 - 500 MW Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell system in 2020. Output ties to outcome of achieving national energy security in an economic and environmentally sound manner. Costs will be escalated from those shown below using an index specific to the industry. Cost is overnight construction cost, for second-of-a-kind project (defined as not first-of-a-kind such that significant process contingencies for technologies are low or zero). Cost includes: bare erected costs, engineering costs, and contingencies. Cost excludes: project development fees, land and site infrastructure improvements, pre-production costs, inventory capital, and allowance for funds used during construction, which add 50-70% to the overnight construction costs.

Measure: Capital cost of solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) stack modules.

Explanation:Target values are demonstrated at pilot or pre-commercial scale which validates feasibility of targets. Actual target values for performance and cost will be determined through system and engineering analysis using data obtained from prototype testing noted in the GPRA program plan. These analyses will be performed by the technology developer and annually audited by independent experts. Output ties to outcome of achieving national energy security in an economic and environmentally sound manner. Costs will be escalated from those shown below using an index specific to the industry. Cost is overnight construction cost, for second-of-a-kind project (defined as not first-of-a-kind such that significant process contingencies for technologies are low or zero). Cost includes: bare erected costs, engineering costs, and contingencies. Cost excludes: project development fees, land and site infrastructure improvements, pre-production costs, inventory capital, and allowance for funds used during construction, which add 50-70% to the overnight construction costs.

Measure: Maintaining economic power density of solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) with increased size.

Explanation:Power density is the amount of electrical power produced per unit electrochemically-active area of the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), expressed in mW/cm2. Power density is a primary determinant of cell, stack and system cost in $/kW. 300 mW/cm2 is the minimum power density required in order to achieve the aggressive SOFC system cost reduction goal of $400/kW in 2010. The 2008-2010 targets represent a syngas fuel composed of primarily of H2 and CO with methane content permissible up to 25%. The 2011-2015 targets represent a coal-based syngas. FY 2008: 250 mW/cm2 in SECA cost reduction full system test (CR FST); FY 2009: 300 mW/cm2 in SECA cost reduction short stack test (CR SST); FY 2010: 300 mW/cm2 in SECA cost reduction full system test (CR FST); FY 2011: 300 mW/cm2 in SECA coal-based system short stack test, large cells (CBS SST); FY 2012: 300 mW/cm2 in SECA coal-based system full system test, large cells (CBS FST); FY 2015: 300 mW/cm2 in SECA coal-based system integrated with coal gasification (CBS DEMO)

Measure: Mercury (Hg) removal efficiencies (listed first) and cost as a percent of baseline cost (listed second) from coal-fired power plants.

Explanation:Complete large-scale demonstration(s) (except 2006 which is pilot scale) that provides the commercial feasibility of achieving the target. Baseline cost mercury removal is $50,000 - $70,000/lb at 70% - 90% removal efficiency. See GPRA Program Plan for more detailed description of metrics (test scale, etc.). Output ties to outcome of assuring availability of economic and environmentally sound sources of energy. This program has been discontinued, however, the program made significant progress. Additionally, mercury removal efficiency of at least 95% has been demonstrated using gasification technology. The cost of mercury beds is less than 1% of the bare erected cost of a gasification plant.

Measure: Administrative costs as a percent of total program costs.

Explanation:This "overhead rate" measure is not a true efficiency measure but is a meaningful surrogate used for all DOE applied R&D and related programs. The objective is to maintain a reasonable overhead rate for effective operation while ensuring that the vast majority of funds address the program purpose. Administrative costs include all Program Direction costs plus costs for supporting activities and analysis funded through programmatic appropriations, including program support. The targets and actuals represent corporate figures (i.e., for all Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D)) because some Fossil Energy R&D Program Direction costs are difficult to parse at the program level in a meaningful way. Appropriation levels for Fossil Energy R&D programs and for Fossil Energy R&D Program Direction directly affect whether the target is achieved.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Program is to assure the availability of abundant low cost, domestic energy (including hydrogen) to fuel economic prosperity and strengthen energy security. As described in the Congressional Budget Request and the Performance and Accountability Report, the Program Goal (04.55.00.00) is to create public/private partnerships to provide technology to ensure continued electricity generation and hydrogen production from the extensive U.S. fossil fuel resource, including control technologies to permit reasonable-cost compliance with emerging regulations, and ultimately, by 2015, zero emission plants (including carbon) that are fuel-flexible, and capable of multi-product output and efficiencies over 60 percent with coal and 75 percent with natural gas.

Evidence: ?? FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request (p. 19). ?? FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report (p. 154).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program focuses primarily on supporting the President's top priorities for energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal research to: 1) support the development of lower cost, more effective pollution control technologies embodied in the President's Coal Research Initiative, and help to meet the President's Clear Skies goals; 2) expand the nation's technological options for reducing greenhouse gases either by increasing power plant efficiencies or by capturing and isolating these gases from the atmosphere; 3) measurably add to the nation's energy security by providing a longer-term alternative to imported oil, such as hydrogen produced from coal; and 4) improve reliability of electricity supply through advancement of distributed generation technologies. The program technology areas are fully relevant to Presidential priorities as documented by program plans and websites.

