National Energy Policy: Inventory of Major Federal Energy
Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations (10-JUN-05,
GAO-05-379).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-379
ACCNO: A26299
TITLE: National Energy Policy: Inventory of Major Federal Energy
Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations
DATE: 06/10/2005
SUBJECT: Energy
Energy conservation
Energy costs
Energy demand
Energy industry
Energy law
Energy legislation
Energy shortages
Energy supplies
National policies
Energy efficiency
Natural resources
DOE National Energy Policy Plan
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-379
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
June 2005
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Inventory of Major Federal Energy Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations
a
GAO-05-379
[IMG]
June 2005
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Inventory of Major Federal Energy Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations
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 openended 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.
United States Government Accountability Office
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
1 4
6
26
30 33
Appendixes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Appendix II: Activity, Agency,
and Energy Type 43
Appendix III: Federal Electricity Support 59
PMAs and TVA Market and Deliver Power
Generated at Federal
Facilities 59
Rural Utilities Service Provides Federal
Loans and Loan
Guarantees 61
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and
Appendix IV: GAO
Observations 63
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Appendix V: Authority for
Agency Programs, by Energy Activity Area 120
Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal
Appendix VI: Years 2000, 2003,
and 2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy 128
Activity
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy 133
Tables Table 1:
Table 2: Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity
Areas, Fiscal Year 2003 7
Federal Resources for Energy Supply, Fiscal Year 2003 8
Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy
Type, Fiscal Year 2003 10
Federal Resources for Energy's Impact on the
Environment and Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 12
Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated
Budget Authority 16
Contents
Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, Fiscal Year
2003 17 Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal
Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority 19 Table 8: Energy Market Competition
and Education, Fiscal Year
2003 Estimated Budget Authority 20 Table 9: Federal Energy-Related
Collections, Fiscal Year 2003 24 Table 10: Energy-Related Excise Tax
Collections, Fiscal Year 2003
25 Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2003 31 Table 12: Energy-Related Income Tax Preferences as
Reported for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 32 Table 13: Budget Requests, by
Major Energy Activity Area, Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 33
Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency
Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority 43
Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy
Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority 49
Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major Energy
Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority 56
Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998
(1999 dollars) 61 Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and
GAO Observations 64
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
Contents
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
Contents
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. However, 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.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
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 preferences1 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 authority2 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
1Tax 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.
2Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into financial
obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays involving
federal government funds.
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
equivalent3 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 1064 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
3The "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.
4The 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.
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
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority)
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)a
Energy supply $2.39 $4.18
Energy's impact on the
environment and health 1.87
Low-income energy
consumer assistance 2.21 None
Basic energy science
research 1.17 None
Energy delivery infrastructure 0.88 None
Energy conservation 0.79
Energy assurance and
physical security 0.25 None
Energy market competition
and education 0.24 None
Total $9.80 $4.38
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
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 Outlay equivalent estimatesa
Alternative (nonconventional) fuel
production credit (from fossil sources) $1,720,000
Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels 910,000
Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs 620,000
New technology credit 380,000
Expensing of exploration and development
costs, fuels 230,000
Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal 140,000
Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds 130,000
Income tax credits for alcohol fuels 30,000
Exception from passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and
gas properties 20,000
Total $4,180,000
Program activities, by agency Estimated budget authority
Department of Energy $1,259,299
Department of the Interior 513,423
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 392,094
Department of Agriculture 181,313
National Science Foundation 44,237
Environmental Protection Agency 1,200
Total $2,391,566
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
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);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.
5Distributed energy provides on-site power systems to customers to improve
reliability, support existing utility grids, and increase efficiency.
Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type, Fiscal
Year 2003
Dollars in thousands
Agency program activities Income tax preferences Energy type (estimated
budget authority) (outlay equivalent estimates)a
Fossil $1,074,021 $3,640,000
Renewable 348,962 510,000
Nuclear 506,535
Alternative 439,048 30,000
Total $2,368,566b $4,180,000
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
bTotal 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.
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 We identified 29 program activities, implemented by
11 different agencies,6
Environment and Health 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 2003.7 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,8 other programs that primarily address
other areas, such as renewable supply and energy conservation, also
address the environmental
6Our 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.
7A 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.
8For 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.
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 Estimated budget authority
Department of Energy $1,599,566
U.S. Agency for International Development 91,900
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 83,671
Environmental Protection Agency 24,200
Department of the Interior 19,148
Department of Agriculture 18,778
Department of Commerce 16,632
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9,697
Department of State 1,440
Department of Transportation 650
National Science Foundation 111
Total $1,865,793
Tax preference for clean-fuel burning vehicles (outlay equivalent
estimate) a $90,000
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
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 The federal government provides funding to
assist low-income consumers
Assistance 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 housholds. 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.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.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
9WIP'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.
10BES 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.
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).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.
11While 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.
Table 5: Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority
Dollars in thousands
Agency Estimated budget authority
U.S. Agency for International Development $561,100
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 119,241
Department of Energy 88,384
Department of Transportation 63,261
Department of the Interior 37,400
National Science Foundation 13,030
Total $882,416
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
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.12 Table 6 provides a listing of energy conservation resources
for fiscal year 2003, by agency, while appendix II provides program
details.
12This 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.
Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003
Dollars in thousands
Agency Estimated budget authority
Department of Energy $656,639
Environmental Protection Agency 78,200
Department of Transportation 34,340
National Science Foundation 17,963
Department of Agriculture 793
Total $787,935
Tax preference-conservation subsidies
(outlay equivalent estimate)a $110,000
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
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 Energy assurance and physical security
activities incorporate federal
Security 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.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.
13We did not include DHS in our inventory, but we did include DOE, which
is the sector-specific agency for energy.
Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal Year 2003
Estimated Budget Authority
Agency/Program activity Estimated budget authority
DOE/Strategic Petroleum Reserve $171,732
DOE/Northeast Heating Oil Reserve 5,961
DOE/Energy Security and Assurance 25,990
NRC/Homeland Security 44,316
Total $247,999
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
Energy Market Competition and The issue of energy market competition and
education includes efforts to
Education 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.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
14This 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.
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.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 Estimated budget authority
Department of Energy $80,087
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 72,759
U.S. Agency for International Development 39,300
Department of Commerce 31,202
U.S. Trade and Development Agency 14,509
Department of State 865
Department of Agriculture 140
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Estimate not available
Department of Justice Estimate not available
Securities and Exchange Commission Estimate not available
Federal Trade Commission Estimate not available
Total $238,862
15In 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.
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
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.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:
o 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
16A DOJ ENRD official estimated that ENRD's overall annual budget was
about $100 million.
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 The federal government collects about $10.1 billion a
year through various
Collects Revenues through energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion
in energy-related excise
Energy-Related Programs 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
and Excise Taxes 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.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.
17In 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.
Table 9: Federal Energy-Related Collections, Fiscal Year 2003
Dollars in thousands
Energy-related collectionsAgency Program
Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing
$5,933,900
Receipts/Outer Continental Shelf (royalties, rents and bonuses)
Department of the Minerals Management Service-Mineral 2,066,276
Interior Leasing
Receipts/Onshore (royalties, rents
and bonuses)
Department of the Minerals Management Service-Royalty
Interior and Offshore Minerals 90,000
Management (offsetting collections)
Department of the Bureau of Land Management-Service
Interior Charges, Deposits, and 7,900
Forfeitures
Department of the Minerals Management Service-Indian
Interior Trust Responsibility 7,000
(offsetting collections)
Department of the Office of Surface Mining-Regulation 1,039
Interior and Technology
Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste 1,038,948
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 189,000
Department of Energy and Decommissioning
Fund
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Energy Related Collections 473,966
Commission estimate
Federal Energy Regulatory FERC Competitive Markets, Energy
Commission Infrastructure, Market 192,000
(FERC) Oversight
Department of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Transportation Safety 57,326
Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety
National Institute of Science and
Department of Commerce Technology-Energy use and 2,000
conservation programs
Total $10,059,355
Source: GAO analysis and estimates based on agency data.
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
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise Excise tax Excise tax
collections tax collected
Alcohol fuelsa $(9,986)b Highway Trust Fundc
Aviation fuel (except gasoline) 739,920
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund
Aviation gasoline 57,953
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund
Coal 517,531 Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
Compressed natural gas 1,735 Highway Trust Fund
Diesel fuel, except for trains and intracity 8,581,467 Highway Trust Fund
and the buses Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Dyed diesel fuel used in trains and regularly 163,920 Highway Trust Fund
and the scheduled buses Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Fuels used commercially on inland 111,058 Inland Waterways Trust Fund and
the Leaking waterways Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Gas guzzlers 126,685 Not applicable
Gasoline and gasohol 24,232,426
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Kerosene 72,128
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Dollars in thousands
Trust funds receiving amounts
equivalent to excise
Excise tax Excise tax collections tax collected
Special motor
fuels 14,226 Highway Trust Fund and the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund
Total $34,609,063
Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates.
aThis 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.
bAccording 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.
cThe Highway Trust Fund includes a separate Mass Transit Account for
certain funds appropriated to the fund.
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.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
18We 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.
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 legislation19
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.
19In 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.
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.20 Regarding programs, our review of
the NEP report did not find that it addressed basic energy science
research; DOE nondefense
20The 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.
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
Estimated budget authority
Energy activity area Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003
Energy supply $1,591,377 $2,391,566
Energy's impact on the environment 1,658,668 1,865,793
and health
Low-income energy consumer 1,979,350 2,211,837
assistance
Basic energy science research 874,369 1,165,126
Energy delivery infrastructure 136,835 763,175
Energy conservation 724,087 787,935
Energy assurance and physical 160,500 247,999
security
Energy market competition and 219,101 166,103
education
Totala $7,344,287 $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.
aNumbers may not add due to rounding.
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
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)a
Tax preference Activity area Supply type Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003
Alternative Fossil
(nonconventional) Energy supply $1,310,000 $1,720,000
fuel production
credit
Capital gains Fossil
treatment of Energy supply 90,000 140,000
royalties on coal
Credit for enhanced Fossil 410,000 620,000
oil recovery Energy supply
costs
Exception from Fossil
passive loss Energy supply 20,000 20,000
limitation for
working interests in
oil and gas
properties
Excess of percentage Fossil 450,000 910,000
over cost Energy supply
depletion, fuels
Exclusion of Renewable 130,000 130,000
interest on energy Energy supply
facility bonds
Expensing of Fossil
exploration and Energy supply 30,000 230,000
development costs,
fuels
Income tax credits Alternatives
for alcohol Energy supply 20,000 30,000
fuels
New technology Energy supply Renewable 50,000 380,000
credit
Exclusion from Energy 110,000 110,000
income of conservation Not applicable
conservation
subsidies provided
by public utilities
Tax credit and Energy's
deduction for impact on Not applicable 80,000 90,000
clean-fuel burning the
vehicles environment
and
health
Total $2,700,000 $4,380,000
Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates published in the Analytical
Perspectives Budget of the United States Government, for selected years.
aThe aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for
gauging general magnitude and does not take into account interactions
between individual provisions.
