Department of Energy: Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program
(Letter Report, 07/11/97, GAO/RCED-97-188).
GAO provided information on the Solar and Renewable Resources
Technologies Program, focusing on the: (1) level of funding committed to
research and development (R&D) and other activities in fiscal year 1998;
(2) extent to which the Department of Energy's (DOE) costs have been
shared with private industry and the type of cost-share arrangements;
and (3) extent to which the funds have been competitively awarded. GAO
did not independently verify or validate the data provided to GAO.
GAO noted that: (1) in fiscal year 1998, DOE proposes to spend $311
million of the $345 million Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies
Program budget for solar and renewable energy R&D projects and $34
million for non-R&D activities; (2) the R&D projects range from
experiments for increasing knowledge and understanding to full-scale
engineering development; (3) because many of the renewable energy
technologies already exist and are being improved to increase their
efficiency and reduce cost, $55 million will be spent for operational
tests/field validations--the phase of R&D that is closest to
commercialization; (4) almost $16 million of the non-R&D funds will be
used for program direction, including salaries, travel, and
administrative services; (5) the remaining non-R&D activities include
information dissemination, incentive payments to public power entities,
and laboratory maintenance and construction; (6) DOE leverages federal
funds and encourages commercialization of renewable energy technologies
by requiring industry and other partners to share the R&D costs; (7)
during fiscal years 1996 and 1997, private industry and other groups'
cost-sharing ranged between 3 and 84 percent of the cost of the research
projects, depending on the renewable energy subprogram, the size of the
firms involved, and the phase of R&D; (8) the cost-shares were in the
form of cash or in-kind contributions, such as salary or equipment costs
or a combination of both; (9) most of the funding agreements entered
into by the Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program were
awarded on a competitive basis during fiscal years 1996 and 1997; (10)
the percentage of competitive awards ranged from none for some
subprogram activities to 100 percent for others; (11) most of the
subprograms awarded at least 50 percent of the funds competitively; and
(12) according to DOE program officials, the contract funds awarded
noncompetitively met allowable exceptions to competition.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-188
TITLE: Department of Energy: Solar and Renewable Resources
Technologies Program
DATE: 07/11/97
SUBJECT: Energy research
Research and development
Research programs
Budget outlays
Competitive procurement
Future budget projections
Cost sharing (finance)
Technology transfer
Renewable energy sources
IDENTIFIER: DOE Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program
DOE Electric Energy Systems and Storage Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives
July 1997
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - SOLAR AND
RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM
GAO/RCED-97-188
Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program
(141059)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE - Department of Energy
R&D - research and development
CRADA - cooperative research and development agreement
EEI -
APPA -
NRECA -
NEMA -
NREL -
REPI -
CORECT -
EREC -
EREN -
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-277079
July 11, 1997
The Honorable Joseph M. McDade
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 1998 budget request for
the Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program is $330
million,\1 an increase of almost $79 million from fiscal year 1997
appropriations. The program is managed primarily by the Office of
Utility Technologies to advance clean, reliable, and affordable power
through cost-shared research partnerships with industry and
laboratories.\2 As agreed with your office, this report provides
program information on (1) the level of funding committed to research
and development (R&D) and other activities in fiscal year 1998, (2)
the extent to which DOE's costs have been shared with private
industry and the type of cost-share arrangements, and (3) the extent
to which the funds have been competitively awarded.
We categorized R&D activities as basic research, applied research and
exploratory development, advanced development/engineering
development, and operational tests/field validations. Appendix I
provides the definitions used in this report for these R&D phases.
--------------------
\1 In fiscal year 1998, DOE also proposes using $15 million in funds
carried over from fiscal year 1997 for a total of $345 million.
\2 DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies manages the Biofuels
Energy Systems activity.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
In fiscal year 1998, DOE proposes to spend $311 million of the $345
million Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program's budget
for solar and renewable energy R&D projects and $34 million for
non-R&D activities.\3 The R&D projects range from experiments for
increasing knowledge and understanding to full-scale engineering
development. Because many of the renewable energy technologies
already exist and are being improved to increase their efficiency and
reduce cost, $55 million will be spent for operational tests/field
validations--the phase of R&D that is closest to commercialization.
Almost $16 million of the non-R&D funds will be used for program
direction, including salaries, travel, and administrative services.
The remaining non-R&D activities include information dissemination,
incentive payments to public power entities, and laboratory
maintenance and construction.
DOE leverages federal funds and encourages commercialization of
renewable energy technologies by requiring industry and other
partners to share the R&D costs. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
private industry and other groups' cost-sharing ranged between 3 and
84 percent of the cost of the research projects, depending on the
renewable energy subprogram, the size of the firms involved, and the
phase of R&D. The cost-shares were in the form of cash or in-kind
contributions, such as salary or equipment costs or a combination of
both.
Most of the funding agreements entered into by the Solar and
Renewable Resources Technologies Program were awarded on a
competitive basis during fiscal years 1996 and 1997.\4 The percentage
of competitive awards ranged from none for some subprogram activities
to 100 percent for others. Most of the subprograms awarded at least
50 percent of the funds competitively. According to DOE program
officials, the contract funds awarded noncompetitively met allowable
exceptions to competition.
--------------------
\3 Comprehensive data by R&D activity for actual fiscal year 1996 and
estimated fiscal years 1997 and 1998 funding are included in appendix
II.
\4 Funding agreements include contracts, subcontracts, grants,
cooperative agreements, and cooperative research and development
agreements.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Renewable energy technologies generate electricity, fuels, and/or
heat through the use of resources that are continually replenished,
such as sunlight (photovoltaics), heat from the sun (solar thermal),
wind, naturally occurring underground steam and heat (geothermal),
plant and animal waste (biomass), and water (hydropower). The Solar
and Renewable Resources Technologies Program funds research on
renewable energy for utilities, transportation systems, industry, and
buildings and for advanced utility system technologies. In addition,
the program provides support for solar and renewable energy
technologies in domestic and international markets through incentive
programs to public power entities and through mechanisms established
to increase commercial financing resources for major foreign
purchases of U.S. technologies.
Most new product and process development is not initiated by new
science but instead is an attempt to meet perceived market needs by
drawing on existing technologies and on the pool of scientific
knowledge. R&D can proceed sequentially from basic research to the
operational tests/field validations phase. These various phases can
proceed sequentially in that basic research serves as the source of
innovation. In these situations, new scientific knowledge initiates
a chain of events culminating in the development and sale of a new
product, process, or service. In other situations, the activities
may not proceed in such a linear fashion, as changes to existing
products often arise from the recognition of new market
opportunities, advances in manufacturing capabilities, or advances in
technology independent of progress in the underlying science.