Evidence: ?? FY 2006 Budget Message of the President as referenced in Question 1.1 with the critical and current need emphasized in a discussion of Energy Policy by the President on March 9, 2005 (page 3 and 4 of related White House Press Release "President Discusses Energy Policy").

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Program (budget identification code 89-0213-0-1-271) is comprised of two primary activities: "President's Coal Research Initiative" (Activity 00.01) and "Other Power Systems" (Activity 00.02). The majority of effort in these areas does not appear to have counterparts elsewhere in government, and the historically-regulated nature of the utility industry has resulted in few private programs that are not linked to this program. Program elements are coordinated on both an intra- and interagency level. For example, the carbon sequestration R&D complements other federal sector R&D. There are collaborative relationships with the US Geological Survey, the US Forest Service within USDA, and the Office of Surface Mining within DOI. Another example is in coal fuels/hydrogen production where there is extensive collaboration with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office of DOE whereby hydrogen-from coal research is a component of the DOE Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. There is also extensive collaboration with EERE, DoD, and NIST about fuel cell R&D including annual coordination meetings. The major portion of the Program's fuel cell research is performed under a Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). There are also multiple industry advisory groups that routinely interact with the various program managers in all program areas. Government program design and strategy are coordinated with private-sector entities through organizations of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC) that together with DOE prepared a joint government-industry Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) Roadmap. Two elements within the program that are highly integrated with efforts of others are SECA fuel cell research and hydrogen-from-coal fuels research. In other areas, the Program has not demonstrated effective coordination with other Federal agencies, such as coordinating its zebra mussel projects with NOAA.

Evidence: ?? The Coal RD&D Roadmap is available via the NETL-Strategic Center for Coal or CURC web. ?? The Hydrogen Posture Plan and FE Hydrogen Program Plan, available via the NETL Strategic Center for Coal - Fuels Program web, describe coal fuels coordination aspects of the DOE Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. ?? The unique federal and private-sector alliance of SECA is detailed via the NETL Strategic Center for Coal - SECA web. ?? A Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Air Force is an example of interagency coordination in the Ultra Clean Transportation Fuels Initiative. ?? US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) and FE jointly participate on the Annual Sequestration Steering Committee; ?? US Forest Service (USFS) and USDA are collaborators on several regional partnerships (these partnerships represent about 30% of the carbon sequestration program); ?? During FY 2005, FE/NETL and the Office of Surface Mining & Reclamation (OSMRE) signed an initiative agreement to promote the Forestry Reclamation Practice on Mined Lands;

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is free of major design flaws that would impede or limit the efficient program implementation. The GAO gave a favorable review of how the Clean Coal Technology program (an important piece of the Coal R&D program) designs its cost-share program for collaboration and coordination with industry, calling it a model for other government-industry collaboration. Regulations, another potential driver for technology improvement, work in concert with the DOE coal program by using data from the R&D program to help set achievable regulatory requirements, and anticipated regulation promotes participation by industry in innovative technology development to achieve benefits beyond what the regulations could achieve on their own. The deficiency identified by OMB during the 2003 PART review cited "too heavy of a weighting toward short term and demonstration projects??" This deficiency has been corrected to conform to the guidance of the Research and Development Investment Criteria, as explained in the FY 2006 Budget request (see Q 2RD2) and as explained by President Bush (see Q 1.2). However, the Clean Coal Power Initiative has not demonstrated how its next solicitation will be planned in accordance with the balance between demonstration and R&D provided in the FY 2005 Enacted and FY 2006 Budget funding levels. Additionally, since EPA issued final Clean Air Interstate and Clean Air Mercury Rules, DOE will need to demonstrate what continued role its Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program plays, given that there is now a regulatory driver for industry to perform development of many of the pollution control technologies in IEP.

Evidence: ?? The program found no studies that indicate a tax credit, regulatory driver, or other policy mechanism would provide a stand alone replacement for R&D. GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, June 12, 2001 "...this program serves as an example to other cost-share programs in demonstrating how the government and the private sector can work effectively together to develop and demonstrate new technologies."

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Benefits from the program accrue from continued use of coal in the energy mix. Substantial future economic benefits have been postulated for lower cost technology to reduce mercury, NOx, SOx and acid gases, but the Department is still working to establish consistent measurement systems for future benefits, and the distribution of benefits between the public and private for-profit firms is not well examined. The program has developed preliminary baseline benefit estimates for its applied R&D programs, but still needs to improve consistency across programs in the methodology and assumptions used in estimating program costs and benefits. The Department should develop internal guidance standardizing methods and assumptions to be used in cost and benefit estimation to estimate public benefits consistently within and across programs to determine whether the program appropriately targets its R&D benefits. Some Program activities do not directly support Program's purpose, such as coal byproducts, zebra mussel prevention, and some Clean Coal Power Initiative demonstration projects.