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
Budget request
Energy activity area Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year
2005
Energy supply $1,027,280 $1,818,261 $1,754,579
Energy's impact on the
environment
and health 1,398,931 1,781,433 2,400,712
Low-income energy consumer
assistance 1,400,000 1,700,000 2,001,000
Basic energy science 1,086,959 1,189,225 1,267,870
Energy delivery 106,401 169,252 203,353
infrastructure
Energy conservation 579,668 534,248 514,764
Energy assurance and
physical
security 164,000 201,029 187,700
Energy market competition
and
education 100,444 110,211 89,700
Total $5,863,683 $7,503,659 $8,419,678
Source: GAO analysis of budget request information.
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.
Jim Wells Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We were asked to (1) identify the federal government's major energyrelated
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.1 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 energyrelated 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
1Tax 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.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
applicable program officials, we identified eight categories of
energyrelated 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
authority2 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
energyrelated 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 2000.3 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
2Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into financial
obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays involving
federal government funds.
3Resource information provided throughout this report was not adjusted for
inflation.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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.4 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.5 However, DOD is a large user of
4Tax 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.
5We did review civilian programs within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
1066 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
energyrelated 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
energyrelated 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
energyrelated 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
6The 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.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
and May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
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/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Energy supply
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education, $0
Agriculture and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension Service: 1,656,000
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs
II
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension Service: 1,373,000
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs
III
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension Service: 884,000
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs
IV
Department of Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit
Agriculture Corporation's Bioenergy 150,000,000
Program
Department of Forest Service Research and
Agriculture Development: Bioenergy, Energy 2,400,000
Efficiency, and Conservation Research
Department of Office of Chief Economist, Office of 1,000,000
Agriculture Energy Policy and New Uses: 3
Department of Office of Chief Economist, Office of 1,000,000
Agriculture Energy Policy and New Uses: 2
Department of Rural Development Business Programs:
Agriculture Renewable Energy and Energy 23,000,000
Efficiency
Department of Energy Clean Coal Technology (47,000,000)
Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery 84,898,000
Department of Energy systems research and
development (R&D)
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Departmental energy 1,445,000
management program
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Facilities and 5,297,000
Infrastructure
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Geothermal technology 28,390,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology 38,113,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydropower 5,016,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Intergovernmental 14,449,000
activities
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Program direction 12,615,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Renewable Program 0
Support
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Solar energy 82,330,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Wind energy 41,640,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings 7,572,000
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of 497,000
Sciences Program Review
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital 6,954,000
Projects
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced 5,961,000
metallurgical research
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor 0
Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power
Department of Energy systems 410,340,000
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy Program Estimated budget
activity/Agency authority
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative 8,186,000
research and development
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Energy 497,000
efficiency science initiative
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export 2,981,000
authorization
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas 47,013,000
technologies
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil 42,025,000
technology
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Program 87,229,000
direction and management support
Department of Energy Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 17,715,000
Reserves
Department of Energy Nuclear Energy R&D 114,441,000
Department of Energy Science: Fusion energy sciences 240,695,000
program
Department of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation 3,300,000
Interior of Indian Programs
Department of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM): 9,526,000
Interior Coal Management
Department of the BLM: Oil and Gas Management 86,100,000
Interior
Department of the BLM: Workforce/Organizational 23,000,000
Interior Support
Department of the Minerals Management Service (MMS): 22,000,000
Interior Indian Trust Responsibility
Department of the MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals 239,430,000
Interior Management
Department of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM): 2,153,000
Interior Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
Department of the OSM: Regulation and Technology 104,209,000
Interior
Department of the U.S. Geological Survey: Energy 23,705,000
Interior Resource Program
Environmental Office of Air and Radiation (OAR): 1,200,000
Protection New Source Review
Agency
National Science Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and 920,000
Foundation Fusion: Basic Research
National Science Biological Sciences: Renewable 87,000
Foundation Energy: Basic Research
National Science Education and Human Resources:
Foundation Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen 200,000
Foundation and Fusion/Basic Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen 790,000
Foundation and Fusion/Applied Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Other 930,000
Foundation Energy/Basic Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Renewable 1,310,000
Foundation Energy/Applied Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical Sciences: 30,540,000
Foundation Renewable Energy/Basic
Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical Sciences:
Foundation Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 7,330,000
Research
National Science Office of International Science and
Foundation Engineering: Hydrogen and 70,000
Fusion/Basic Research
National Science Office of International Science and 2,000,000
Foundation Engineering: Renewable
Energy/Basic Research
National Science Social, Behavioral, Economic 60,000
Foundation Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic
Research
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget
authority
International Nuclear Safety
Nuclear Regulatory Support 8,026,645
Commission
Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel
Facilities Licensing and
Nuclear Regulatory Inspection 21,420,704
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: New
Nuclear Regulatory Reactor Licensing 26,464,865
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Inspection and Performance 147,123,812
Commission Assessment
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory License Renewal 22,870,187
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Licensing 95,316,734
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Safety Research 70,870,929
Commission
Subtotal $2,391,565,876
Energy's impact on the environment and health
U.S. Agency for International Energy Programs, Agency-wide $91,900,000
Development
Department of Forest Service R&D: Global Change 18,778,000
Agriculture Research/Climate Change Science
Program/Climate Change Technology
Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Department of Commerce Administration (NOAA): National 103,000
Marine Fisheries Habitat
Department of Commerce NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service 2,539,000
Consultations
Department of Commerce NOAA: National Weather Service 5,962,000
NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource
Department of Commerce Management 341,000
Department of Commerce NOAA: Office of Oceanic and 1,987,000
Atmospheric Research
Department of Commerce NOAA: Office of Response and 5,700,000
Restoration
Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste 457,010,000
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental 9,652,000
restoration
Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Services 161,852,000
Department of Energy Non-Defense Site Acceleration 156,129,000
Completion
Department of Energy Science: Biological and environmental 494,360,000
research
Department of Energy Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 320,563,000
Decommissioning Fund
Department of the Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource 13,148,000
Interior Management
Department of the MMS: Oil Spill Research 6,000,000
Interior
State: Climate Change and Sustainable
Department of State Development 1,440,000
Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
National Climate Change 650,000 Technology
Environmental Protection OAR: Boutique Fuels 400,000 Agency
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Environmental Protection OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological
Advances (Clean Car 21,700,000 Agency Program)
Environmental Protection OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies
Legislation 2,100,000 Agency
National Science Foundation Office of International Science and
Engineering: Energy Efficiency/Basic 41,000 Research
National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy
Efficiency/Basic 60,000 Research
National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other
Energy/Basic Research 10,000
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Low
Level Waste 4,563,957 Commission Management
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation
30,457,514 Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of Decommissioning
21,628,121 Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and
Transportation Licensing 27,021,284 Commission and Inspection
U.S. Army Corps of Regulatory Program 9,696,726 Engineers
Subtotal $1,865,792,602 Low-income energy consumer assistance
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: $223,537,000
Weatherization
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Department of Health and Program 1,988,300,000
Human Services
Subtotal $2,211,837,000
Basic energy science research
Department of Energy Science: Advanced scientific computing research
$163,185,000 Department of Energy Science: Basic energy sciences
1,001,941,000
Subtotal $1,165,126,000 Energy delivery infrastructure
U.S. Agency for International Energy Activities in Afghanistan $3,100,000
Development
U.S. Agency for International Energy Activities in Iraq 558,000,000
Development
Department of Energy Electric Transmission and 88,384,000
Distribution
Department of the Interior BLM: Lands and Realty Management 27,200,000
Department of the Interior BLM: Oregon and California Grant 2,300,000
Lands
BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and
Department of the Interior Forfeitures 7,900,000
Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration: Natural Gas 63,261,000
Pipeline Safety
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Federal Energy Regulatory FERC: Energy Infrastructure 119,241,000
Commission (FERC)
National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources:
Superconductivity/Basic Research
National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied
Research 110,000
National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic
Research 340,000
National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences:
Superconductivity/Basic 12,130,000 Research
National Science Foundation Office of International Science and
Engineering: 450,000 Superconductivity/Basic Research
Subtotal $882,416,000 Energy conservation
Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of $793,000
Energy Policy and New Uses: 1
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Biomass and 24,050,000
biorefinery systems R&D
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Building 58,327,000
technologies
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Distributed 60,054,000
energy resources
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Energy 2,440,000
efficiency science initiative
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Federal energy 19,299,000
management program
Energy Conservation: Fuel cell
Department of Energy technologies 53,906,000
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Industrial 96,824,000
technologies
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Intergovernmental 90,618,000
Activities
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Program management 76,950,000
Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Vehicle technologies 174,171,000
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
Intelligent Traffic Systems 7,541,000
Department of Transportation FHWA: Office of Operations Energy Related
Obligations 4,903,000
Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: Fuel
Cell-Powered Transit Buses 20,896,397
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration: Corporate Average Fuel 1,000,000 Economy
Environmental Protection OAR: Clean School Bus 5,000,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR: Climate Change Programs/Industry 26,800,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart Way
Transport Partnership 4,400,000
Agency Initiative
Environmental Protection OAR: Climate Change/Buildings 41,600,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR: Locomotive Idling 200,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR: Truck Idling 200,000
Agency
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
National Science Foundation Computer and Information Science and
Engineering: Energy 9,560,000 Efficiency/Basic Research
National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Renewable
Energy/Basic Research 33,000
National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research 400,000
National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Applied
Research 830,000
National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic
Research 6,970,000
National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy
Efficiency/Basic Research 170,000
Subtotal $787,935,397 Energy assurance and physical security
Department of Energy Energy Security and Assurance Program $25,990,000
Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 5,961,000
Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 171,732,000
Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland
Nuclear Regulatory Security 10,388,139
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland
Nuclear Regulatory Security 28,884,439
Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Security 5,043,223
Commission
Subtotal $247,998,801
Energy market competition and education
Commodity Futures Energy Related Activities Estimate not
Trading available
Commission
Department of Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal- $0
Agriculture State Marketing Improvement
Programs
Department of National Agricultural Statistics 140,000
Agriculture Service: Price Paid by Farmers/Fuel
Department of International Trade Administration: 1,101,713
Commerce Trade Development/Office of Energy
Department of National Institute of Standards and
Commerce Technology: Energy use and 30,100,000
conservation programs
Department of Energy Energy Information Administration 80,087,000
Department of Energy Related Activities Estimate not
Justice available
Department of State State: Economic and Business Affairs: 865,181
Energy
Federal Energy
Regulatory FERC: Competitive Markets 36,824,000
Commission
Federal Energy
Regulatory FERC: Market Oversight 35,935,000
Commission
Federal Trade Energy Related Activities Estimate not
Commission available
Securities and Estimate not
Exchange Energy Related Activities available
Commission
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
U.S. Trade and Development Energy Related Activities 14,508,784 Agency
U.S. Agency for International Energy Programs: Agency-wide 39,300,000
Development
Subtotal $238,861,678
Total $9,791,533,354
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy
Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority U.S Agency for
International Development Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Energy Activities in Energy delivery infrastructure $3,100,000