Commercialization is an attempt by a firm to profit by incorporating
new technology into products, processes, and services used or sold in
the marketplace. For many new technologies, commercialization
implies scaling up from prototype to volume manufacturing and
committing greater resources to marketing and sales activities.
Research projects in the operational tests/field validations phase
are closest to the marketplace in terms of commercialization. An
October 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that
many factors other than scientific understanding strongly influence
commercial success: the nature and composition of markets;
competition from older technologies; choices of design and
implementation; the availability of financing, standards, and
complementary assets or infrastructure; and the ability to link with
strategic partners.\5
In DOE's fiscal year 1998 congressional budget request, the term
"deployment" is used in different ways. At times, deployment is used
in the context of deploying an emerging technology in a field
validation or operational test, which is a precommercialization
activity. At other times, deployment is used in the context of the
deployment of commercial products in cost-effective applications. An
example would be the state energy grant programs, which facilitate
the implementation of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy
systems.
--------------------
\5 Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technologies, Office
of Technology Assessment (Oct. 1995).
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1998
FUNDING FOR DOE'S SOLAR AND
RENEWABLE RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
In fiscal year 1998, DOE plans to spend 90 percent of its solar and
renewable energy program funds on R&D to promote the commercial
viability of renewable energy technologies. The remaining funds will
be spent on non-R&D activities for program direction, such as
salaries, travel, and administrative services and to support the
deployment of solar and renewable energy technologies into domestic
and international markets.
FISCAL YEAR 1998 FUNDING FOR
R&D PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
For fiscal year 1998, DOE proposes to spend $311 million (or 90
percent) of the Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Program
budget for R&D projects. Most of the research conducted will be in
the applied research phase. (See table 1.) About $55 million (or 18
percent) of those funds will be spent for operational tests and field
validations of integrated technologies in a realistic operating
environment. Projects in this phase are closest to the marketplace
in terms of eventual commercialization. Activities include concept
development, market and technical feasibility studies, prototype
construction, and scale-up demonstrations.
Table 1
Proposed Funding by Research Phase for
Solar and Renewable Energy Subprograms,
Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Advanced
Applied developmen
research/ t/ Operationa
explorator engineerin l tests/
y g field
Basic developmen developmen validation
Subprogram research t t s
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Solar Building 0 $1,350 $1,125 $1,525
Technology
Photovoltaic Energy $11,000 28,000 28,400 9,600
Systems
Solar Thermal Energy 0 4,260 8,790 6,750
Systems
Biopower/ 0 27,805 17,272 31,463
Biofuels
Energy
Systems
Wind Energy Systems 0 13,400 29,458 0
Geothermal 2,600 15,482 9,418 2,500
Hydrogen 0 5,958 6,114 2,928
Hydropower 0 1,000 0 0
Electric Energy 15,620 25,230 3,130 520
Systems & Storage\a
======================================================================
Totals $29,220 $122,485 $103,707 $55,286
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Electric Energy Systems and Storage subprogram figures do not
include the Climate Challenge (see table 2 for description of this
activity), which has been categorized by DOE as non-R&D.
Source: Developed by GAO from DOE's data.
According to DOE officials in the Office of Utility Technologies,
none of these projects fund the commercialization of the
technologies. However, some of these technologies may already be
commercially viable in specific niche applications or geographical
regions. And with additional R&D, these technologies may have
further commercial potential in a larger range of markets and
applications and at less cost. For example, the mission of the wind
energy subprogram is to establish wind energy as a regionally
diversified, cost-effective power generation technology. To date,
wind turbine technology development in the United States has been
viable only at sites with high average wind speeds.\6 However, wind
may have commercial potential as an energy source in areas of the
country where winds are of moderate velocity, such as the midwestern
United States from the Canadian border to Mexico. The additional
applied research is needed to develop a next generation wind turbine
that will be competitive at lower average wind speeds.
In other cases, DOE is supporting the test and demonstration of
first-of-a-kind technologies. For example, the biofuels energy
systems activity is funding the development of cost-competitive
processes to produce ethanol from low-cost agricultural and forestry
wastes, such as rice straw and sawdust. According to a DOE official
in the Office of Fuels Development, the technology to produce ethanol
from such wastes has not been demonstrated anywhere in the world.
The program strategy is to demonstrate the technology in an
industry-owned facility and share the cost.
According to DOE program officials, without DOE's assistance, the
technologies might not reach commercialization. If the technologies
have not been demonstrated to be cost-competitive, industry may not
be willing to invest the funds needed to achieve market penetration.
To reduce the perceived risk, DOE is helping to test and document the
performance because performance cannot always be accurately predicted
through modeling. For example, a technology close to
commercialization is the geothermal heat pump. In fiscal year 1998,
DOE plans to work with an industry consortium to further test and
document the performance of this technology to accelerate widespread
consumer acceptance. To date, DOE has invested $17 million in this
program. In fiscal year 1998, the budget request was reduced by
almost one-half compared with fiscal year 1997 by eliminating the
funding for new large demonstration projects.
Appendix II has a comprehensive listing of R&D funding by phase of
research for each solar and renewable energy subprogram and activity
for fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
--------------------
\6 Wind turbines are machines that generate electricity by using the
kinetic energy of the wind.
FISCAL YEAR 1998 FUNDING FOR
NON-R&D ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
DOE plans to use the remaining $34 million of the proposed budget to
fund non-R&D initiatives and activities that support the deployment
of solar and renewable energy technologies into domestic and
international markets. (See table 2.) The amount represents over an
80-percent increase from the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for
non-R&D activities. Almost one-half of the non-R&D funds in the
fiscal year 1998 budget will be used for program direction. Program
direction includes funding for federal salaries and benefits, travel,
administrative services, and other related activities. From the $34
million, $5 million will be spent on maintenance and expansion of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Other non-R&D funds will be
used to provide incentives for renewable energy production to new
facilities owned by public power entities as provided by section 1212
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; provide support for voluntary
actions by electric utilities to reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gas emissions; and disseminate information on renewable
energy technologies. A description of each of the non-R&D activities
is included in appendix III.