Evidence: ?? A peer review of the FE benefits evaluation process noted that FE's methodology enhances FE's ability to estimate future benefits and increase the credibility of those estimates. ?? Methods and results of the FE R&D Benefits Assessment are detailed in a two volume report (R&D Benefits Report). ?? An excerpt from the FE FY 2006 budget request describes coordination among R&D programs toward improved consistency of estimating program benefits (FE Overview, page 6 of 11 as posted on the FE website)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: In general, elements of the coal program support the dual program goals of control technologies to permit reasonable-cost compliance with emerging regulations, and ultimately, by 2015, zero emission plants (including carbon) that are fuel-flexible, and capable of multi-product output and efficiencies over 60 percent with coal and 75 percent with natural gas. The overall intended outcome of the Program is described in the mission: to assure the availability of abundant low cost, domestic energy (including hydrogen) to fuel economic prosperity and strengthen energy security. However, it is difficult to measure the impact of the Program on achieving this outcome because there are numerous other interrelated, contributing factors, such as regulations and market forces, and because the size of the Program is small relative to the size of the overall energy industry. Therefore, quantitative, measureable outputs have been chosen as proxies for outcomes. The outputs are directly connected to achieving the outcome. Program and performance budget documents contain a consistent set of six program objectives, four of which have a limited number of specific, quantitative, long-term output measures and associated targets and timeframes, which support the program goal. The six objectives meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. However, some demonstration projects in the Clean Coal Power Initiative are not aligned with the program objective for demonstration of zero-emissions energy plants. The six objectives are listed, in abbreviated form, below: 1. Innovations to existing plants will increase from the 2003 mercury capture efficiency of 70%, to 90% by 2010 at 75% of current cost. 2. Advanced power systems will increase from the 2003 energy conversion efficiency of 40%, to 50% by 2010 at a capital cost $1000/kW, versus $1300/kW of 2003. 3. Carbon sequestration technology will capture and sequester 90% of power plant carbon dioxide that in 2003 had an electricity cost penalty of 30% and will reduce the cost penalty to 10% by 2012. 4. Distributed generation fuel cell systems will be reduced in cost from $4500/kW in 2003 to $400/kW by 2010. 5. Hydrogen from coal co-production modules by 2010 will be advanced-power-integration-capable of producing hydrogen for $30/barrel crude oil equivalent. 6. Zero emission energy from coal plant by 2015 will be producing electricity and hydrogen.

Evidence: ?? This limited number of long term performance targets, as detailed in the Program's GPRA Plan, are used consistently in all program documents referenced therein.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The long-term targets for the Program's measures are 10 to 20% more ambitious than reference values of the DOE NEMS-based Annual Energy Outlook (AEO-2004). Baselines, starting with FY 2003 (FY2000 for Distributed Generation as noted on p. 7 of the GPRA plan), are established for each of the six long-term goals (termed objectives). The baseline year is established by the first year in the tables in the GPRA Plan. Where targets are listed in dollars, the value is based on the baseline year. For example, the Program's target for objective #2 of Question 2.1 is technology readiness of a $1000/kW advanced power system by 2010. Approximately four years are required for commercialization with consumer benefit starting in 2014 for which electricity costs are based on capital cost of $1000/kW and fuel conversion efficiency of 50% as compared to NEMS reference values of $1306/kW and 46% for 2014. There has been no independent evaluation of whether individual program targets and timeframes are realistic, given the technological risks and opportunities. The NRC is conducting a study to evaluate prospective benefits and whether the long-term objectives are appropriate. Through the NRC and other independent peer review, the Department needs to evaluate whether risks of achieving the targets within the stated timeframes are reasonable.

Evidence: ?? The Program's measures for all technology objectives are comparatively ambitious as detailed in the FE R&D Program Benefits Report (p. 26-36 & B-6). ?? Baselines are detailed in the PART Measures tab, the Program's GPRA Plan and FY05 CQPP/JOULE plans. ?? CURC Website (www.coal.org) ?? Booz Allen Hamilton, "Coal-Based Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle: Market Penetration Recommendations and Strategies", Page 41.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: In general, elements of the coal program support the dual program goals of control technologies to permit reasonable-cost compliance with emerging regulations, and ultimately, by 2015, zero emission plants (including carbon) that are fuel-flexible, and capable of multi-product output and efficiencies over 60 percent with coal and 75 percent with natural gas. The overall intended outcome of the Program is described in the mission: to assure the availability of abundant low cost, domestic energy (including hydrogen) to fuel economic prosperity and strengthen energy security. However, it is difficult to measure the impact of the Program on achieving this outcome because there are numerous other interrelated, contributing factors, such as regulations and market forces, and because the size of the Program is small relative to the size of the overall energy industry. Therefore, quantitative, measureable outputs have been chosen as proxies for outcomes. The outputs are directly connected to achieving the outcome. Four of the Program's six long-term goals (termed objectives) have one or two annual performance measures for interim steps toward achieving long-term goals. The other two objectives have annual process milestones, but no annual output or outcome measures. The Program's FY 2005 GRPA Plan details a multi-level performance measurement hierarchy that includes over 950 FE-internal quarterly performance indicators, which are process-oriented. This measurement process includes an early warning that triggers corrective action prior to the end of the quarter when milestone accomplishment is in jeopardy.