Afghanistan
Energy Activities in Iraq Energy delivery infrastructure 558,000,000
Energy Programs, Energy's impact on the environment 91,900,000
Agency-wide and health
Energy Programs, Energy market competition and 39,300,000
Agency-wide education
Subtotal $692,300,000
Energy market Estimate not
Energy Related Activities competition and available
education
Subtotal Estimate not
available
Department of Agriculture
Energy market
competition and $0
Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal-State education
Marketing Improvement Programs
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Energy supply
Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy
Related
Programs I
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Energy supply 1,656,000
Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy
Related
Programs II
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Energy supply 1,373,000
Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy
Related
Programs III
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Energy supply 884,000
Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy
Related
Programs IV
Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Energy supply 150,000,000
Corporation's Bioenergy Program
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget
authority
Forest Service Research and Energy's impact on the
Development (R&D): environment and health 18,778,000
Global Change Research/Climate
Change Science
Program/Climate Change Technology
Program
Forest Service R&D: Bioenergy,
Energy Efficiency, Energy supply 2,400,000
and Conservation Research
National Agricultural Statistics Service: Price Paid by Energy market
competition and education 140,000 Farmers/Fuel
Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Energy conservation 793,000
Policy
and New Uses: 1
Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy
Policy Energy supply 1,000,000
and New Uses: 3
Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy
Policy Energy supply 1,000,000
and New Uses: 2
Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy supply 23,000,000
Energy and Energy Efficiency
Subtotal $201,024,000 Department of Commerce
International Trade Administration: Energy market competition $1,101,713
Trade and education
Development/Office of Energy
National Institute of Standards and Energy market competition 30,100,000
Technology: and education
Energy use and conservation programs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Energy's impact on the 103,000
Administration environment and health
(NOAA): National Marine Fisheries
Habitat
NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Energy's impact on the 2,539,000
Service environment and health
Consultations
NOAA: National Weather Service Energy's impact on the 5,962,000
environment and health
NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Energy's impact on the
Management environment and health 341,000
NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Energy's impact on the
environment and health 1,987,000 NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration
Energy's impact on the environment and health 5,700,000
Subtotal $47,833,713
Department of Energy
Civilian Radioactive Waste Energy's impact on the $457,010,000
environment and health
Clean Coal Technology Energy supply (47,000,000)
Electric Transmission and Energy delivery 88,384,000
Distribution infrastructure
Energy Conservation: Biomass and 24,050,000
biorefinery Energy conservation
systems R&D
Energy Conservation: Building Energy conservation 58,327,000
technologies
Energy Conservation: Distributed Energy conservation 60,054,000
energy resources
Energy Conservation: Energy
efficiency science Energy conservation 2,440,000
initiative
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget
authority
Energy Conservation: Federal energy Energy conservation 19,299,000
management
program
Energy Conservation: Fuel cell Energy conservation 53,906,000
technologies
Energy Conservation: Industrial Energy conservation 96,824,000
technologies
Energy Conservation: Energy conservation 90,618,000
Intergovernmental Activities
Energy Conservation: Program Energy conservation 76,950,000
management
Energy Conservation: Vehicle Energy conservation 174,171,000
technologies
Energy Conservation: Weatherization Low-income energy 223,537,000
consumer assistance
Energy market
Energy Information Administration competition and 80,087,000
education
Energy Security and Assurance Energy assurance and 25,990,000
Program physical security
Energy Supply: Biomass and
biorefinery systems Energy supply 84,898,000
R&D
Energy Supply: Departmental energy 1,445,000
management Energy supply
program
Energy Supply: Facilities and Energy supply 5,297,000
Infrastructure
Energy Supply: Geothermal technology Energy supply 28,390,000
Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology Energy supply 38,113,000
Energy Supply: Hydropower Energy supply 5,016,000
Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities Energy supply 14,449,000
Energy Supply: Program direction Energy supply 12,615,000
Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support Energy supply 0
Energy Supply: Solar energy Energy supply 82,330,000
Energy Supply: Wind energy Energy supply 41,640,000
Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings Energy supply 7,572,000
Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences Energy supply 497,000
Program Review
Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects Energy supply 6,954,000
Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research Energy supply 5,961,000
Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor Energy supply 0
Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other Energy supply 410,340,000
power systems
Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative 8,186,000
research and Energy supply
development
Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency 497,000
science Energy supply
initiative
Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental Energy's impact on the 9,652,000
restoration environment and health
Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export Energy supply 2,981,000
authorization
Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas Energy supply 47,013,000
technologies
Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil
technology Energy supply 42,025,000
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget
authority
Fossil Energy R&D: Program 87,229,000
direction and Energy supply
management support
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Energy supply 17,715,000
Reserves
Non-Defense Environmental Services Energy's impact on the 161,852,000
environment and health
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Energy's impact on the 156,129,000
Completion environment and health
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Energy assurance and 5,961,000
physical security
Nuclear Energy Research and Energy supply $114,441,000
Development
Science: Advanced scientific Basic energy science 163,185,000
computing research research
Science: Basic energy sciences Basic energy science 1,001,941,000
research
Science: Biological and Energy's impact on the 494,360,000
environmental research environment and health
Science: Fusion energy sciences Energy supply 240,695,000
program
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Energy assurance and 171,732,000
physical security
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination Energy's impact on the 320,563,000
and environment and health
Decommissioning Fund
Subtotal $5,276,321,000
Department of Health and Human Services
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Low-income energy $1,988,300,000
Program consumer assistance
Subtotal $1,988,300,000
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation
of Indian Energy supply $3,300,000
Programs
Bureau of Land Management (BLM):
Coal Energy supply 9,526,000
Management
BLM: Lands and Realty Management Energy delivery 27,200,000
infrastructure
BLM: Oil and Gas Management Energy supply 86,100,000
BLM: Oregon and California Grant Energy delivery 2,300,000
Lands infrastructure
BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Energy delivery 7,900,000
Forfeitures infrastructure
BLM: Workforce/Organizational Energy supply 23,000,000
Support
Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Energy's impact on the 13,148,000
Management environment and health
Minerals Management Service (MMS):
Indian Trust Energy supply 22,000,000
Responsibility
MMS: Oil Spill Research Energy's impact on the 6,000,000
environment and health
MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Energy supply 239,430,000
Management
Office of Surface Mining (OSM):
Abandoned Mine Energy supply 2,153,000
Reclamation Fund
OSM: Regulation and Technology Energy supply 104,209,000
U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Energy supply 23,705,000
Resource Program
Subtotal $569,971,000
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority Department of Justice
Energy-Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not
available
Subtotal Estimate not available Department of State
State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Energy's impact on the
environment and health $1,440,000
State: Economic and Business Affairs: Energy Energy market competition and
education 865,181
Subtotal $2,305,181 Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration Energy conservation $7,541,000
(FHWA): Intelligent
Traffic Systems
FHWA: Office of Operations Energy
Related Energy conservation 4,903,000
Obligations
Federal Transit Administration:
Fuel Cell-Powered Energy conservation 20,896,397
Transit Buses
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration: Energy conservation 1,000,000
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Office of the Secretary of Energy's impact on the
Transportation: National environment and health 650,000
Climate Change Technology
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Energy delivery
Safety infrastructure 63,261,000
Administration: Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety
Subtotal $98,251,397
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation Energy's impact on the $400,000
environment and health
(OAR): Boutique Fuels
OAR: Clean School Bus Energy conservation 5,000,000
OAR: Climate Change Energy conservation 26,800,000
Programs/Industry
OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart
Way Energy conservation 4,400,000
Transport Partnership Initiative
OAR: Climate Change Energy's impact on the
Programs/Technological environment and health 21,700,000
Advances (Clean Car Program)
OAR: Climate Change/Buildings Energy conservation 41,600,000
OAR: Locomotive Idling Energy conservation 200,000
OAR: Multi-pollutant Energy's impact on the
Legislation/Clear Skies environment and health 2,100,000
Legislation
OAR: New Source Review Energy supply 1,200,000
OAR: Truck Idling Energy conservation 200,000
Subtotal $103,600,000
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)
Energy market competition
FERC: Competitive Markets and education $36,824,000
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget
authority
FERC: Energy Energy delivery infrastructure 119,241,000
Infrastructure
FERC: Market Oversight Energy market competition and 35,935,000
education
Subtotal $192,000,000
Federal Trade Commission
Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not
available
Subtotal Estimate not available National Science Foundation
Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Energy supply $920,000
Research
Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Energy supply 87,000
Research
Computer and Information Science and Engineering: Energy conservation
9,560,000 Energy Efficiency/Basic Research
Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Energy supply Fusion/Basic
Research
Education and Human Resources: Renewable Energy conservation 33,000
Energy/Basic Research
Education and Human Resources: Energy Energy conservation 400,000
Efficiency/Basic Research
Education and Human Resources: Energy delivery
infrastructure
Superconductivity/Basic Research
Engineering Directorate: Energy 830,000
Efficiency/Applied Energy conservation
Research
Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic Energy conservation
6,970,000 Research
Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Energy supply 200,000
Research
Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Energy supply 790,000
Fusion/Applied Research
Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic Energy supply 930,000
Research
Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Energy supply 1,310,000
Research
Engineering Directorate: Energy delivery 110,000
Superconductivity/Applied infrastructure
Research
Engineering Directorate: Energy delivery
Superconductivity/Basic infrastructure 340,000
Research
Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy Energy conservation 170,000
Efficiency/Basic Research
Mathematical and Physical Sciences: 30,540,000
Renewable Energy supply
Energy/Basic Research
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Energy supply 7,330,000
Fusion/Basic Research
Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy delivery 12,130,000
infrastructure
Superconductivity/Basic Research
Office of International Science and
Engineering: Energy supply 70,000
Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research
Office of International Science and
Engineering: Energy supply 2,000,000
Renewable Energy/Basic Research
Office of International Science and Energy delivery
Engineering: infrastructure 450,000
Superconductivity/Basic Research
Office of International Science and Energy's impact on the
Engineering: environment and health 41,000
Energy Efficiency/Basic Research
Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences:
Renewable Energy supply 60,000
Energy/Basic Research
Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy's impact on the
Energy environment and health 60,000
Efficiency/Basic Research
Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy's impact on the
Other environment and health 10,000
Energy/Basic Research
Subtotal $75,341,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
International Nuclear Safety Support Energy supply $8,026,645
Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities
Licensing Energy supply 21,420,704
and Inspection
Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland Energy assurance and 10,388,139
Security physical security
Energy assurance and
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland Security physical security 28,884,439
Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing Energy supply 26,464,865
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Energy supply 147,123,812
Performance Assessment
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal Energy supply 22,870,187
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing Energy supply 95,316,734
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research Energy supply 70,870,929
Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Energy's impact on the
environment and health 4,563,957 Low Level Waste Management
Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation Energy's impact on the
environment and health 30,457,514
Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Energy assurance and physical 5,043,223
Security security
Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation Energy's impact on the
of environment and health 21,628,121
Decommissioning
Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Energy's impact on the
Storage and environment and health 27,021,284
Transportation Licensing and
Inspection
Subtotal $520,080,553
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Dollars in actual amounts
Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority Securities and
Exchange Commission
Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not
available
Subtotal Estimate not available U.S. Trade and Development Agency
Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education $14,508,784
Subtotal $14,508,784 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program Energy's impact on the environment and health $9,696,726
Subtotal $9,696,726
Total $9,791,533,354
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
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/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Fossil
Department of Energy Clean Coal Technology $(47,000,000)
Fossil Energy Research and Development 497,000
Department of Energy (R&D): National Academy of
Sciences Program Review
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital 6,954,000
Projects
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced 5,961,000
metallurgical research
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other 410,340,000
power systems
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative 8,186,000
research and development
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency 497,000
science initiative
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export 2,981,000
authorization
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas 47,013,000
technologies
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil 42,025,000
technology
Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction 87,229,000
and management support
Department of Energy Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 17,715,000
Department of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of 3,300,000
Interior Indian Programs
Department of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal 9,526,000
Interior Management
Department of the
Interior BLM: Oil and Gas Management 86,100,000
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Energy type/Agency Program Estimated budget
authority
Department of the Minerals Management Service (MMS): 22,000,000
Interior Indian Trust Responsibility
Department of the MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals 239,430,000
Interior Management