Table 2
Proposed Funding for Solar and Renewable
Energy Non-R&D Programs, Fiscal Year
1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Subprogram Fiscal year 1998
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Program Direction $15,642
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5,000
Renewable Energy Production Incentive 4,000
Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce 2,000
and Trade
The America's 21st Century Program 2,500
The U.S. Initiative on Joint 2,500
Implementation
Solar Technology Transfer 1,360
Climate Challenge\a 1,000
======================================================================
Totals $ 34,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Climate Challenge is an activity in the Electric Energy Systems
and Storage subprogram.
Source: Developed by GAO from DOE's data.
DOE'S RESEARCH IS COST-SHARED
WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND OTHER
PARTNERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
DOE uses cost-sharing of renewable energy projects to leverage
federal funds. Through partnerships with DOE, partners from private
industry and other groups provide cost-share amounts that range from
as little as 3 percent to as much as 84 percent of the research costs
for renewable energy projects. DOE program officials told us that
cost-sharing from industry and other partners ensures effective use
of federal funds and helps to expedite the development and eventual
commercialization of technologies because the partners have a vested
interest in them.
According to DOE officials from the Office of Utility Technologies
and the Office of Transportation Technologies, the cost-share
contributions by partners from private industry are generally higher
for projects in the later phases of R&D. For example, the industry's
cost-share percentages for the photovoltaic program are 24 percent
for the basic and applied R&D phases and 92 percent for technology
development.
The cost-share requirements for specific projects are generally
established during the initial solicitation for partners and are met
by cash, in-kind contributions, or a combination of both. In-kind
contributions may consist of employees' time and salary costs, use of
partners' facilities and equipment, and/or the cost of purchasing
facilities or equipment.
DOE provided us with information on typical cost-share percentages
for each of its renewable energy subprograms by activity. The
information shows that the cost-share contributed by private sector
partners and other partners varies by subprogram and activities. The
range of cost-share percentages by subprogram and the type of
partners, which include utilities, universities, industry, and trade
associations, is summarized in table 3.
Table 3
Range of Typical Cost-Share Percentages,
Typical Types of Partners, and Primary
Types of Contributions by Renewable
Energy Subprograms
Primary types of cost-share
contribution\b
----------------------------
Cost-
share
percenta Typical
Subprogram ges\a partners Cash In-kind Mixed
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Solar Building 15-40 Industry \b x \b
Technology ,
utilitie
s,
universi
ties,
and
trade
groups
Photovoltaic Energy 13-70 Industry x \b \b
Systems ,
utilitie
s,
universi
ties,
and
trade
groups
Solar Thermal Energy 3-80 Industry x \b \b
Systems and
utilitie
s
Biopower/ 24-80 Industry \b x \b
Biofuels Energy ,
Systems utilitie
s, and
universi
ties
Wind Energy Systems 21-30 Industry x \b \b
and
universi
ties
15-84 Industry \b \b x
Geothermal and
utilitie
s
5-50 Industry \b \b x
Hydrogen and
trade
groups
Hydropower 30-62 Industry x \b \b
Electric Energy 15-50 Industry x \b \b
Systems and
Storage\c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Some of DOE's R&D projects such as those performed by some
national laboratories and some universities are not cost-shared. The
cost-share percentages represent those projects that are cost-shared.
\b Cost-share requirements may have been met by cash, in-kind
contributions, or a combination of both. This table presents the
primary type of contribution.
\c The Electric Energy Systems and Storage subprogram figures do not
include the Climate Challenge activity, which has been categorized by
DOE as non-R&D.
Source: Developed by GAO from DOE's data.
See appendix IV for detailed information on typical cost-shares for
specific renewable energy activities. Appendix V has information on
DOE's funding to trade associations.
MOST RENEWABLE ENERGY R&D FUNDS
ARE AWARDED COMPETITIVELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Of the funds awarded through funding agreements, five of the nine
subprograms awarded at least 50 percent of their funds on a
competitive basis. However, the extent of competition varied by
subprogram. Some subprogram activities awarded none of the funds
competitively; some awarded 100 percent of the funds competitively.
Table 4 shows the range of competition by subprogram.
DOE awards contracts, subcontracts, grants, cooperative agreements,
and cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA) through
its laboratories, field offices, and headquarters. All contract
awards are subject to the requirements of the Competition in
Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The grant
and cooperative agreement awards are subject to DOE's Financial
Assistance Regulations.
Some of the funding agreements were awarded without competition.
According to program officials, the noncompetitively awarded
contracts met allowable exceptions to procurement rules. The federal
rules require specific written justification for contract awards made
without competition. Allowable exceptions include awards made in the
public's interest or to a unique source.
Detailed information on the extent of competition by budget
subprogram and activity is shown in appendix VI.
Table 4
Range of Competitive Awards for
Renewable Energy Subprograms
Primary
procurement Percent of
Subprogram mechanism competition
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Solar Building Technology Grant 50-100
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Subcontract 79-100
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Subcontract 18-100
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Contract, 34-100
Systems cooperative
agreement, and
subcontract
Wind Energy Systems Subcontract 0-100
Geothermal Grant and contract 0-95
Hydrogen Contract 85-100
Hydropower Contract 84-97
Electric Energy Systems & Contract, grant, 75-100
Storage\a CRADA, and
cooperative
agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Electric Energy Systems and Storage subprogram figures do not
include the Climate Challenge activity, which has been categorized by
DOE as non-R&D.
Source: Developed by GAO from DOE's data.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE for review and
comment. We discussed the draft with DOE officials, including the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, who agreed with the report's findings. DOE provided us with
technical corrections and clarifications that we incorporated where
appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To determine the level of funding committed to R&D and other
activities, we obtained data from DOE for each solar and renewable
energy subprogram and activity by R&D phase. We obtained actual
funding data for fiscal year 1996 and projected funding for fiscal
years 1997 and 1998. We used DOE's definitions for the R&D phases.
To determine the extent that project costs are shared with private
industry, we obtained information on typical cost-sharing
arrangements for each subprogram and activity for projects that were
funded during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and specific funding data
for trade associations. To identify the extent to which funds are
competitively awarded, we obtained DOE's estimate of the percentage
of competitive awards for each subprogram and activity. Our analyses
were based on data provided by DOE. We did not independently verify
or validate the data provided to us.
We reviewed DOE's fiscal year 1998 budget request, our prior reports,
and various DOE program documents. We also discussed the renewable
energy programs, the fiscal year 1998 budget request, cost-sharing,
and competition with officials in DOE's Office of Utility
Technologies and Office of Transportation Technologies. Our review
was performed from May through June 1997 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of Energy and make copies available to
others on request.
Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Major contributors to this report
include Susan Kladiva, Robin Nazzaro, and Carrie Stevens.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DEFINITIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I
The following definitions for the phases of research and development
(R&D) are based on definitions used by the Department of Defense.
The definitions have been modified by the Department of Energy to
reflect non-Defense R&D efforts.
Basic Research includes all scientific effort and experimentation
directed toward increasing knowledge and understanding in those
fields of physical, engineering, environmental, social, and life
sciences related to long-term national needs. It requires
fundamental knowledge ultimately required for the solutions of
social, economic, political, physical, or military problems. It
forms a part of the base for subsequent applied research and
exploratory and advanced development in the various disciplines and
new or improved functional capabilities.
Applied Research and Exploratory Development includes all effort
directed toward the solution of specific problems, short of major
development projects. This type of effort may vary from fairly
fundamental applied research to quite sophisticated bread-board
hardware, study, programming, and planning efforts. It would thus
include investigations and minor development effort. The dominant
characteristic of this category of effort is that it be pointed
toward specific problem areas with a view toward developing and
evaluating the feasibility and practicability of proposed solutions
and determining their parameters.
Advanced Development/Engineering Development includes all effort
directed toward projects which have moved into the development of
hardware for field experiments and tests. This category includes
proof of technological feasibility and assessment of operability and
producibility. It also includes engineering and manufacturing
technology development.
Operational tests/field validations include the evaluation of
integrated technologies in a realistic operating environment to
assess the performance or cost reduction potential of advanced
technology. Multiple validations may be required to assess different
applications for different regions. This phase helps to expedite the
technology transition from the laboratory to operational use.
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING,
FISCAL YEARS 1996 THROUGH 1998
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Solar Buildings Technology Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar buildings exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Quality Assurance 0 0 $475 0
Technology 0 0 0 $425
Deployment
Technology 0 $1,025 0 0
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,025 $475 $425
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2
Solar Buildings Technology Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar buildings exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Quality Assurance 0 0 $350 0
Technology 0 0 0 $1,050
Deployment
Technology 0 $1,100 0 0
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,100 $350 $1,050
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3
Solar Buildings Technology Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1998
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar buildings exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Quality Assurance 0 0 $325 0
Technology 0 0 0 $1,525
Deployment
Technology 0 $1,350 800 0
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,350 $1,125 $1,525
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Photovoltaic exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement & $4,945 0 0 0
Characterization
Basic Research/ 5,000 0 0 0
University
Programs
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 0 $15,866 0 0
Partnerships
Crystalline 0 8,000 0 0
Silicon/High
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research &
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 0 0 $8,200 0
(PVMaT)
System 0 0 12,900 0
Engineering &
Reliability
PV Integrated 0 0 1,648 0
Building
Opportunities
(PV:BONUS)
Climate Change 0 0 0 $5,000
Action Plan (PV-
COMPACT)
=========================================================================================
Totals $9,945 $23,866 $22,748 $5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.5
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Photovoltaic exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement & $5,000 0 0 0
Characterization
Basic Research/ 5,000 0 0 0
University
Programs
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 0 $16,000 0 0
Partnerships
Crystalline 0 8,000 0 0
Silicon/High
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research &
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 0 0 $9,600 0
(PVMaT)
Systems 0 0 12,400 0
Engineering &
Reliability
PV Integrated 0 0 1,000 0
Building
Opportunities
(PV:BONUS)
Climate Change 0 0 0 $3,000
Action Plan (PV-
COMPACT)
=========================================================================================
Totals $10,000 $24,000 $23,000 $3,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.6
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Photovoltaic exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement & $5,500 0 0 0
Characterization
Basic Research/ 5,500 0 0 0
University
Programs
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 0 $20,000 0 0
Partnerships
Crystalline 0 8,000 0 0
Silicon/High
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research &
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 0 0 $10,000 0
(PVMaT)
System 0 0 14,400 0
Engineering &
Reliability
PV Integrated 0 0 4,000 0
Building
Opportunities
(PV:BONUS)
Climate Change 0 0 0 $9,600
Action Plan -
(PV-COMPACT)
=========================================================================================
Totals $11,000 $28,000 $28,400 $9,600
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar thermal R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Thermal Systems 0 $3,159 $3,500 0
Research/
Thermal Systems
Research
Power 0 0 2,500 $2,768
Applications
Research/Dish/
Engine
Development
Power 0 0 0 4,640
Applications
Research/Power
Tower
Development
Power 0 0 1,520 0
Applications
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 0 450 450 0
Applications
Research/
Systems &
Industrial
Assistance
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $3,609 $7,970 $7,408
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.8
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar thermal R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Thermal Systems 0 $3,800 $4,650 0
Research/
Thermal Systems
Research
Power 0 0 1,100 $3,200
Applications
Research/Dish/
Engine
Development
Power 0 0 0 4,520
Applications
Research/Power
Tower
Development
Power 0 0 1,930 0
Applications
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 0 1,050 2,000 0
Applications
Research/
Systems &
Industrial
Assistance
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $4,850 $9,680 $7,720
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.9
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Activity
Funding, Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Solar thermal exploratory engineering tests/field
R&D activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Thermal Systems 0 $3,560 $4,360 0
Research/
Thermal Systems
Research
Power 0 0 1,820 $2,000
Applications
Research/Dish/
Engine
Development
Power 0 0 0 4,550
Applications
Research/Power
Tower
Development
Power 0 0 1,880 0
Applications
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 0 700 730 200
Applications
Research/
Systems &
Industrial
Assistance
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $4,260 $8,790 $6,750
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.10
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Biopower/ Applied Advanced
biofuels energy research/ development/ Operational
systems R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Biofuels Energy 0 $15,944 $2,500 $650
Systems/Ethanol
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 300 0 0
Systems/
Biodiesel
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 5,005 0 0
Systems/
Feedstock
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 3,806 0 0
Systems/
Regional Biomass
Energy Program
Biofuels Energy 0 1,775 0 0
Systems/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Biopower Energy 0 2,101 0 0
Systems/
Utility/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Systems 0 0 3,465 14,762
Development
Biomass for 0 0 1,130 0
Cogeneration
Municipal Solid 0 0 0 1,760
Waste
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $28,931 $7,095 $17,172
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.11
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Biopower/ Applied Advanced
biofuels energy research/ development/ Operational
systems R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Biofuels Energy 0 $16,320 $1,430 $5,000
Systems/Ethanol
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 750 0 0
Systems/
Biodiesel
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 2,500 0 0
Systems/
Feedstock
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 1,650 0 0
Systems/
Regional Biomass
Energy Program
Biofuels Energy 0 0 0 0
Systems/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Biopower Energy 0 1,435 0 0