Evidence: ?? Details of the performance measurement hierarchy with a limited number of annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward the Program's long-term goals are contained in the Program's GPRA Plan (p. 19). ?? DOE Consolidated Quarterly Performance Report (Appendix A, p. 19-21) ?? Annual Performance Results and Targets section of the budget (p.39-44).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Annual measures for four of the program's six objectives, contained herein and in the Program's GPRA Plan, have targets for specific, quantifiable, ambitious incremental improvements that directly relate to and are measured against the baseline of its long-term goal. The other two objectives have annual process milestones, but no annual performance targets. Additional and more detailed annual targets of specific and quantifiable statements are contained in the Program's Coal Quarterly Performance Plan/Report (CQPP) against which performance is measured and reported using the DOE JOULE system. Annual measures are ambitious elements of comprehensive technology development plans, termed Roadmaps. These measures quantify the pathway from the baselines of FY 2003 to achievement of the long-term goals.

Evidence: ?? Baselines are detailed in the PART Measures tab, the Program's GPRA Plan and FY05 CQPP/JOULE plans. ?? Technology Roadmaps detail the ambitious nature of the annual measures and related RD&D elements. ?? Program's Coal Quarterly Performance Plan/Report (CQPP)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Partnering procurement vehicles contain scope and deliverables that the partners commit to providing consistent with applicable federal procurement regulations. Most of the Program's partnering arrangements are cooperative agreement(s) between the Program and a private-sector partner. Where applicable, Program annual and/or long-term goals or the related R&D output measure of a Technology Roadmap appear in the procurement document. The cooperative agreements typically require that a minimum of 20% of the work scope is required to be funded by partnering teams but for demonstration-type projects at least a 50% private-sector cost share is typically required. The Program uses cost-sharing as a selection criteria and an indicator of commitment by partners to achievement of annual and long-term goals. As referenced in Question 2.3, FE-level tracking of about 950 quarterly performance indicators is the mechanism used by the Program for partners to status their performance that is related to accomplishment of program goals. Resulting status and corrective actions are measured and reported by NETL to FE.

Evidence: ?? A distributed generation solicitation and related cooperative agreement provides an example of how program managers ensure that partners support the overall goals of the program. This process is fully discussed in the Progress Performance Data document which contains a sample procurement document and performance measures. The Carbon Sequestration Roadmap (Table 1, page 4 of 28) together with Project Portfolio (project factsheet list, page 130 of 305) are an example of the linkage between the Program goals and R&D output measures that are explicit commitments of a partner's scope agreement and promised deliverables.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: For most Program components, the Department does not conduct periodic, independent evaluations of effectiveness as an integral component of the Program implementation process. In particular, there is a lack of evaluation of whether research and development (R&D) programs have been effective in achieving relevant and beneficial outcomes that otherwise would not have occurred without the program intervention. The SECA and Sequestration programs do conduct useful evaluations of whether R&D has been effective. Occasionally, GAO, NRC, or other Congressionally mandated evaluations of the Program are conducted. The National Research Council (NRC) independently performed high quality and rigorous review of the Program as reported in 2001. Non-independent technology-specific merit reviews validate annual accomplishments, and provide prospective planning whereby external, partnering, and R&D performer insights factor into the development and refinement of R&D portfolio strategies inclusive of off-ramping, introducing new initiatives, emphasizing, or de-emphasizing elements of the program. However, they are not independent evaluations of program effectiveness.

Evidence: ?? NRC report, "Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000" ?? Carbon Sequestration Review Process (select analysis/peer review) ?? 2004 Carbon Sequestration Project Review Volume 1 ?? 2003 Carbon Sequestration Project Review Volume 1 ?? SECA Core Technology Peer Review Workshop, Jan 27-28, 2005 ?? SECA Annual Workshop and Core Technology Program Peer Review Workshop, May 11-13, 2004 ?? SECA Core Technology Program Review Meeting, Sep 30-Oct 1, 2003 ?? Program reviews are detailed in Research and Development Investment Criteria (RDIC) response of question II.B and in the Program's GPRA Plan and its references

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Program has presented the resource needs for accomplishment of performance goals, including a basic allocation of overhead costs. The Program should work to make a more direct connection between overhead cost components and the goals that they support. Transparent presentation of Program Direction budget allocation is essential to a full understanding of the Program's resource needs. The strategic context of performance and budget integration is explained in the FY 2006 budget request (FE Overview) whereby each appropriation has developed quantifiable goals to support the general goals. The "goal cascade" is from Department Mission → Strategic Goal (25 yrs) → General Goal (10-15 yrs) → Program Goal (GPRA Unit). To provide a concrete link between budget, performance, and reporting, the Department developed a "GPRA Unit" concept . Within the GPRA Unit, relationships between annual budget are provided in context with long-term performance goals, budget year and current annual targets and most recent four year prior accomplishments as detailed by the FY 2006 budget request (FE Coal & Power Systems Overview). The Program's GPRA Plan additionally details interim year measures related to long-term performance goals.

Evidence: ?? Program cost allocation spreadsheet showing calculations for Budget Highlights document ?? FY06 DOE Budget Request ?? FE Overview excerpt ?? FE Coal & Power Systems Overview and ?? GPRA Program Plan

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program adopted a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals (termed objectives) and a limited number of annual performance goals (termed targets) that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals as included herein and as supplemented by the FY05 CQPR/JOULE Plan. Improved consistency and methodology of R&D benefit estimating has been accomplished in response to significant findings of the prior PART assessment and independent reviews by NRC. Program reviews as described in the GPRA Plan have been accomplished.