Department of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM): 2,153,000
Interior Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
Department of the OSM: Regulation and Technology 104,209,000
Interior
Department of the U.S. Geological Survey: Energy 23,705,000
Interior Resource Program
Environmental Office of Air and Radiation: New
Protection Source Review 1,200,000
Agency
Subtotal $1,074,021,000
Renewable
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education, $0
Agriculture and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education, 1,656,000
Agriculture and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education, 1,373,000
Agriculture and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III
Department of Cooperative State Research, Education, 884,000
Agriculture and Extension Service:
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV
Department of Forest Service Research and Development: 2,400,000
Agriculture Bioenergy, Energy
Efficiency, and Conservation Research
Department of Office of Chief Economist, Office of 1,000,000
Agriculture Energy Policy and New Uses: 3
Department of Office of Chief Economist, Office of 1,000,000
Agriculture Energy Policy and New Uses: 2
Department of Rural Development Business Programs:
Agriculture Renewable Energy and 23,000,000
Energy Efficiency
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery 84,898,000
systems R&D
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Departmental energy 1,445,000
management program
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Facilities and 5,297,000
Infrastructure
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Geothermal technology 28,390,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydropower 5,016,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Intergovernmental 14,449,000
activities
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Program direction 12,615,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Solar energy 82,330,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Wind energy 41,640,000
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings 7,572,000
National Science Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: 87,000
Foundation Basic Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Renewable 1,310,000
Foundation Energy/Applied Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical Sciences: 30,540,000
Foundation Renewable Energy/Basic
Research
National Science Office of International Science and
Foundation Engineering: Renewable 2,000,000
Energy/Basic Research
Appendix II
Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by
Activity, Agency, and Energy Type
Energy type/Agency Program Estimated budget
authority
National Science Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences:
Foundation Renewable Energy/Basic 60,000
Research
Subtotal $348,962,000
Nuclear Alternative
Department of Energy Nuclear Energy R&D $114,441,000
Nuclear Regulatory International Nuclear Safety Support 8,026,645
Commission
Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel
Nuclear Regulatory Facilities Licensing and Inspection 21,420,704
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Licensing 26,464,865
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Inspection and Performance 147,123,812
Commission Assessment
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License
Nuclear Regulatory Renewal 22,870,187
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory Licensing 95,316,734
Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety
Nuclear Regulatory Research 70,870,929
Commission
Subtotal $506,534,876
Department of Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit $150,000,000
Agriculture Corporation's Bioenergy
Program
Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology 38,113,000
Department of Energy Science: Fusion energy sciences 240,695,000
program
National Science Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and 920,000
Foundation Fusion: Basic Research
National Science Education and Human Resources:
Foundation Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic
Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and 200,000
Foundation Fusion: Basic Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and 790,000
Foundation Fusion/Applied Research
National Science Engineering Directorate: Other 930,000
Foundation Energy: Basic Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical Sciences:
Foundation Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 7,330,000
Research
National Science Office of International Science and
Foundation Engineering: Hydrogen and 70,000
Fusion/Basic Research
Subtotal $439,048,000
Total $2,368,565,876
Source: GAO analysis of agency
estimates.
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-theart 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
Appendix III
Federal Electricity Support
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.1 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.2 In table
17, we present EIA's measures of implicit support for 1998 for the PMAs
and TVA.
1Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and
Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Energy Transformation and End Use
(Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
2For 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.
Appendix III
Federal Electricity Support
Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998 (1999
dollars)
Dollars in millions
Agency
Support under the market price methodology Support under the below-market
interest rate methodology Support under the rate of return methodology
Bonneville Power
Administration $732 $24-$116 $190-$466
Southeastern Power
Administration 152
Southwestern Power
Administration 106 80-224a 237-530a
Western Power
Administration 407
Tennessee Valley Authority 0b 77-248 228-557
Source: Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions
and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Energy Transformation and End Use
(Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
aFigures presented are total for the Southeastern Power Administration,
Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Power Administration.
bTennessee Valley Authority power prices were higher than the adjacent
regions' prices, so there was no implicit subsidy using the price
comparison methodology.
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,3 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 belowmarket
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;
37 U.S.C. 901-950bb.
Appendix III
Federal Electricity Support
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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 energyrelated
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
1-3: The NEPD Group Implemented in modified form: Although DOE's Office of
National Energy Policy is responsible
recommends to the President the NEPD Group terminated on September for
coordinating and providing strategic direction for
that the NEPD Group continue to 30, 2001, by the terms of the memorandum
the implementation of the NEP report
work and meet on the that established the group, an interagency
recommendations. However, although the NEPD
implementation of the NEP and working group led by DOE was established to
Group was terminated on September 30, 2001,
explore other ways to advance coordinate agency implementation of the NEP.
DOE's NEP Office did not assume leadership of the
dependable, affordable, and This interagency group meets on a regular
interagency working group until the Fall of 2003.
environmentally responsible basis.
production and distribution of
energy.
2-1: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: Through The status
report does not include information on
recommends that the President DOE and other agencies, the Bush whether
possible legislation was considered as
direct the Secretary of Energy to Administration has supported extensive
outlined in this recommendation. In addition, while the
explore potential opportunities to energy education programs at all
levels, in all status report mentions federal agencies working with
develop educational programs regions, and in all sectors. Activities
include industry, the funding of these programs by energy
related to energy development development of instructional materials, Web
industries was not addressed. There is a precedent
and use. This should include sites, field trips, and career education for
industry funding of education programs. For
possible legislation to create materials. DOE, directly and through the
example, the Propane Education and Research Act of
public education awareness national labs, sponsors higher education, 1996
established a "check-off" program where a
programs about energy. Such extension programs, and research programs
portion of the wholesale cost of the product is set
programs should be long term in for residential, commercial, agricultural,
and aside in a common fund for the benefit of producers
nature, should be funded and industrial energy users. EPA, USDA, and DOI
and consumers. The funding generated can be
managed by the respective sponsor programs on resource conservation
significant-in FY 2003 alone, a $38 million budget
energy industries, and should and protection. Federal agencies also work
was projected to support various propane-related
include information on energy's with the energy industry and trade
programs, including education. Recommendations
compatibility with a clean associations to support educational programs
4-15 and 6-6 also address federal education
environment. on energy efficiency, new technologies, programs.
consumer safety, and environmental
protection.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 lowincome homes have been weatherized in the last 4
FYs.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
2-4: The NEPD Group Implemented: Congress has not considered It is not
clear why the status report notes that this recommends that the President
legislation to allow transfer between the recommendation is implemented
when no legislation support legislation to allow funds Weatherization and
State Energy Programs has been considered. According to an internal draft
dedicated for the Weatherization and LIHEAP. Both programs serve important
document on NEP status from May 2003, an internal and State Energy
Programs to functions to reduce overall energy costs to determination was
made that it was not appropriate to be transferred to LIHEAP if DOE
low-income families. support transfer of Weatherization and State Energy
deems it appropriate. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
2-6: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct FEMA to prepare
for potential energy emergencies.
o 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.
o 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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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 programestablished 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
marketbased incentives, such as emissions trading credits, to help achieve
the required reductions.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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
energysaving information from various federal agencies.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
4-4: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of
Energy to improve the energy efficiency of appliances:
o Support the appliance standards program for covered products, setting
higher standards where technologically feasible and economically
justified.
o Expand the scope of the appliance standards program, setting standards
for additional appliances where technologically feasible and economically
justified.
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 standardsetting process.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
4-6: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation proposed: The None.
recommends that the President President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent
direct the Secretary of the budget requests have each proposed an
Treasury to work with Congress investment tax credit for qualified CHP
to encourage increased energy projects. Congress considered, but did not
efficiency through combined heat enact, legislation that would have
provided
and power (CHP) projects by such a tax credit.
shortening the depreciation life
for CHP projects or providing
investment tax credits.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
None.
4-8: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the EPA
Administrator to promote CHP through flexibility in environmental
permitting.
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.
See related recommendation 6-13.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
4-9: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of
Transportation to:
o 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.
o Consider passenger safety, economic concerns, and disparate impact on
the U.S. versus foreign fleet of automobiles.
o Look at other market-based approaches to increasing the national
average fuel economy of new motor vehicles.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
4-10: The new NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: The The
recommendation calls for legislation to implement
recommends that the President Department of Transportation, through the
these strategies, but the status report does not
direct the Secretary of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has address
whether any related legislation has been
Transportation to review and offered public and private owners of highways
proposed or enacted. DOE, in response to our
promote congestion mitigation a number of tools to reduce growing highway
questions about related legislation, noted that the
technologies and strategies and congestion. The most important of these is
a Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
work with Congress on 15-state pilot program (which the Transportation
Equity Act of 2003 proposed an array
legislation to implement these Administration has proposed to expand to
all of congestion relief measures.
strategies. 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.
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.
Implemented; legislation proposed: The See duplicate recommendation 6-12.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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-cellpowered transit bus program, authored by the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This program demonstrates the
viability of fuelcell 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.
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
costeffectiveness 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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
Implemented: DOE has developed a Webbased 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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
4-15: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA has The reported
status does not provide any information
recommends that the President launched several public awareness on
homeowners' savings achieved through this
direct the EPA Administrator to campaigns to help consumers and program.
See related energy education
develop and implement a businesses save energy. EPA's 2003 "Change
recommendations 2-1 and 6-6.
strategy to increase public a Light, Change the World" campaign
awareness of the sizable savings challenges Americans to switch to
lighting
that energy efficiency offers to products that save energy. For 2004, EPA
homeowners across the country. started the "Cool Change Campaign" to
Typical homeowners can save encourage homeowners to learn how to
about 30 percent (about $400) a increase their comfort at home during the
year on their home energy bill by summer months and save energy.
using Energy Star-labeled
products.
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.
Implemented; activities ongoing: New drillpipe 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 oiland 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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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):
o Expedite the ongoing Energy Policy and Conservation Act study of
impediments to federal oil and gas exploration and development.
o Review public lands withdrawals and lease stipulations, with full
public consultation, especially withthe people in the region, to consider
modifications where appropriate.
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-theground 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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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 thesholds for the forseeable future.
5-5: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: The The status report
does not provide information on the
recommends that the President Departments of Commerce and the Interior
status of the review of CZMA regulations to determine
direct the Secretaries of issued in December 2000 a final published if
further changes are needed to provide greater
Commerce and the Interior to rule for revision of Coastal Zone Management
clarity and predictability. Also, it is not clear when the
reexamine the current federal Act (CZMA) federal consistency regulations,
review started or if there is an end date for the review.
legal and policy regime (statutes, and are reviewing CZMA regulations to
regulations, and executive determine if further changes are needed to
orders) to determine if changes provide greater clarity and
predictability. In
are needed regarding energy-addition, DOI and DOC are working as equal
related activities and the siting of partners on the Marine Protected
Areas
energy facilities in the coastal executive order. NOAA and DOI have joined
in
zone and on the OCS. the cataloging of Marine Managed Areas
(MMA) and establishment of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
None.