Systems/
Utility/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Systems 0 0 4,096 14,444
Development
Biomass for 0 0 4,000 0
Cogeneration
Feedstock 0 0 2,100 0
Production
Regional Program 0 0 0 1,575
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $22,655 $11,626 $21,019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.12
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Biopower/ Applied Advanced
biofuels energy research/ development/ Operational
systems R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Biofuels Energy 0 $18,040 $1,000 $11,000
Systems/Ethanol
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 1,000 0 0
Systems/
Biodiesel
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 4,300 1,700 0
Systems/
Feedstock
Production
Biofuels Energy 0 1,650 1,350 0
Systems/
Regional Biomass
Energy Program
Biofuels Energy 0 0 0 0
Systems/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Biopower Energy 0 2,815 0 0
Systems/
Utility/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Systems 0 0 10,222 20,463
Development
Biomass for 0 0 3,000 0
Cogeneration
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $27,805 $17,272 $31,463
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.13
Wind Energy Systems Activity Funding,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Wind program R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Applied Research/ 0 $5,850 0 0
Core Research
Applied Research/ 0 1,800 0 0
University
Research
Applied Research/ 0 400 $350 0
Wind Hybrid
Systems
Applied Research/ 0 1,500 0 0
Avian Research
Turbine Research/ 0 0 1,000 0
Near Term
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ 0 0 5,840 0
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 0 0
Small Wind
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 8,480 0
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 0 0 3,050 0
Research and
Testing/
Industry Support
Cooperative 0 0 700 0
Research and
Testing/
Certification
and Standards
Cooperative 0 0 1,200 0
Research and
Testing/Utility
Analysis
Cooperative 0 400 850 0
Research and
Testing/
National Wind
Technology
Center
Operations
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $9,950 $21,470 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.14
Wind Energy Systems Activity Funding,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Wind program R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Applied Research/ 0 $9,340 0 0
Core Research
Applied Research/ 0 1,200 0 0
University
Research
Applied Research/ 0 590 $500 0
Wind Hybrid
Systems
Applied Research/ 0 570 0 0
Avian Research
Turbine Research/ 0 0 0 0
Near Term
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ 0 0 0 0
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 0 0
Small Wind
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 8,500 0
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 0 0 3,850 0
Research and
Testing/
Industry Support
Cooperative 0 0 1,500 0
Research and
Testing/
Certification
and Standards
Cooperative 0 0 1,450 0
Research and
Testing/Utility
Analysis
Cooperative 0 500 1,000 0
Research and
Testing/
National Wind
Technology
Center
Operations
=========================================================================================
Total 0 $12,200 $16,800 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.15
Wind Energy Systems Activity Funding,
Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Wind program R&D exploratory engineering tests/field
activity Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Applied Research/ 0 $10,000 0 0
Core Research
Applied Research/ 0 1,600 0 0
University
Research
Applied Research/ 0 1,000 $1,000 0
Wind Hybrid
Systems
Applied Research/ 0 500 0 0
Avian Research
Turbine Research/ 0 0 4,000 0
Near Term
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ 0 0 9,000 0
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 1,460 0
Small Wind
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0 0 5,240 0
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 0 0 4,358 0
Research and
Testing/
Industry Support
Cooperative 0 0 2,000 0
Research and
Testing/
Certification
and Standards
Cooperative 0 0 1,400 0
Research and
Testing/Utility
Analysis
Cooperative 0 300 1,000 0
Research and
Testing/
National Wind
Technology
Center
Operations
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $13,400 $29,458 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.16
Geothermal Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration/ $1,200 $4,800 $2,700 0
Production
Technology
Drilling 300 3,500 2,099 0
Technology
Hot Dry Rock 0 700 1,200 0
Fenton Hill
Experimental
Site
Energy Conversion 300 2,700 2,200 0
Technology
Site Development 0 400 0 $2,000
Activities
Geothermal Heat 200 300 1,000 3,800
Pumps
=========================================================================================
Totals $2,000 $12,400 $9,199 $5,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.17
Geothermal Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration/ $1,500 $5,200 $2,700 0
Production
Technology
Drilling 300 3,818 2,200 0
Technology
Hot Dry Rock 0 400 0 0
Fenton Hill
Experimental
Site
Energy Conversion 300 2,700 2,400 0
Technology
Site Development 0 0 0 $2,000
Activities
Geothermal Heat 200 482 1,000 4,800
Pumps
=========================================================================================
Totals $2,300 $12,600 $8,300 $6,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.18
Geothermal Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration/ $1,800 $6,200 $3,200 0
Production
Technology
Drilling 300 5,000 3,018 0
Technology
Hot Dry Rock 0 0 0 0
Fenton Hill
Experimental
Site
Energy Conversion 300 4,000 2,700 0
Technology
Site Development 0 0 0 0
Activities
Geothermal Heat 200 282 500 $2,500
Pumps
=========================================================================================
Totals $2,600 $15,482 $9,418 $2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.19
Hydrogen Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 0 $2,587 $1,907 0
Storage 0 1,333 760 0
Utilization 0 895 1,079 0
Systems Analysis 0 0 3,409 0
Technology 0 0 0 $2,361
Validation
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $4,815 $7,155 $2,361
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.20
Hydrogen Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 0 $3,713 $1,411 0
Storage 0 1,557 485 0
Utilization 0 688 1,814 0
Systems Analysis 0 0 2,404 0
Technology 0 0 0 $2,928
Validation
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $5,958 $6,114 $2,928
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.21
Hydrogen Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 0 $3,712 $1,411 0
Storage 0 1,558 485 0
Utilization 0 688 1,814 0
Systems Analysis 0 0 2,404 0
Technology 0 0 0 $2,928
Validation
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $5,958 $6,114 $2,928
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.22
Hydropower Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Hydropower 0 $1,483 0 0
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,483 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.23
Hydropower Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Hydropower 0 $1,000 0 0
development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.24
Hydropower Activity Funding, Fiscal Year
1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Hydropower 0 $1,000 0 0
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals 0 $1,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.25
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1996
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 0 $8,000 0 0
Partnership
Initiative
2nd Generation $4,000 0 0 0
Wire Initiative
Strategic 8,000 2,280 0 0
Research
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 0 312 $220 $225
Components 65 290 365 0
Analysis 0 500 0 0
Electric & 0 9,487 0 0
Magnetic Fields
Research &
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals $12,065 $20,869 $585 $225
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.26
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 0 $9,500 0 0
Partnership
Initiative
2nd Generation $5,000 0 0 0
Wire Initiative
Strategic 4,000 1,250 0 0
Research
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 0 680 $385 $385
Components 0 570 430 0
Analysis 0 1,550 0 0
Electric & 0 8,000 0 0
Magnetic Fields
Research &
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals $9,000 $21,550 $815 $385
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.27
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
Activity Funding, Fiscal Year 1998
(Dollars in thousands)
Applied Advanced
research/ development/ Operational
Budget category/ exploratory engineering tests/field
subcategory Basic research development development validations
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 0 $12,500 $2,000 0
Partnership
Initiative
2nd Generation $8,000 0 0 0
Wire Initiative
Strategic 7,500 2,500 0 0
Research
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 0 1,020 520 $520
Components 120 710 610 0
Analysis 0 500 0 0
Electric & 0 8,000 0 0
Magnetic Fields
Research &
Development
=========================================================================================
Totals $15,620 $25,230 $3,130 $520
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The tables in this appendix were developed by GAO from data
provided by DOE.