Evidence: ?? GPRA Program Plan ?? FY05 CQPR/JOULE plans, ?? DOE-CURC-EPRI Coal R&D Roadmap, ?? FE R&D Program Benefits Report, ?? Significant Findings report of FY 2003 PART (page 17) and ?? Status report (page 15).

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: The program annually assesses and compares potential benefits of its technology advancements to other U.S. technology options using the DOE Energy Information Administration's (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). The NRC has found in its 2005 analysis of DOE's prospective benefits estimates for applied R&D programs that "DOE's definitions of benefits used did not always conform to those specified in the recommended methodology" from NRC's 2001 report, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? The Department is still working to establish consistent measurement systems for future benefits, and the distribution of benefits between the public and private for-profit firms is not well examined. The program has developed preliminary baseline benefit estimates for its applied R&D programs, but still needs to improve consistency across programs in the methodology and assumptions used in estimating program costs and benefits. The Department should develop internal guidance standardizing methods and assumptions to be used in cost and benefit estimation to estimate public benefits consistently within and across programs to determine whether the program appropriately targets its R&D benefits. The NRC has provided initial guidance on what DOE can do to ensure compatibility between benefit estimates and achieve the appropriate balance between analytic rigor and practical utility, and NRC is continuing to develop and advance those recommendations.

Evidence: ?? Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward (NRC, 2005). ?? Scorecard for DOE's Research and Development Initiative in the President's Management Agenda describes progress toward consistent benefits modeling. ?? FY04 FE R&D Program Benefits Analysis Report. The methods used are consistent with some recommendations of the NRC, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000 ?? Research Development Investment Criteria (RDIC) response of question I.B.

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: For recent budgets, the Program has lacked a current, detailed prioritization process that would establish priorities and clearly link them to budget decisions. In particular, the Program does not use a formalized process for ranking priority of component sub-programs at a sufficiently detailed level to directly inform decisions for specific budget allocations. For example, the explanations of change of budget levels in the FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request do not tie changing budget levels to relative priority of sub-programs. For the FY 2001 Budget, the program used a documented prioritization process as a rough guide to budget requests whereby priorities were assessed and set via an Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) process which included a pair-wise comparison of program areas and ranking of effectiveness and benefits based on a set of prioritization criteria. While general program priorities were established, no documentation was provided to establish links the priorities and budget decisions, such as a rank order of priority program components. Prioritization criteria emanated from the President's National Energy Policy (NEP) and from various Presidential initiatives such as the Clear Skies, Hydrogen Fuel, and FutureGen Initiatives, and other Administration priorities. The Program is restarting the AHP analysis for the FY 2007 Budget, but needs to use more detailed categories and more clearly link priorities to budget decisions, e.g., by listing separable high and low priority activities.

Evidence: ?? FY06 Fossil Energy Techline budget briefing and budget tables of Fossil Energy web site (www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2005/tl_fy06_budget_request.html) ?? FY06 Congressional budget request ?? Coal and Power Systems Combined Level 2 Portfolio Analysis, February 17, 2000

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: NETL project management collects completion status from all project participants and reports quarterly milestone status to FE program management. Progress data is collected at the quarter mid-point whereby partners are required to develop corrective actions if schedule delays or technical barriers pose uncertainty in achievement of plan milestones. Performance results are used by project management in project continuation decisions. In January 2005, FE implemented a monthly status report on key performance elements. For the Zero Emissions area, the Coal Quarterly Performance Plan, which was originally developed to track GPRA performance elements, is used as the basis of providing the monthly status to the Assistant Secretary. In providing the status information, FE Senior Management takes an active role in the execution of the program.

Evidence: ?? End-of-quarter FY05 Q2 milestone report example for the Fuel Cell technology area found in Progress Performance Data document. The Coal Quarterly Performance Plan, monthly status and quarterly status reports are provided. In addition, a Milestone Fact Sheet is utilized, when necessary, to provide FE Senior Management with information, including a plan of action, for performance elements at issue. ?? DOE Consolidated Quarterly Performance Report (Appendix A p. 19-21)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Program has not demonstrated that Federal managers or program partners are held accountable for quantifiable, results-oriented goals or for completing long-term projects within cost and on time relative to original project baselines. Program performance appraisal goals for senior management (SES level) are not always clearly linked to the specific performance outcomes for which the managers are directly responsible. Since the majority of Program work is done through contracts, contract administration performance goals are essential for holding Federal managers and government partners accountable for results. Documentation provided showed poor linkage between performance appraisal goals and contract management, in particular for cost control. NETL uses a monetary incentive to hold all employees accountable for short-term process goals. A 2005 report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements", indicated that program partners are not held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. The IG found a need for project managers to "ensure that project controls are enforced, and to conduct thorough, periodic project assessments, including a review of cost details." The report concluded that without improved contractor accountability for performance, "Fossil Energy is at risk that the cooperative agreements it manages may not meet their research objectives, not be completed in a timely manner, and cost significantly more than originally estimated."

Evidence: ?? OMB and OPM comments on Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Appraisal System. ?? NETL was awarded OPM's prestigious PILLAR Award for its system of performance with accountability linkage, as applied to the Program. ?? 2005 report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements".