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.
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.
None.
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-ofway to ensure that Alaskan oil continues to flow
uninterrupted to the west coast of the United States.
Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale Norton See duplicate recommendation
7-5.
approved a 30-year renewal of the federal
right-of-way lease for the Trans-Alaska oil
pipeline, effective January 23, 2004.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
None.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
5-16: The United States should Implemented; activities ongoing: It is not
clear from the status report what DOE
also consider technologies (in Considerable expertise in nuclear
fuel-cycle programs are involved and what results have been
collaboration with international technologies has been developed achieved.
In response to our question about the
partners with highly developed internationally, and the potential for
significant status of this recommendation, DOE stated that
fuel cycles and a record of close cooperation and collaboration is very
high. technologies for reprocessing and fuel treatment
cooperation) to develop DOE is currently collaborating with France,
technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less
reprocessing and fuel treatment Switzerland, the European Commission, and
waste intensive, and more proliferation-resistant have
technologies that are cleaner, the Republic of Korea in separations,
fuels, not been developed and research is continuing.
more efficient, less waste transmutation, and test facilities. Other
intensive, and more proliferation-potential international partners include
Japan,
resistant. South Africa, Canada, and Brazil.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
o Support administrative and legislative reform of the hydropower
licensing process.
o 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.
o Encourage FERC to adopt appropriate deadlines for its own actions
during the licensing process.
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.
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 processrelated 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
a
process.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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
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.
managers make decisions on prioritizing landuse 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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
6-3: The NEPD Group Implemented: Program activities within DOE reports it
completed a review with findings that
recommends that the President DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
focused management on the need for reorganization.
direct the Secretary of Energy to Renewable Energy (EERE) are conducted in
However, it is not clear how this review addressed the
conduct a review of current partnership with the private sector, state and
recommendation to conduct a review of renewable
funding and historic performance local government, DOE national
laboratories, energy and alternative energy research and
of renewable energy and and universities. In July 2002, after a review of
development programs in light of the
alternative energy research and past funding and performance, EERE was
recommendations of the NEP report. For example,
development programs in light of reorganized to strengthen its focus on
outside of the reorganization, how have research
the recommendations of this programs and these public-private efforts
changed and what developments have been
report. Based on this review, the partnerships. This reorganization,
"Focused made? Also, DOE's review focused on DOE
Secretary of Energy is then on Results: Streamlining and Integrating
programs, but there are other renewable energy and
directed to propose appropriate Program and Business Management for
alternative energy research and development
funding of those research and Better Performance," is designed to create a
programs funded by the federal government through
development programs that are more responsive performance-based agencies,
such as the National Science Foundation
performance-based and are research and development effort. The results
(NSF) and USDA, that were not addressed by the
modeled as public-private of this reorganization have been reflected in
review. See related recommendation 4-2 on energy
partnerships. recent budget submissions. efficiency.
6-4: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation proposed: The The status
report does not make it clear why the
recommends that the President President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent
status is characterized as "legislation proposed" when
direct the Secretary of the budget requests have each proposed a tax
legislation has been enacted (Pub. L. No. 108-357).
Treasury to work with Congress credit for new landfill methane projects.
Also, DOE does not indicate how long the extension is
on legislation to expand the Congress considered, but did not enact, for
the tax credit for renewable energy. In response to
section 29 tax credit to make it legislation that would have provided such
a our inquiry, DOE noted that Pub. L. No. 108-357 does
available for new landfill methane tax credit. However, landfill methane
projects expand the credit to landfill gas for power generation,
projects. The credit could be were included in the extension of the tax
credit but not for other applications that would be covered by
tiered, depending on whether a for renewable electricity contained in the
legislation called for by this recommendation.
landfill is already required by corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357)
signed However, it is still not clear what those other
federal law to collect and flare its into law by the President in October
2004. applications would be.
methane emissions due to local
air pollution concerns.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 techincal comments on a draft of this
report, the Department of the Treasury noted that the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108357) expanded the wind and biomass
credit (code section 45) to include electricity produced from openloop
biomass and several other energy sources.
6-8: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation proposed: The None.
recommends that the President President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent
direct the Secretary of the budget requests have each proposed a tax
Treasury to work with Congress credit for residential solar energy
investments.
on legislation to provide a new 15 Congress considered, but did not enact,
percent tax credit for residential legislation that would have provided
such a
solar energy property, up to a tax credit.
maximum credit of $2,000.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
See related recommendation 3-2 on the use of ANWR royalties.
6-10: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation enacted: The Our review of
the provisions of The American Jobs recommends that the President
President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L.
No. 108-357) found that direct the Secretary of the budget requests have
each proposed to the excise tax exemption was not continued as DOE
Treasury to work with Congress continue the ethanol excise tax exemption.
reported, but rather was repealed and replaced by a to continue the
ethanol excise Extension of this tax exemption was contained new ethanol
tax exemption that has an economically tax exemption. in the corporate tax
bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357) equivalent effect on ethanol producers (but
increases
signed into law by the President in October revenues dedicated to the
Highway Trust Fund). Thus 2004. DOE considered the recommendation to be
implemented.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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
campaignthat 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.
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
hydrogenbased 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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
6-12: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation proposed: The See duplicate
recommendation 4-11.
recommends that the President President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent
direct the Secretary of the budget requests have each proposed a tax
Treasury to work with Congress credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
to develop legislation to provide Congress considered, but did not enact,
for a temporary income tax credit legislation that would have established
this tax
available for the purchase of new credit.
hybrid or fuel-cell vehicles
between 2002 and 2007.
6-13: The NEPD Group Implemented: In 2001, DOE and EPA issued See related
recommendation 4-8. The reported status
recommends that the President a stakeholder roadmap for CHP and for
recommendation 4-8 lists activities ongoing, while
direct the EPA Administrator to established the Distributed Generation the
reported status for this recommendation does not.
issue guidance to encourage the Emissions Collaborative, composed of DOE,
DOE confirmed that both recommendations have
development of well-designed EPA, states, and industry, to address state
activities ongoing.
CHP units that are both highly emission requirements for CHP facilities.
DOE
efficient and have low emissions. and EPA have worked together to organize
The goal of this guidance would regional CHP initiatives for most regions
of the
be to shorten the time needed to country to foster the use of CHP, develop
tools
obtain each permit; provide and services to support the development of
certainty to industry by ensuring new projects, and address permitting and
consistent implementation other barriers within their regions. Several
across the country; and states have issued permitting rules or are
encourage the use of these drafting permitting rules that address CHP.
cleaner, more efficient EPA has developed a handbook, Output
technologies. 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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
7-3: The NEPD Group Implemented: A transmission line to relieve None.
recommends that the President the California "Path 15" bottleneck was
direct the Secretary of Energy to energized on December 14, 2004,
following
authorize the Western Area considerable facilitation from DOE and FERC,
Power Administration to explore which approved an incentive rate agreement
relieving the "Path 15" bottleneck among users providing for the recovery
of the
through transmission expansion upgrade costs borne by the private sector.
financed by nonfederal
contributions.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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-ofway 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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale Norton See duplicate recommendation
5-9.
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.
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.
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. 108324) to expedite and streamline federal
permitting for an Alaska natural gas pipeline and authorize $18 billion in
federal loan guarantees for the project.
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 crossborder 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.
7-7: The NEPD Group Implemented; legislation enacted: In None.
recommends that the President December 2002, the President signed into law
support legislation to improve the the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002
safety of natural gas pipelines, (Pub. L. No. 107-355), which will improve
the
protect the environment, safety of natural gas pipelines, protect the
strengthen emergency environment, strengthen emergency
preparedness and inspections, preparedness and inspections, and bolster
and bolster enforcement. enforcement.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
7-8: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: DOT has The status
report does not provide information on the
recommends that the President led cooperative action to implement
provisions status of the development of the interagency MOU
direct agencies to continue their of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act
of that provides for expedited permit reviews. According
interagency efforts to improve 2002, finalizing gas integrity management
to DOE, the MOU was signed in the summer of 2004,
pipeline safety and expedite regulations, developing standards to evaluate
and the agencies are still developing implementation
pipeline permitting in an operator qualification, reviewing gas integrity
protocols.
environmentally sound manner management plans, and inspecting operator
and encourage FERC to qualification plans. DOT and other agencies
consider improvements in the are cooperating to implement the legislation
regulatory process governing through the development of an interagency
approval of interstate natural gas Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
pipeline projects. 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.
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.
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 widescale
changes to current fuel regulations. Congress considered, but did not
enact, legislation that would have addressed this issue.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
7-10: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: In 2002, The status
report does not provide information on the recommends that the President
EPA released a background paper on impacts status of the task force review
of opportunities to direct the EPA Administrator and of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program on simplify the refinery permitting process. (See
related the Secretary of Energy to take power plants, refineries, and
energy recommendation 3-3 on the work of the task force.) steps to ensure
America has efficiency; held four public "hearings"; toured Further
information is available on EPA's rules. In adequate refining capacity to
communities near refineries in Lake Charles, June 2001, EPA issued a NSR
background paper as meet the needs of consumers. Louisiana, and Houston.
EPA finalized rules to a partial response to recommendation 7-11 that (1)
Provide more regulatory implement several improvements to the NSR sought a
report on NSR within 90 days. EPA's June certainty to refinery owners and
Program, including "Plant Applicability Limits," 2002 final report found
that NSR had not affected streamline the permitting that will make it
easier for refineries to investments in new power plants and refineries
but process where possible to upgrade or expand their facilities while had
discouraged some energy-efficiency projects at ensure that regulatory
overlap is maintaining stringent environmental existing facilities,
including some that would have limited. standards. The Executive Order
13212 Task reduced air emissions. However, EPA noted that the (2) Adopt
comprehensive Force is currently reviewing opportunities to report's
conclusions about the effect of NSR on regulations (covering more than
simplify and expedite the refinery permitting energy-efficiency projects
are based on anecdotal one pollutant and requirement) process by working
collaboratively with information from industry because the agency lacked
and consider the rules' federal agencies, states, and local comprehensive
data on the number of projects that cumulative impacts and benefits.
communities to eliminate regulatory delay or did not go forward as a
result of NSR. Because of a
overlap.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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 energyefficiency 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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None.
8-1: The NEPD Group recommends that the President make energy security a
priority of our trade and foreign policy.
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.
It is not clear what the overall energy security goal is or how the
initiatives outlined in the reported status have enhanced energy security.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
The reported status does not indicate what areas of these energy sectors
have been opened as a result of these intiatives.
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.
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.
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?
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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).
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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 energyrelated 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).
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.