DOE'S DESCRIPTION OF NON-R&D SOLAR
AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
========================================================= Appendix III
Non-R&D programs pay for federal salaries and benefits, federal
travel, the working capital fund for administrative services, and
other related expenses.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): facility maintenance
and the third and last phase of construction to modify the Field Test
Laboratory Building.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI): authorized by section
1212 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to provide incentive payments,
subject to the availability of appropriations, for electricity
produced by new renewable energy facilities that are owned by public
power entities. The incentive is intended to provide comparability
with tax incentives that are available to private sector entities.
Solar International: Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and
Trade (CORECT) is authorized by the Energy Policy and Cooperation
Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to reduce the
barriers to the export of U.S. renewable energy technologies.
The Americas' 21st Century Program implements CORECT export
strategies in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific regions to
facilitate the use and incorporation of U.S. renewable energy
technologies in grid and off-grid applications.
The U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation supports voluntary
projects between two or more countries, leading to the implementation
of projects that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions.
Solar Tech Transfer: the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse (EREC) and the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Network (EREN) disseminate information to the general public and the
business community through a toll free telephone service and the
Internet.
Climate Challenge: facilitates voluntary actions by electric
utilities to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.
TYPICAL COST-SHARE PARTNERSHIPS
FOR THE SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND
1997
========================================================== Appendix IV
Table IV.1
Solar Buildings Technology Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Quality Assurance 0/100 65/35 Cash Solar Rating &
Certification Corp.
Technology 50/50 70/30 In-kind Sacramento Municipal
Deployment Utility District
Technology 60/40 80/20 In-kind National Renewable
Development Energy Laboratory,
University of Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.2
Solar Buildings Technology Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Quality Assurance 45/55 85/15 Cash Solar Rating &
Certification Corp.
Technology 25/75 60/40 In-kind National Association of
Deployment Homebuilders Research
Center
Technology 55/45 80/20 In-kind Energy Laboratory, Inc.
Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.3
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement and 100/0 100/0 \a National Renewable
Characterization Energy Laboratory
Basic Research 60/40 100/0 \a University of Utah
University
Programs
Advanced
Materials and
Devices
Thin Film 36/64 70/30 Cash Siemens Solar Industries
Partnerships
Crystalline 63/37 100/0 \a Research Triangle
Silicon/High Institute
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research and
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 8/92 57/43 Cash ASE Americas
(PVMaT)
System 68/32 87/13 Cash Southwest Technology
Engineering and Development Institute
Reliability
PV Integrated 0/100 50/50 Cash Energy Conversion
Building Devices, Inc.
Opportunities
(PV: BONUS)
Climate Change 0/100 50/50 Cash Utility Photovoltaic
Action Plan (PV- Group
COMPACT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
Table IV.4
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Pr
im
ar
y
co
st
-
sh
ar
Laboratory e
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: ty Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners pe (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -- ------------------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement and 100/0 100/0 \a National Renewable
Characterization Energy Laboratory
Basic Research 60/40 100/0 \a Johns Hopkins University
University
Programs
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 35/65 70/30 Ca Solarex Corporation
Partnerships sh
Crystalline 60/40 100/0 \a California Institute of
Silicon/High Technology
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research and
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 7/93 57/43 Ca AstroPower, Inc.
(PVMaT) sh
System 68/32 90/10 Ca New Mexico State
Engineering and sh University
Reliability
PV Integrated 0/100 50/50 Ca Solar Design Associates
Building sh
Opportunities
(PV: BONUS)
Climate Change 0/100 30/70 Ca Interstate Renewable
Action Plan (PV- sh Energy Council
COMPACT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
Table IV.5
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Thermal Systems 68/32 97/3 In-kind 3M, ELI
Research/Thermal
Systems Research
Power 9/91 50/50 Cash SAIC, Stirling Thermal
Applications Motors, Arizona Public
Research/Dish/ Service
Engine
Development
Power 18/82 50/50 Cash Southern California
Applications Edison,
Research/Power Bechtel, Rockwell
Tower Development
Power 12/88 20/80 Cash SAIC, Rockwell,
Applications McDonnell Douglas
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 71/29 40/60 Cash Kramer Junction, Harper
Applications Lake, Daggett Leasing
Research/Systems
and Industrial
Assistance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.6
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Thermal Systems 63/37 97/3 \a 3M, ELI
Research/Thermal
Systems Research
Power 11/89 50/50 Cash SAIC, Stirling Thermal
Applications Motors, Arizona Public
Research/Dish/ Service
Engine
Development
Power 30/70 50/50 Cash Southern California
Applications Edison,
Research/Power Bechtel, Rockwell
Tower Development
Power 17/83 25/75 Cash SAIC, Rockwell,
Applications McDonnell Douglas
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 61/39 40/60 Cash Kramer Junction, Harper
Applications Lake, Daggett Leasing
Research/Systems
and Industrial
Assistance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a DOE did not identify the type of cost-share.