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The Department's Report on Carryover Balances for Fiscal Year Ended 2004 states that Fossil Energy was 21% over the uncosted threshold. While much of the uncosted balances are due to funds set aside for multi-year projects, it is not clear whether projects are completed in the time allocated or whether there are inappropriate levels of uncosted balances due to stalled projects. The coal demonstration projects have a history of significant project delays, which has slowed obligation and costing of funds. The Department does not have data tracking capabilities to determine the age of unobligated and uncosted funds, which makes it difficult to identify the causes of high carryover balances. The new STARS financial management system will allow tracking of age of unobligated and uncosted funds in the future, which should lead to better management of carryover balances. Furthermore, no formal justification for the carryover balance threshold levels has been provided, nor has there been an independent assessment of the thresholds. A 2005 report by the DOE Inpsector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements", indicated that funds are obligated without appropriate approvals, such as a decision to proceed. Under a recent DOE R&D Strategic Management Initiative, the Program is refining methods and systems of higher frequency (e.g. monthly) tracking of planned versus actual funds obligations with procedures and terminology deemed more consistent across DOE R&D agencies.

Evidence: ?? Annual FY04 carryover balance report ?? 2005 report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements"

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: All FERD programs, including Zero Emissions, have established the FERD corporate overhead rate (i.e., the ratio of administrative costs, including program support, to total program costs for implementing all FERD programs) as the efficiency measure. The Zero Emissions program has established an acceptable target for 2006 of 18%, as informed by the President's Budget. However, the program has not established a target for the efficiency measure applicable to 2007 and future years that is consistent with other DOE programs. Zero Emission's programmatic overhead includes program direction funding for Zero Emissions FTEs, Zero Emissions travel, and Zero Emissions' portion of the formulaic allocation of program direction funding for corporate crosscutting analysis (e.g., modeling on potential public benefits). Zero Emissions overhead also includes program funding used for program/project management at the national labs. Consistently tracking the overhead rate and ensuring that it's within a reasonable range should help to improve efficiency. In addition to the corporate overhead rate, NETL annually develops a comprehensive business plan, a procurement plan, and key implementation milestones. Key activities are tracked, analyzed and variances are reported. Quarterly metric reports summarize NETL's operational effectiveness. Key performance measures focus upon competitive vs. non-competitive award, timeliness of procurement actions, funds awarded. NETL also tracks a cost to spend ratio for conducting procurement actions in which targets have been met or exceeded since 1999. The cost effectiveness of conducting the procurement actions enhances the program's ability to obtain goals in a timely fashion. As a secondary process, NETL also utilizes an electronic business center to assist interested parties in conducting business within the Fossil Program.

Evidence: ?? NETL Business Plan and Procurement Plan Summaries ?? Cost Efficiency of Purchasing Operations ?? NETL Electronic Business Center

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Program elements are coordinated on both an intra- and interagency level. For example, the carbon sequestration R&D complements other federal sector R&D. There are collaborative relationships with the US Geological Survey, the US Forest Service within USDA, and the Office of Surface Mining within DOI. Another example is in coal fuels/hydrogen production where there is extensive collaboration with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office of DOE whereby hydrogen-from coal research is a component of the DOE Hydrogen Fuel Initiative that is effectively coordinated as guided by the Hydrogen Posture Plan. There is also extensive collaboration with EERE, DoD, and NIST about fuel cell R&D including annual coordination meetings.

Evidence: ?? The Hydrogen Posture Plan and FE Hydrogen Program Plan, available via the NETL Strategic Center for Coal - Fuels Program web, describe coal fuels coordination aspects of the DOE Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. ?? A Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Air Force is an example of interagency coordination in the Ultra Clean Transportation Fuels Initiative. ?? US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) and FE jointly participate on the Annual Sequestration Steering Committee. ?? US Forest Service (USFS) and USDA are collaborators on several regional partnerships (these partnerships represent about 30% of the carbon sequestration program). ?? During FY 2005, FE/NETL and the Office of Surface Mining & Reclamation (OSMRE) signed an initiative agreement to promote the Forestry Reclamation Practice on Mined Lands.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: There are no known deficiencies. Computer based systems are used in providing strong financial management practices for the Program. Such systems include Business Management Information System (BMIS), Procurement and Assistance Data System (PADS) , and the Departmental Integrated Standardized Core Accounting System (DISCAS). In mid-2005, the Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) was brought on line as an integral part of the Integrated Management Navigation System, (I-MANAGE) that began in 2003. Effective use of cost-share funds begins with the project selection process, where those proposals that best fit the program needs identified in the solicitation are selected. Once initiated, the funds expended by the performer are evaluated by the NETL Project Manager. As an integral part of their job, NETL Project Managers evaluate invoices received from the cost-sharing partners against the Statement of Work and contract, and then recommend to the Contracting Officer for payment/non-payment.