8-6: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: The The reported
status does not indicate whether there
recommends that the President United States has liberalized trade and has
been a comprehensive review of sanctions, in
direct the Secretaries of State, investment sanctions with respect to
Libya particular those that impact energy security as called
Treasury, and Commerce to and Iraq, and other sanctions are under for in
the recommendation. Also, it is not clear what
initiate a comprehensive review continuous review. Energy security is the
universe of sanctions is that can impact energy
of sanctions. Energy security generally one of the factors considered in
security.
should be one of the factors such a review. While the actions related to
considered in such a review. Iraq and Libya offer the potential to improve
energy security, these steps were not taken on the basis of energy
security considerations.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
8-8: The NEPD Group Implemented: In April 2004, the President It is not
clear from the reported status whether a
recommends that the President signed Executive Order 13337, which updated
complete review of oil, natural gas, and electricity
direct the Secretaries of Energy the Secretary of State's authority to
issue cross-boundary "Presidential Permitting" authorities
and State, in consultation with Presidential Permits for cross-border was
conducted. For example, Executive Order 13337
FERC, to review their respective petroleum pipelines in consultation with
DOE, updated the Secretary of State's authority to issue
oil, natural gas, and electricity EPA, DHS, and other appropriate
agencies. Presidential Permits for cross-border petroleum
cross-boundary "Presidential pipelines, but it is not clear if electricity
authorities
Permitting" authorities and to were reviewed or how FERC was consulted.
See
propose reforms as necessary in related recommendations 7-6 and 8-9.
order to make their own
regulatory regimes more
compatible for cross-border
trade.
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.
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.
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 crossborder 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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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 cohosted an Energy Investment
Symposium on November 21, 2003, in Washington for U.S. companies investing
in Brazil.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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 intiatives 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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8-16: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: The The reported
status does not indicate what roles
recommends that the President United States has signed an Energy Commerce,
State, and DOE play in implementing this
direct the Secretaries of Partnership Declaration with Kazakhstan that
recommendation. In addition, other federal programs
Commerce, State, and Energy to will help develop a stable and transparent
may play a role in addressing this recommendation.
continue working with relevant legal and regulatory climate for the For
example, USAID's energy activities in Kazakhstan
companies and countries to development of the energy sector. The focus on
improving transparency and public
establish the commercial Administration has promoted a market
participation in the management of energy resources.
conditions that will allow oil environment that will allow Kazakh oil
According to USAID, the work helps reinforce the
companies operating in companies the option of exporting their oil via
agency's overall goals for enhancing resource
Kazakhstan the option of the BTC pipeline, facilitating discussions
management by providing the foundations for public
exporting their oil via the BTC between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to move
disclosure of key sector data and transparency
pipeline. Kazakh oil through the BTC system. operations within the
industry, all of which are
required for Kazakhstan to become recognized as a
key supplier to the east-west corridor pipelines.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 marketbased 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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
8-21: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: The Bush The
reported status does not indicate what roles recommends that the President
Administration has devoted much effort to Commerce, State, and DOE
programs play in direct the Secretaries of State, strengthening our energy
relationship with implementing this recommendation. In commenting
Commerce, and Energy to Russia, which is now competing with Saudi on a
draft of this report, State reported that it helped deepen the focus of
the Arabia to be the world's largest crude oil develop positions for and
participated in both discussions with Russia on producer and is a major
exporter. In 2002, the Commercial Energy Summits, meetings of the
U.S.energy and the investment Administration initiated a cooperative
effort to Russia Energy Dialogue, and Energy Working climate. help improve
commercial cooperation and the Groups.
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.
8-22: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: Since the The
reported status does not indicate what role State
recommends that the President summer of 2001, there have been several
programs played in implementing this
direct the Secretaries of ministerial-level meetings with the Russian
recommendation. In commenting on a draft of this
Commerce, State, and Energy to Ministers of Energy and Economic report,
State reported that its officials helped develop
assist U.S. companies in their Development and Trade, where U.S. officials
implementing tactics for this recommendation and
dialogue on the investment and have stressed the importance of the PSA
frequently raised investment climate issues with its
trade climate with Russian framework as well as the importance of a fair
Russian counterparts and the legislature.
officials, to encourage reform of and transparent legal regime in
encouraging
the PSA law and other investment in the energy sector. In 2001, the
regulations and related tax United States agreed to the establishment of
provisions, as well as general a bilateral business dialogue. Supporting
the
improvements in the overall business dialogue was a key component of
investment climate. This will help Secretary Evans' trip to Russia in
October
expand private investment 2001. The U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group
opportunities in Russia and will between DOE and the Ministry of Energy
had
increase the international role of its first meeting in April 2002,
agreeing on a
Russian firms. 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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
8-25: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: Several It is not
clear from the reported status what role State recommends that the
President significant initiatives have been undertaken to and Commerce
played in implementing this direct the Secretaries of support exports of
U.S. clean energy recommendation. In contrast, information is provided
Commerce, State, and Energy to technologies and encourage their overseas
on specific DOE program efforts. In addition, it is not promote
market-based solutions development both bilaterally and multilaterally.
clear if any goals and measures of success in the use to environmental
concerns; The multilateral Carbon Sequestration of clean energy
technologies have been established. support exports of U.S. clean
Leadership Forum (CSLF), launched in June For example, is there a measure
to compare current energy technologies and 2003, sets a framework for
international use of clean energy technologies against future use
encourage their overseas cooperation on sequestration technologies. as a
progress measurement tool? In response to our development; engage
bilaterally The forum's 17 partners also are eligible to question, DOE
stated that no uniform measure of and multilaterally to promote best
participate in FutureGen, the joint success is in place under CETE, but
efforts are being practices; explore collaborative DOE/private sector
near-zero emission power designed to promote best practices with measures
of international basic research and and hydrogen producing plant. The
success being a component. Finally, other federal development in energy
Administration led the 2003 formation of the programs may be related to
implementation of this alternatives and energy-efficient International
Partnership for the Hydrogen recommendation. For example, USAID is a
cochair technologies; and explore Economy (IPHE) to coordinate and
leverage (with DOE and Commerce) of the interagency Clean innovative
programs to support multinational hydrogen research programs. Energy
Technology Export Working Group. Also, the global adoption of these IPHE
will address the technological, financial, USTDA supports activities
related to clean energy technologies. and institutional barriers to the
hydrogen technology exports as described in DOE's April 2001
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.
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.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
8-26: The NEPD Group Implemented; activities ongoing: President The
reported status sets an overall goal, but it is not
recommends that the President Bush is committed to addressing the
long-clear what the baseline measure is against which the
direct federal agencies to term challenge of global climate change while
goal of an 18 percent reduction by 2012 is to be
support continued research into ensuring continued economic growth and
compared. DOE explained that EIA, taking into
global climate change; continue prosperity for America. Domestically, the
account current and anticipated factors in energy
efforts to identify environmentally President has committed America to
reducing markets, projects a greenhouse gas emissions
and cost-effective ways to use the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S.
intensity improvement of about 14 percent from a
market mechanisms and economy by 18 percent by 2012, preventing 2002
baseline to 2012. The President's goal is to
incentives; continue development the emission of more than 500 million
tons of increase that improvement to 18 percent.
of new technologies; and carbon over this period. To address this issue,
cooperate with allies, including the Bush Administration is carrying out a
through international processes, comprehensive, innovative program of
to develop technologies, market-domestic and international initiatives to
(1)
based incentives, and other improve our understanding of the science of
innovative approaches to climate change; (2) encourage near-term
address the issue of global voluntary and cost-effective emissions
climate change. reductions; (3) develop transformational
energy technologies, such as hydrogenpowered 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.
8-27: The NEPD Group recommends that the President seek to increase
international cooperation on finding alternatives to oil, especially for
the transportation sector.
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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 G8 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.
None.
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.
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.
None.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reported status does not indicate what the status is on the strategic
stocks for non-IEA members. See related recommendation 8-23.
8-33: The NEPD Group Not implemented: In November 2001, the The SPR leases
facilities that are not required for
recommends that the President President directed the Secretary of Energy
to standby operational readiness and have no adverse
direct the Secretary of Energy fill the SPR to its 700 million barrel
capacity in impact on the SPR mission. All of the leases specify
offer to lease excess SPR a cost-effective manner using principally that
DOE can take control of the facilities if needed for
storage facilities to countries royalty oil from federal offshore leases;
the an oil sale from the SPR.
(both IEA and non-IEA SPR is expected to reach its capacity during
members) that might not FY 2005. The United States and the IEA
otherwise build storage facilities continue to promote and support
workshops
or hold sufficient strategic stocks, and other actions to encourage
holding of
consistent with statutory strategic oil stocks in both IEA and non-IEA
authorities. member countries.
Appendix IV
NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported
Status, and GAO Observations
NEP recommendation,
May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 producerconsumer dialogue.
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.
aSee GAO, Licensing Hydropower Projects: Better Time and Cost Data Needed
to Reach Informed Decisions About Process Reforms. GAO-01-499 (Washington,
D.C.: May 2, 2001).