Table IV.7
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Pr
im
ar
y
co
st
-
sh
ar
Laboratory e
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: ty Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners pe (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -- ------------------------
Biofuels Energy 67/33 76/24 In Arkenol
Systems/Ethanol -
Production ki
nd
Biofuels Energy 34/66 69/31 Ca USDA Office of Energy
Systems/ sh
Biodiesel
Production
Biofuels Energy 65/35 67/33 In Oklahoma State
Systems/ - University
Feedstock ki
Production nd
Biofuels Energy 1/99 30/70 Ca Shirel Lumber Company
Systems/Regional sh
Biomass Energy
Program
Biofuels Energy 100/0 Closeout of \a \a
Systems/ program
Thermochemical
Conversion
Thermochemical 89/11 100/0 \a \a
Conversion
Systems 7/93 56/44 Ca Westinghouse, Hawaii
Development sh Cane &Sugar, Niagra
Mohawk, Minnesota Valley
Alfalfa Producers
Biomass for OIT project \b \b \b
Cogeneration
Municipal Solid OIT project \b \b \b
Waste
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b Office of Industrial Technologies project. DOE did not provide
any cost-share information.
Table IV.8
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Biofuels Energy 60/40 24/76 In-kind BC International
Systems/Ethanol
Production
Biofuels Energy 14/86 25/75 In-kind Columbus Food, National
Systems/ Biodiesel Board,
Biodiesel American Sightseeing
Production Company, Fats & Proteins
Research Institute
Biofuels Energy 50/50 50/50 In-kind U.S. Forest Service,
Systems/ Northcentral Forest
Feedstock Experiment Station
Production
Biofuels Energy 1/99 20/80 In-kind Applied Agricultural
Systems/Regional Technologies
Biomass Energy
Program
Thermochemical 100/0 100/0 \a \a
Conversion
Systems 9/91 45/55 Cash \Westinghouse, Niagra
Development Mohawk, Minnesota Valley
Alfalfa Producers, Iowa
Electric
Biomass for OIT program \b \b \b
Cogeneration
Feedstock OTT program \c \c \c
Production
Regional Program OTT program \c \c \c
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b Office of Industrial Technologies. DOE did not provide any
cost-share information.
\c Office of Transportation Technologies. DOE did not provide any
cost-share information.
Table IV.9
Wind Energy Systems Program, Fiscal Year
1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Applied Research/ 74/26 100/0 \a AWS Scientific, Embedded
Core Research Systems, Airfoils Inc.
Applied Research/ 43/57 100/0 \a North Carolina A&T,
University Georgia Tech University,
Research University of Illinois
Applied Research/ 93/7 100/0 \a University of
Wind Hybrid Massachusetts
Systems
Applied Research/ 30/70 100/0 \a University of
Avian Research California, WEST, Inc.
Turbine Research/ 0/100 77/23 Cash CannonWind Eagle, Zond,
Near Term R Lynette
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ 0/100 70/30 Cash Wind Turbine Co., Zond
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0/100 79/21 Cash Windlite, CannonWind
Small Wind Eagle, World Power Tech,
Turbine Project Bergey Windpower
Turbine Research/ 97/3 100/0 \a Ohio State
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 36/64 100/0 \a American Wind Energy
Research and Association
Testing/Industry
Support
Cooperative 100/0 100/0 \a \a
Research and
Testing/
Certification and
Standards
Cooperative 57/43 100/0 \a Princeton Economic
Research and Research Incorporated,
Testing/Utility Electrotek, AWS
Analysis Scientific (U*WRAP)\b
Cooperative 67/33 100/0 \a Mountain Valley Energy
Research and
Testing/National
Wind Technology
Center Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b Utility Wind Resource Assessment Program (U*WRAP).
Table IV.10
Wind Energy Systems Program, Fiscal Year
1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Applied Research/ 53/47 100/0 \a AWS Scientific, NASA,
Core Research Ames, Mech Dynamics,
Dynamic Designs
Applied Research/ 24/76 100/0 \a North Carolina A&T
University
Research
Applied Research/ 63/37 100/0 \a University of
Wind Hybrid Massachusetts
Systems
Applied Research/ 58/42 100/0 \a Boise State University
Avian Research
Turbine Research/ \b \b \b \b
Near Term
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ \b \b \b \b
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ \b \b \b \b
Small Wind
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 85/15 100/0 \a McNiff Light Industry
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 63/37 100/0 \a American Wind Energy
Research and Association
Testing/Industry
Support
Cooperative 71/29 100/0 \a Underwriters Laboratory,
Research and American Wind Energy
Testing/ Association
Certification and
Standards
Cooperative 37/63 100/0 \a Princeton Economic
Research and Research Incorporated,
Testing/Utility Utility Wind Interest
Analysis Group
Cooperative 85/15 100/0 \a Mountain Valley Energy
Research and
Testing/National
Wind Technology
Center Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b DOE did not provide data for turbine research subcontracts funded
from uncosted obligations balances in fiscal year 1997.
Table IV.11
Geothermal Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration 80/20 70/30 Both Oxbow, CalEnergy,
Production Caithness, Far West,
Technology Unocal
Drilling 75/25 75/25 Both Halliburtton, AZ Grant,
Technology Baker Hughes, INTEQ,
Security Diamond
Products, Hughes
Christensen, Unocal,
Tonto, Schlumberger,
International Logging
Hot Dry Rock 35/65 100/0 \a Project in closeout mode
Fenton Hill
Experimental Site
Energy Conversion 80/20 85/15 Both CalEnergy, Pacific Gas &
Technology Electric, Unocal,
Douglas Energy
Site Development 0/100 16/84 Cash Unocal, Calpine Corp.,
Activities Northern California
Power Agency, Pacific
Gas & Electric
Geothermal Heat 15/85 33/67 Cash Geothermal Heat Pump
Pumps Consortium--over 100
member companies,
consisting of utilities
and service and
equipment companies,
Oklahoma State
University
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
Table IV.12
Geothermal Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration 80/20 75/25 Both Oxbow, CalEnergy,
Production Caithness, Far West,
Technology Unocal
Drilling 70/30 70/30 Both Halliburtton, AZ Grant,
Technology Baker Hughes INTEQ,
Security Diamond
Products, Hughes
Christensen, Unocal,
Tonto, Schlumberger,
International Logging
Hot Dry Rock 100/0 100/0 \a \a
Fenton Hill
Experimental Site
Energy Conversion 80/20 85/15 Both CalEnergy, Pacific Gas &
Technology Electric, Unocal,
Douglas Energy
Site Development 0/100 16/84 Cash Unocal, Calpine Corp.,
Activities Northern California
Power Agency, Pacific
Gas & Electric
Geothermal Heat 10/90 33/67 Cash Geothermal Heat Pump
Pumps Consortium--over 100
member companies,
consisting of utilities
and service and
equipment companies,
Oklahoma State
University
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Project is being closed out.