Evidence: ?? Business Management Information System (BMIS), Procurement and Assistance Data System (PADS), DISCAS, Integrated Management Navigation System, (I-MANAGE), and Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) financial systems. A description of the financial systems used can be found in the financial systems document.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: ?? A 2003 NRC Report "Review of DOE's Vision 21 Research and Development Program -- Phase 1" recommended: "...A more rigorous management structure is needed to accomplish the ambitious goals of the Vision 21 Program?? and ??The U.S. DOE and the NETL should create an independent systems analysis group for the Vision 21 Program...". The Program responded to these and other recommendations with significant changes such as evolving the Vision 21 program into the FutureGen Initiative as described in recent budget requests and by President Bush (see Q 1.2) and by staffing reorganization of NETL. ?? In a 2004 NRC Report, "The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs," a Letter Report dated April 4, 2003 issued during the preparation of the overall report stated "An independent engineering and systems analysis group should be established within the hydrogen program??". In the main body of the report, the NRC recognized that the Program responded to this recommendation by noting that "??the office of Fossil Energy has established a new, independent systems analysis function at the National Energy Technology Laboratory??" ?? In January 2005, FE implemented a monthly status report on key performance elements. For the Zero Emissions area, the Coal Quarterly Performance Plan, which was originally developed to track GPRA performance elements, is used as the basis of providing the monthly status to the Assistant Secretary. In providing the status information, FE Senior Management takes an active role in the execution of the program, working to resolve issues of management and performance before such issues affect goals. In other areas, the Department has not adequately addressed management deficiencies: ?? DOE has not provided evidence that it has addressed management issues identified in the 2001 GAO testimony. The testimony found that in the demonstration programs, "from a management perspective,??many projects had experienced delays, cost overruns, bankruptcies, and performance problems." A 2005 report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements" found that "even though about four years had elapsed, Fossil Energy had not completed action to fully correct project management weaknesses disclosed by an internal assessment conducted in 2000." The report found that these management weaknesses caused significant risk of compromising the ability of Fossil Energy to achieve its goals. However, the report also found that the Program "has implemented some improvements such as enhanced training for poject managers, and participation in the Department's Project Management Career Development."

Evidence: ?? NRC Hydrogen Report, Chapter 9 and Appendix B ?? Deficiencies are detailed by the recommendations of "Review of DOE's Vision 21 Research and Development Program -- Phase 1". ?? NETL's reorganization of 2004 created a Coal Systems, Analysis, and Planning Division with staff dedicated to independent systems analysis as detailed by the NETL organizational chart and by analysis division staffing. ?? The Coal Quarterly Performance Plan, monthly status. ?? GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, June 12, 2001. ?? Report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements" (2005).

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: The Program uses a broadly competitive process based on technical merit whereby program goals, deliverables, and selection criteria are identified in opportunity announcements. Federal procurement procedures (predominately as applicable to cooperative agreements) are rigorously administered by specially trained NETL staff through all procurement steps (announcement, proposal receipt, competitive review, selection, negotiation, and award). From this open competition, approximately 85% of the program R&D budget is allocated to cooperative agreements that are additionally cost-shared by private sector awardees. Of the remaining R&D program funds, about 8 to 10% is directed to NETL onsite R&D that is annually peer reviewed to maintain program quality with the balance provided to National Laboratories via Field Work Proposals. In FY2004, 65% of R&D was competitively awarded. Some R&D is conducted on-site (rather than competitively awarded) for the following purposes: ?? Operate facilities on behalf of the Program so that external groups do not need to build multiple, separate test platforms to evaluate various concepts, thus saving the Program money. ?? Serve as the starting point for new research activities that are not yet mature enough to craft a competitive solicitation. ?? Provide an in-depth federal science and engineering capability that does not owe allegiance to any private company or interest group and that can be applied to assist in program development and project management.

Evidence: ?? A MAX funds profile table provides the funds distribution of the past two years, NETL administrative procedures comply with FAR and DER requirements. ?? Data on non-competitive and competitive procurement from the DOE procurement system (PADS). ?? NETL's Onsite R&D Peer Review Process details how related program quality is maintained and describes how the decisions are made whether to conduct intra- or extramural research.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: To support a Yes or Large Extent, the Measures tab of the PART worksheet must include historical performance data showing the program's successful progress in meeting its long-term performance goals. The first annual PART measure goal is for 2005, making it difficult to show progress against PART measures, but the Program's long-term goals used in the PART measures were established several years ago. The Program has not provided objective assessment of quantitative progress toward most of its long-term goals shown in the PART worksheet. Somewhat dated peer review by the NRC found that portions of the program have made progress toward their long-term goals. Two long-term quantitative goals from the previous PART assessment can no longer be met. See 2.1 for explanation of why the Program uses output measures instead of outcome measures. Efficiency from advanced coal-based energy plants has changed its five-year goal from 10% increase in efficiency to 5% increase in efficiency. This was due to direction from industry, which has chosen not to use the high-efficiency turbine developed by DOE as originally envisioned for the advanced power systems sub-program. Instead industry will use a lower efficiency turbine. While the Program output of an advanced burner is still on track, the overall outcome of that output has been reduced, in terms of efficiency of power generation. Distributed generation has dropped its measure for efficiency of fuel cell turbine systems because the associated effort to develop hybrid microturbines has been terminated. Although the fuel cell development was proceeding on schedule, the anticipated overall future cost of the hybrid microturbine rose beyond a level where it would be commercially competitive on a sufficiently large scale. Fuel cell development has shifted focus to SOFC fuel cells, through the SECA sub-program. The Program is working to develop a long-term performance measure applicable for SOFC fuel cells, because the turbine system efficiency measure does not apply to SOFC fuel cells.