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget Authority for Agency Programs,
by Energy Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003
Energy supply
Department of Cooperative State Research, $0 $0
Education, and
Agriculture Extension Service: Bioenergy and
Energy
Related Programs I
Cooperative State Research, 1,378,000 1,656,000
Department of Education, and
Agriculture Extension Service: Bioenergy and
Energy
Related Programs II
Cooperative State Research,
Department of Education, and 735,000 1,373,000
Agriculture Extension Service: Bioenergy and
Energy
Related Programs III
Cooperative State Research,
Department of Education, and 1,993,000 884,000
Agriculture Extension Service: Bioenergy and
Energy
Related Programs IV
Farm Service Agency-Commodity 0
Department of Credit 150,000,000
Agriculture Corporation's Bioenergy Program
Forest Service Research and
Department of Development: 1,590,000 2,400,000
Agriculture Bioenergy, Energy Efficiency,
and Conservation
Research
Office of Chief Economist, 0
Department of Office of Energy Policy 1,000,000
Agriculture and New Uses-3
Office of Chief Economist, 0
Department of Office of Energy Policy 1,000,000
Agriculture and New Uses-2
Rural Development Business 0
Department of Programs: 23,000,000
Agriculture Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency
Department of Clean Coal Technology (146,000,000) (47,000,000)
Energy
Department of Energy Supply-Biomass And
Energy Biorefinery Systems 69,868,000 84,898,000
Research and Development (R&D)
Department of Energy Supply-Departmental 0
Energy Energy 1,445,000
Management Program
Department of Energy Supply-Facilities and 1,100,000 5,297,000
Energy Infrastructure
Department of Energy Supply-Geothermal 23,333,000 28,390,000
Energy Technology
Department of Energy Supply-Hydrogen 24,287,000 38,113,000
Energy Technology
Department of Energy Supply-Hydropower 4,861,000 5,016,000
Energy
Department of Energy Supply-Intergovernmental 10,033,000 14,449,000
Energy Activities
Department of Energy Supply-Program Direction 17,720,000 12,615,000
Energy
Department of Energy Supply-Renewable Program 0 0
Energy Support
Department of
Energy Energy Supply-Solar energy 82,034,000 82,330,000
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Energy
activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003
Department of Energy Supply-Wind energy 32,085,000 41,640,000
Energy
Department of Energy Supply-Zero energy 0 7,572,000
Energy buildings
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-National Academy 0 497,000
Energy of
Sciences Program Review
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Plant and 2,590,000 6,954,000
Energy Capital Projects
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced
Energy Metallurgical 4,980,000 5,961,000
Research
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Black Liquor 13,939,000
Energy
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and Other
Energy Power 111,881,000 410,340,000
Systems
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Cooperative
Energy Research And 7,408,000 8,186,000
Development
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Energy 0
Energy Efficiency Science 497,000
Initiative
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Import/Export 2,173,000 2,981,000
Energy Authorization
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Natural Gas 120,279,000 47,013,000
Energy Technologies
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Petroleum Oil 57,324,000 42,025,000
Energy Technology
Department of Fossil Energy R&D-Program
Energy Direction and 75,192,000 87,229,000
Management Support
Department of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 0 17,715,000
Energy Reserves
Department of Nuclear Energy Research and 34,864,000 114,441,000
Energy Development
Department of Science-Fusion Energy Sciences 238,260,000 240,695,000
Energy Program
Department of Bureau of Indian Affairs-Operation
the of Indian 2,200,000 3,300,000
Interior Programs
Department of Bureau of Land Management
the (BLM)-Coal 7,285,000 9,526,000
Interior Management
Department of
the BLM-Oil and Gas Management 57,793,000 86,100,000
Interior
Department of BLM-Workforce/Organizational
the Support 20,960,000 23,000,000
Interior
Department of Minerals Management Service
the (MMS)-Indian 19,000,000 22,000,000
Interior Trust Responsibility
Department of
the MMS-Royalty and Offshore Minerals 213,000,000 239,430,000
Interior Management
Department of Office of Surface Mining
the (OSM)-Abandoned Mine 2,111,000 2,153,000
Interior Reclamation Fund
Department of
the OSM-Regulation and Technology 95,401,000 104,209,000
Interior
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003
U.S. Geological Survey-Energy
Department of the Resource 22,783,000 23,705,000
Interior Program
Environmental Office of Air and Radiation 0
Protection (OAR)-New Source 1,200,000
Agency Review
National Science Biological Sciences-Hydrogen
and Fusion, Basic 2,910,000 920,000
Foundation Research
National Science Biological Sciences-Renewable
Energy, Basic 20,000 87,000
Foundation Research
National Science Education and Human 0
Resources-Hydrogen and
Foundation Fusion, Basic Research
Engineering
National Science Directorate-Hydrogen and
Fusion, 490,000 200,000
Foundation Basic Research
Engineering
National Science Directorate-Hydrogen and
Fusion, 490,000 790,000
Foundation Applied Research
National Science Engineering Directorate-Other
Energy, Basic 1,880,000 930,000
Foundation Research
National Science Engineering
Directorate-Renewable Energy, 900,000 1,310,000
Foundation Applied Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical
Sciences-Renewable 4,540,000 30,540,000
Foundation Energy, Basic Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical
Sciences: Hydrogen 6,010,000 7,330,000
Foundation and Fusion, Basic Research
National Science Office of International
Science and Engineering- 10,000 70,000
Foundation Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic
Research
National Science Office of International
Science and Engineering- 20,000 2,000,000
Foundation Renewable Energy, Basic
Research
National Science Social, Behavioral, Economic 0
Sciences- 60,000
Foundation Renewable Energy, Basic
Research
Nuclear International Nuclear Safety
Regulatory Support 7,117,465 8,026,645
Commission
Nuclear Nuclear Materials Safety-Fuel
Regulatory Facilities Licensing 22,057,943 21,420,704
Commission and Inspection
Nuclear Nuclear Reactor Safety-New 0
Regulatory Reactor Licensing 26,464,865
Commission
Nuclear Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor
Regulatory Inspection and 132,942,192 147,123,812
Commission Performance Assessment
Nuclear Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor
Regulatory License Renewal 15,786,830 22,870,187
Commission
Nuclear Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor
Regulatory Licensing 80,098,135 95,316,734
Commission
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Safety Research 81,664,869 70,870,929
Subtotal $1,591,377,434 $2,391,565,876 Energy's impact on the environment and
health
U.S. Agency for Energy Programs, Agency-wide $92,400,000 $91,900,000
International
Development
Forest Service Research and
Department of Development- 16,900,000 18,778,000
Agriculture Global Change Research,
Climate Change
Science Program and Climate
Change
Technology Program
National Oceanic and 8,000 103,000
Department of Atmospheric Administration
Commerce (NOAA)-National Marine
Fisheries Habitat
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries 1,415,000 2,539,000
Department of Service
Commerce Consultations
Department of NOAA-National Weather Service 0 5,962,000
Commerce
NOAA-Ocean and Coastal
Department of Resource 206,000 341,000
Commerce Management
NOAA-Office of Oceanic and 0 1,987,000
Department of Atmospheric
Commerce Research
NOAA-Office of Response and
Department of Restoration 5,100,000 5,700,000
Commerce
Department of Civilian Radioactive Waste 351,175,000 457,010,000
Energy
Department of Fossil Energy 9,963,000 9,652,000
Energy R&D-Environmental Restoration
Department of Non-Defense Environmental 301,600,000 161,852,000
Energy Services
Department of Non-Defense Site Acceleration 0 156,129,000
Energy Completion
Department of Science-Biological and 416,037,000 494,360,000
Energy Environmental Research
Department of Uranium Enrichment
Energy Decontamination and 336,100,000 320,563,000
Decomissioning Fund
Fish and Wildlife
Department of the Service-Resource Management 9,646,000 13,148,000
Interior
Department of the MMS-Oil Spill Research 6,000,000 6,000,000
Interior
State-Climate Change and
Department of State Sustainable 1,135,000 1,440,000
Development
Office of the Secretary of 0
Department of Transportation-National 650,000
Transportation Climate Change Technology
Environmental 0
Protection OAR-Boutique Fuels 400,000
Agency
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority Low-income energy consumer assistance
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year
2003
Environmental OAR-Climate Change
Protection Programs-Technological 27,200,000 21,700,000
Agency Advances, Clean Car
Program
Environmental OAR-Multi-pollutant
Protection Legislation, Clear Skies 7,000,000 2,100,000
Agency Legislation
National Office of International 0
Science Science and Engineering: 41,000
Foundation Energy Efficiency, Basic
Research
National Social, Behavioral,
Science Economic Sciences-Energy 220,000 60,000
Foundation Efficiency, Basic Research
National Social, Behavioral,
Science Economic Sciences-Other 60,000 10,000
Foundation Energy, Basic Research
Nuclear Waste
Nuclear Safety-Environmental
Regulatory Protection 1,129,469 4,563,957
Commission and Low Level Waste
Management
Nuclear Nuclear Waste Safety-High
Regulatory Level Waste 24,804,276 30,457,514
Commission Regulation
Nuclear Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Safety-Regulation of 23,483,756 21,628,121
Commission Decommissioning
Nuclear Nuclear Waste Safety-Spent
Regulatory Fuel Storage and 20,373,831 27,021,284
Commission Transportation Licensing
and Inspection
U.S. Army Corps
of Regulatory Program 6,711,537 9,696,726
Engineers
Subtotal $1,658,667,869 $1,865,792,602
Department of Energy Energy $135,000,000 $223,537,000
Conservation-Weatherization
Department of Health Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program 1,844,350,000 1,988,300,000
and Human Services
Subtotal $1,979,350,000 $2,211,837,000
Basic energy science research
Department of Energy Science-Advanced $122,338,000 $163,185,000
Scientific Computing
Research
Department of Energy Science-Basic Energy 752,031,000 1,001,941,000
Sciences
Subtotal $874,369,000 $1,165,126,000
Energy delivery infrastructure
U.S. Agency for Energy Activities in $0 $3,100,000
Afghanistan
International
Development
U.S. Agency for Energy Activities in Iraq 0 558,000,000
International
Development
Department of Energy Electric Transmission
and Distribution 37,336,000 88,384,000
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year
2003
BLM-Lands and Realty
Department of the Management 23,101,000 27,200,000
Interior
BLM-Oregon and California
Department of the Grant Lands 1,975,500 2,300,000
Interior
BLM-Service Charges,
Department of the Deposits, and Forfeitures 6,671,000 7,900,000
Interior
Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline Safety
37,331,000 63,261,000
National Science Foundation
Education and Human Resources-Superconductivity, Basic Research
1,000,000
National Engineering 780,000 110,000
Science Directorate-Superconductivity,
Foundation Applied Research
National Engineering
Science Directorate-Superconductivity, Basic 400,000 340,000
Foundation Research
National
Science Mathematical and Physical Sciences- 28,170,000 12,130,000
Foundation Superconductivity, Basic Research
National Office of International Science and
Science Engineering- 70,000 450,000
Foundation Superconductivity, Basic Research
Subtotal $136,834,500 $763,175,000
Energy conservation
Department of Office of Chief Economist-Office $793,000 $793,000
of Energy Policy
Agriculture and New Uses-1
Department of Energy Conservation-Biomass and 3,700,000 24,050,000
Energy Biorefinery
Systems R&D
Department of Energy Conservation-Building 58,877,000 58,327,000
Energy Technologies
Department of Energy Conservation-Distributed
Energy Energy 44,450,000 60,054,000
Resources
Department of Energy Conservation-Energy
Energy Efficiency Science 11,490,000 2,440,000
Initiative
Department of
Energy Energy Conservation-Federal Energy 20,731,000 19,299,000
Management Program
Department of Energy Conservation-Fuel Cell 3,550,000 53,906,000
Energy Technologies
Department of Energy Conservation-Industrial 109,243,000 96,824,000
Energy Technologies
Department of Energy
Energy Conservation-Intergovernmental 80,589,000 90,618,000
Activities
Department of Energy Conservation-Program 76,300,000 76,950,000
Energy Management
Department of Energy Conservation-Vehicle 206,271,000 174,171,000
Energy Technologies
Federal Highway Administration 11,175,000 7,541,000
Department of (FHWA)-
Transportation Intelligent Traffic Systems
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year
2003
Department of FHWA-Office of Operations
Energy Related 5,008,000 4,903,000
Transportation Obligations
Department of Federal Transit
Administration-Fuel-Cell-Powered 5,469,596 20,896,397
Transportation Transit Buses
Department of National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration- 60,000 1,000,000
Transportation Corporate Average Fuel
Economy
Environmental Protection OAR-Clean School 0
Bus 5,000,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR-Climate Change
Programs, Industry 22,000,000 26,800,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR-Climate Change
Programs, Smart Way 2,600,000 4,400,000
Agency Transport Partnership Initiative
Environmental Protection OAR-Climate Change,
Buildings 42,600,000 41,600,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR-Locomotive 0
Idling 200,000
Agency
Environmental Protection OAR-Truck Idling 0 200,000
Agency
National Science Computer and Information
Science and 7,070,000 9,560,000
Foundation Engineering-Energy Efficiency,
Basic Research
National Science Education and Human
Resources-Renewable 1,000,000 33,000
Foundation Energy, Basic Research
National Science Education and Human
Resources-Energy 100,000 400,000
Foundation Efficiency, Basic Research
National Science Engineering
Directorate-Energy Efficiency, 1,790,000 830,000
Foundation Applied Research
National Science Engineering
Directorate-Energy Efficiency, Basic 4,500,000 6,970,000
Foundation Research
National Science Mathematical and Physical
Sciences-Energy 4,720,000 170,000
Foundation Efficiency, Basic Research
Subtotal $724,086,596 $787,935,397
Energy assurance and physical security
Department of Energy Energy Security and $2,100,000 $25,990,000
Assurance Program
Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating 0 5,961,000
Oil Reserve
Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum 158,400,000 171,732,000
Reserve
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Materials 0 10,388,139
Safety-Homeland Security
Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Reactor 0
Safety-Homeland Security 28,884,439
Commission
Appendix V
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget
Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy
Activity Area
Dollars in actual amounts
Estimated budget authority Energy market competition and education
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003
Nuclear Nuclear Waste 0
Regulatory Safety-Homeland Security 5,043,223
Commission
Subtotal $160,500,000 $247,998,801
Department of Agricultural Marketing $0 $0
Service-Federal-State
Agriculture Marketing Improvement
Programs
National Agricultural
Statistics Service-Price 129,000 140,000
Department of Paid
Agriculture by Farmers, Fuel
International Trade 628,385 1,101,713
Department of Administration-Trade
Commerce Development, Office of
Energy
National Institute of 27,800,000 30,100,000
Department of Standards and Technology-
Commerce Energy Use And Conservation
Programs
Department of Energy Information 72,400,000 80,087,000
Energy Administration
Department of State-Economic and Business 779,045 865,181
State Affairs, Energy
U.S. Trade and Energy Related Activities 17,764,831 14,508,784
Development
Agency
U.S. Agency for Energy Programs-Nationwide 99,600,000 39,300,000
International
Development
Subtotal $219,101,261 $166,102,678
Total $7,344,286,660 $9,599,533,354
Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.
Appendix VI
Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for
Agency Programs, by Energy Activity
Dollars in actual amounts
Budget request
Energy activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005
Energy supply
Department Cooperative State $0 $0 $0
of Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension
Service-Bioenergy and
Energy Related
Programs I
Department Cooperative State 1,580,000 3,500,000 4,097,000
of Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension
Service-Bioenergy and
Energy Related
Programs II
Department Cooperative State 0 0
of Research, Education,
Agriculture and Extension
Service-Bioenergy and
Energy Related
Programs III
Department Cooperative State
of Research, Education, 1,747,000 2,005,000 1,097,000
Agriculture and Extension
Service-Bioenergy and
Energy Related
Programs IV
Farm Service
Department Agency-Commodity 0
of Credit 150,000,000 100,000,000
Agriculture Corporation's
Bioenergy Program
Department Forest Service
of Research and 1,590,000 7,400,000 2,400,000
Agriculture Development-Bioenergy,
Energy Efficiency,
and Conservation
Research
Office of Chief
Department Economist-Office of 0
of Energy 1,000,000 1,000,000
Agriculture Policy and New Uses-3
Office of Chief
Department Economist-Office of 0
of Energy 1,000,000 2,500,000
Agriculture Policy and New Uses-2
Department Rural Development 0
of Business Programs- 22,800,000 10,700,000
Agriculture Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency
Department
of Clean Coal Technology (246,000,000) 40,000,000 (140,000,000)
Energy
Department Energy Supply-Biomass
of and Biorefinery 92,391,000 86,005,000 72,596,000
Energy Systems Research and
Development
(R&D)
Energy
Department Supply-Departmental 0 3,000,000 1,967,000
of Energy
Energy Management Program
Energy
Department Supply-Facilities and 1,100,000 5,000,000 11,480,000
of Infrastructure
Energy
Energy
Department Supply-Geothermal 29,500,000 26,500,000 25,800,000
of Technology
Energy
Department Energy Supply-Hydrogen 28,000,000 39,881,000 95,325,000
of Technology
Energy
Department Energy 7,000,000 7,489,000 6,000,000
of Supply-Hydropower
Energy
Appendix VI Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and
2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity
Dollars in actual amounts
Budget request
Energy
activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003 2005
Energy
Department Supply-Intergovernmental
of Activities 7,500,000 18,807,000 16,000,000
Energy
Department Energy Supply-Program
of Direction 19,171,000 16,907,000 20,711,000
Energy
Department Energy Supply-Renewable 0 0
of Program
Energy Support
Department
of Energy Supply-Solar Energy 117,659,000 79,625,000 80,333,000
Energy
Department
of Energy Supply-Wind Eenergy 45,600,000 44,000,000 41,600,000
Energy
Department Energy Supply-Zero Energy 0
of Buildings 8,000,000
Energy
Department Fossil Energy R&D-National 0 0
of Academy of
Energy Sciences Program Review
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Plant
of and Capital 2,000,000 2,000,000
Energy Projects
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced
of metallurgical 5,000,000 5,300,000 8,000,000
Energy research
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Black 0 0
of Liquor
Energy
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and
of Other Power 110,682,000 365,100,000 470,000,000
Energy systems
Department Fossil Energy
of R&D-Cooperative Research 5,836,000 6,000,000 3,000,000
Energy and Development
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Energy 0 0
of Efficiency
Energy Science Initiative
Department Fossil Energy 0
of R&D-Import/Export 2,500,000 1,799,000
Energy Authorization
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Natural
of Gas 105,314,000 22,590,000 26,000,000
Energy Technologies
Department Fossil Energy
of R&D-Petroleum Oil 50,166,000 35,400,000 15,000,000
Energy Technology
Department Fossil Energy R&D-Program
of Direction and 72,079,000 84,700,000 106,000,000
Energy Management Support
Department Naval Petroleum and Oil 0
of Shale Reserves 21,069,000 20,000,000
Energy
Department Nuclear Energy Research
of and 30,000,000 71,500,000 96,046,000
Energy Development
Department Science-Fusion Energy
of Sciences Program 222,614,000 257,310,000 264,110,000
Energy
Appendix VI Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and
2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity
Dollars in actual amounts
Budget request Energy's impact on the environment and health
Energy
activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003 2005
Bureau of Land
Department Management
of the (BLM)-Coal 7,527,000 9,588,000 8,944,000
Interior Management
Department BLM-Oil and Gas
of the Management 55,326,000 84,936,000 85,600,000
Interior
Minerals
Department Management
of the Service (MMS)- 19,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Interior Indian Trust
Responsibility
Department MMS-Royalty and
of the Offshore Minerals 213,000,000 240,000,000 250,000,000
Interior Management
U.S. Geological
Department Survey-Energy
of the Resource 21,898,000 25,349,000 24,474,000
Interior Program
Subtotal $1,027,280,000 $1,818,261,000 $1,754,579,000
Department of Forest Service Research $16,900,000 $18,778,000 $19,396,000
and
Agriculture Development-Global
Change
Research,Climate Change
Science
Program, Climate Change
Technology
Program
Department of National Oceanic and 8,000 103,000 585,000
Atmospheric
Commerce Administration
(NOAA)-National Marine
Fisheries Habitat
NOAA-National Marine
Department of Fisheries Service 1,415,000 2,539,000 3,923,000
Commerce Consultations
NOAA-National Weather 0 0
Department of Service 6,900,000
Commerce
NOAA-Ocean and Coastal
Department of Resource 206,000 341,000 216,000
Commerce Management
NOAA-Office of Oceanic 0
Department of and Atmospheric 2,000,000 17,556,000
Commerce Research
NOAA-Office of Response
Department of and Restoration 5,100,000 5,700,000 5,700,000
Commerce
Civilian Radioactive
Department of Waste 370,000,000 590,802,000 880,000,000
Energy
Fossil Energy
Department of R&D-Environmental 10,000,000 9,715,000 6,000,000
Energy Restoration
Non-Defense
Department of Environmental Services 330,934,000 172,970,000 291,296,000
Energy
Non-Defense Site 0
Department of Acceleration Completion 167,581,000 151,850,000
Energy
Science-Biological and
Department of Environmental 411,170,000 504,215,000 501,590,000
Energy Research
Appendix VI Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and
2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity
Dollars in actual amounts
Budget request Low-income energy consumer assistance Basic energy science
research Energy delivery infrastructure
Energy
activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003 2005
Uranium
Enrichment
Decontamination
Department of and 240,198,000 298,489,000 500,200,000
Energy Decommissioning
Fund
Department of MMS-Oil Spill
the Research 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000
Interior
Office of Air and
Environmental Radiation
(OAR)-Multi- 7,000,000 2,200,000 8,500,000
Protection pollutant
Agency Legislation,Clear
Skies
Legislation
Subtotal $1,398,931,000 $1,781,433,000 $2,400,712,000
Low-Income Home
Department of Energy $1,400,000,000 $1,700,000,000 $2,001,000,000
Assistance
Health and Program
Human
Services
Subtotal $1,400,000,000 $1,700,000,000 $2,001,000,000
Department Science-Advanced
of Scientific $198,875,000 $169,625,000 $204,340,000
Computing
Energy Research
Department Science-Basic 888,084,000 1,019,600,000 1,063,530,000
of Energy Sciences
Energy
Subtotal $1,086,959,000 $1,189,225,000 $1,267,870,000
Department of Electric Transmission $41,000,000 $76,506,000 $90,880,000
and Distribution
Energy
Department of the BLM-Lands and
Realty Management 23,214,000 27,121,000 27,900,000
Interior
Department of the BLM-Service
Charges, Deposits, and 4,000,000 1,115,000 14,500,000
Interior Forfeitures
Department of Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety 38,187,000 64,510,000 70,073,000
Transportation
Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety
Subtotal $106,401,000 $169,252,000 $203,353,000
Energy conservation
Department of Office of Chief
Economist-Office of Energy $793,000 $793,000 $793,000
Agriculture Policy and New Uses-1
Department of Energy
Conservation-Biomass and 4,000,000 23,939,000 8,420,000
Energy Biorefinery Systems R&D
Department of Energy
Conservation-Building 88,163,000 52,563,000 56,586,000
Energy Technologies
Department of Energy
Conservation-Distributed Energy 31,300,000 54,784,000 52,867,000
Energy Resources
Appendix VI Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and
2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity
Dollars in actual amounts
Budget request Energy assurance and physical security Energy market competition
and education
Energy
activity
area/Agency Program Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 2003 2005
Energy
Conservation-Energy 0 0
Department of Efficiency
Energy Science Initiative
Energy
Conservation-Federal
Department of Energy 28,968,000 23,425,000 17,683,000
Energy Management Program
Energy Conservation-Fuel
Department of Cell 41,380,000 57,500,000 77,500,000
Energy Technologies
Energy
Department of Conservation-Industrial 114,300,000 91,477,000 57,762,000
Energy Technologies
Energy
Department of Conservation-Program 80,504,000 74,954,000 86,731,000
Energy Management
Energy
Conservation-Vehicle
Department of Technologies 190,200,000 153,563,000 155,139,000
Energy
National Highway Traffic
Department of Safety 60,000 1,250,000 1,283,000
Transportation Administration-Corporate
Average Fuel
Economy
Subtotal $579,668,000 $534,248,000 $514,764,000
Department of Energy Security and $0 $4,275,000 $10,600,000
Assurance Program
Energy
Northeast Home 0
Department of Heating Oil Reserve 8,000,000 5,000,000
Energy
Strategic Petroleum
Department of Reserve 164,000,000 188,754,000 172,100,000
Energy
Subtotal $164,000,000 $201,029,000 $187,700,000
Department of Agricultural Marketing $0 $0
Service-Federal-$0
Agriculture State Marketing Improvement
Programs
National Agricultural 0
Department of Statistics Service-0
Agriculture Price Paid by Farmers, Fuel
National Institute of
Department of Standards and 27,800,000 30,100,000 4,700,000
Commerce Technology-Energy Use and
Conservation
Programs
Energy Information 80,111,000 85,000,000
Department of Administration 72,644,000
Energy
Subtotal $100,444,000 $110,211,000 $89,700,000
Total $5,863,683,000 $7,503,659,000 $8,419,678,000
Source: GAO analysis of agency
estimates.
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Energy
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Energy
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Energy
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and 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 The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***