Evidence: ?? NRC "1978 to 2000 Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? (2001)"

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The earliest annual targets for PART measures are for 2005, and have not been achieved as of this review. The Program has not established clear procedures for making an objective, quantitative determination of whether research test results demonstrate that annual performance goals have been met. Currently, the Program tracks annual progress through process milestones in the JOULE system, which are not approved evidence for demonstrating achievement of PART measures. However, the Program does generally achieve the process milestones in the JOULE system. See 2.3 for explanation of why the Program uses output measures instead of outcome measures.

Evidence: ?? Awaiting end of FY05 data and results.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: All FERD programs, including Zero Emissions, have established the FERD corporate overhead rate (i.e., the ratio of administrative costs to total program costs for implementing all FERD program) as the efficiency measure. A Yes response requires that the program demonstrate improved efficiency or cost effectiveness over the prior year. The Zero Emissions program has established an acceptable target for 2006 of 18%, as informed by the President's Budget. However, the program has not established a target for the efficiency measure applicable to 2007 and future years that is cnosistent with other DOE programs. There is no history of actual performance versus a previously established target and therefore no demonstration of whether efficiency over the prior year has improved or remained within an acceptable range. Zero Emission's programmatic overhead includes program direction funding for Zero Emissions FTEs, Zero Emissions travel, and Zero Emissions' portion of the formulaic allocation of program direction funding for corporate crosscutting analysis (e.g., modeling on potential public benefits). Zero Emissions overhead also includes program funding used for program/project management at the national labs. As a separate measure of efficiency, the Program also tracks the ratio of the cost of procurement to the value of the procurement. In implementing the procurement plan, NETL has met or exceeded the DOE average in using competitive sourcing, with the cost to spend ratio showing year-to-year improvement. In FY2004, the Strategic Center for Coal (SCC) alone awarded 95% of the obligated funds through competitive processes. Also a notable accomplishment was that 89% of expected milestone dates for these actions were completed within less than 30-days of scheduled. In relation to Question 3.4 on cost effectiveness, DOE expects each procurement office to obtain an identified target for cost efficiency in the performance of its actions. The FY 2004 results of 0.8% (or .008) in this cost efficiency measurement (operating costs vs. total dollars obligated) exceeded the target goal of .9% (or .009), which is improved from our FY 2003 results of 1.1%. This efficiency metric is considered very favorable since it exceeds the departmental target and the previous year's departmental average. This metric also indicates a focused effort to execute actions efficiently to ultimately obtain program goals.

Evidence: ?? FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request ?? NETL New Financial Assistance Awards - by Extent Competed ?? SCC Performance Results Summary

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The program is unique in its pathways or roadmaps toward achievement of the Program goals. There are no reasonable or direct comparisons of these technology pathways.

Evidence: ?? The Program's Strategic Plan, ?? FE's web site, ?? FE R&D Benefits Report and ?? NETL's Strategic Center for Coal web site

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: For most Program components, the Department does not conduct periodic, independent evaluations of effectiveness as an integral component of the Program implementation process. In particular, there is a lack of evaluation of whether research and development (R&D) programs have been effective in achieving relevant and beneficial outcomes that otherwise would not have occurred without the program intervention. The SECA and Sequestration programs do conduct useful evaluations of whether R&D has been effective. The SECA reviews have shown the program to be moderately effective. The Sequestration review identified areas of weakness, but did not publish sufficient information for judging effectiveness. Occasionally, GAO, NRC, or other Congressionally mandated reviews of Program effectiveness are conducted. An NRC Report of 2000 that rated the Program's R&D progress as significant (i.e. "will have influential impact"), cited the program for significant contribution over the last 22 years to the well being of the U.S., recommended program changes that have become the SECA fuel cell initiative, and stimulated the Program's R&D benefit estimating methodology that is working towards quantified outcome results. GAO testimony in 2001 found that the demonstration programs have management shortcomings that compromise the programs' ability to be effective and achieve results. The testimony found that in the demonstration programs, "from a management perspective,??many projects had experienced delays, cost overruns, bankruptcies, and performance problems." A 2005 report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements" found that "as a result of its problems with project management, Fossil Energy may not fully realize its objectives to advance the security, affordability, and environmental acceptability of fossil fuel supply and use through the use of cooperative agreements." Non-independent technology-specific merit reviews validate annual accomplishments, and provide prospective planning whereby external, partnering, and R&D performer insights factor into the development and refinement of R&D portfolio strategies inclusive of off-ramping, introducing new initiatives, emphasizing, or de-emphasizing elements of the program. However, they are not independent evaluations of program effectiveness. They provide preliminary FY 2005 indication that the R&D is achieving intended results.

Evidence: ?? Carbon Sequestration Review Process (select analysis/peer review) ?? 2004 Carbon Sequestration Project Review Volume 1 ?? 2003 Carbon Sequestration Project Review Volume 1 ?? SECA Core Technology Peer Review Workshop, Jan 27-28, 2005 ?? SECA Annual Workshop and Core Technology Program Peer Review Workshop, May 11-13, 2004 ?? SECA Core Technology Program Review Meeting, Sep 30-Oct 1, 2003 ?? Program's GPRA Plan's Validation Plan of FY 2005 PART target achievement ?? GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, June 12, 2001. ?? Report by the DOE Inspector General, "Management of Fossil Energy Cooperative Agreements" (2005).