Table IV.13
Hydrogen Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 66/34 65/35 Cash Texaco, Air Products,
SRT Inc., Praxair
Storage 68.5/31.5 65/35 In-kind A.D. Little, Energy
and cash Conversion Devices,
Inc., Materials &
Electrochemical Research
Corp., Praxair
Utilization 61/39 50/50 In-kind International Fuel Cells
Corp., DCH Technology,
Inc.
Systems Analysis 32.6/67.4 75/25 Cash and National Hydrogen
in-kind Association, Sentech,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Letter, Directed
Technologies, 122 West
Longitude
Technology 38.5/61.5 50/50 Cash City of Palm Desert,
Validation Dupont,
Bluebird
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.14
Hydrogen Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 55/45 65/35 In-kind Texaco, Air Products,
SRT Group Inc., Praxair
Storage 53/47 65/35 In-kind Energy Conversion
and cash Devices, Inc., A.D.
Little, Materials &
Electrochemical Research
Corp., Praxair
Utilization 47/53 95/5 In-kind International Fuel Cell
Corp., DCH Technology,
Inc.
Systems Analysis 30/70 75/25 In-kind National Hydrogen
Association, Sentech,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Letter, Directed
Technologies
Technology 25/75 50/50 Cash and Teledyne Brown,
Validation in-kind International Fuel Cell
Corp., MC Power, Energy
Conversion Devices, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.15
Hydropower Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Hydropower 67/33 38/62 Cash Voith Hydro, Inc.
Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.16
Hydropower Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
Hydropower 45/55 70/30 Cash Alden Research
Development Laboratory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.17
Electric Energy Systems & Storage
Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 100/0 50/50 Cash Electric Power Research
Partnership Institute, Reliance,
Initiative Lockheed Martin
2nd Generation 100/0 50/50 Cash Midwest
Wire Initiative Superconductivity
Strategic 90/10 50/50 Cash American Superconductor,
Research Intermagnetics General,
Southwire
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 28/72 50/50 50 - GNB Technologies
cash
and
50 -in-
kind
Components 62/38 85/15 50 - JCI, ZBB
cash and
50 -in-
kind
Analysis 69/31 100/0 \a Frost & Sullivan
Electric and 56/44 73/27 Cash The member companies\c
Magnetic Fields (RAPID\b of EEI, APPA, NRECA, and
Research & is 50/50) NEMA
Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b Represents the cost-share ratio for the Research and Public
Information Dissemination portion of this activity.
\c Edison Electric Institute (EEI), American Public Power Association
(APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
Table IV.18
Electric Energy Systems & Storage
Program, Fiscal year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Primary
Laboratory cost-
Budget category/ inhouse/ Cost-share: share Typical partners
subcategory outsourced DOE/partners type (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------------
High-temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 100/0 50/50 Cash Electric Power Research
Partnership Institute, Reliance,
Initiative Lockheed Martin
2nd Generation 100/0 50/50 Cash 3M, Midwest
Wire Initiative Superconductivity
Strategic 95/5 50/50 Cash American Superconductor,
Research Intermagnetics General,
Waukeshau Electric
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 12/88 50/50 50 - AC Battery Corp.,
cash Virginia Power
and
50 -in
kind
Components 29/71 85/15 50 - JCI, ZBB
cash and
50 -in-
kind
Analysis 26/74 100/0 \a Energetics
Electric & 48/52 67/33 Cash The member companies\c
Magnetic Fields (RAPID\b of EEI, APPA, NRECA, and
Research & is 50/50) NEMA
Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The tables in this appendix were developed by GAO from data
provided by DOE.
\a This activity was not cost-shared.
\b Represents the cost-share ratio for the Research and Public
Information Dissemination portion of this activity.
\c Edison Electric Institute (EEI), American Public Power Association
(APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
SOLAR RENEWABLE ENERGY FUNDING TO
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix V
Table V.1
Funding to Trade Associations, Fiscal
Years 1996 and 1997
(Dollars in thousands)
Fiscal year
funding
------------------
Trade association 1996 1997 Subprogram Purpose of funding
----------------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ------------------------
Solar Energy $844\a $856\a Solar Thermal and Sponsor conferences,
Industries Photovoltaic Energy print publications,
Association Systems promote use of
photovoltaics, conduct
market analyses, and
coordinate industry
activities.
Association of 0 39 Hydropower Assist DOE in conduct of
State Dam Safety state hydropower
Officials resource assessments and
coordinate with state
agencies.
National Hydrogen 339 247 Hydrogen Evaluate new technology
Association and sponsor conferences
on new processes and
technology.
National 238 275 Biopower/Biofuels Energy Promote the deployment
Bioenergy Systems\b of biomass power
Industries technology.
Association
United Bioenergy 175 0 Biopower/Biofuels Energy Encourage the
Commercialization Systems\b development of biomass
Association resources.
Biomass Energy 50 50 Biopower/ Inform the public about
Alliance Biofuels Energy biomass energy and
Systems\b disseminate information.
Geothermal Heat 3,200 4,200 Geothermal Provide deployment
Pump Consortium materials, limited R&D,
data collection, and
pilot demonstration
grants for utilities.
Geothermal Energy 270 350 Geothermal Foster communication,
Association education, and training
among companies of the
U.S. geothermal industry
and facilitate exports.
Geothermal 147 155 Geothermal Develop and convene
Resources Council special meetings,
workshops, conferences,
and courses pertaining
to geothermal
exploration,
development, and
utilization.
Energy Storage 0 40 Electric Energy Storage Prepare white papers on
Association Systems the use of energy
storage in renewable
systems.
American Wind 656 661 Wind Energy Systems Disseminate information
Energy to the wind industry and
Association facilitate export of
wind products and
services.
Total $5,919 $6,873
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The fiscal year 1996 amount is comprised of $256,000 from Solar
Thermal and $588,000 from Photovoltaics; the fiscal year 1997 amount
is comprised of $256,000 from Solar Thermal and $600,000 from
Photovoltaics.
\b The services were performed for DOE's Biomass activity.
Source: Developed by GAO from DOE's data.
COMPETITION FOR SOLAR AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM
PROCUREMENTS, FISCAL YEARS 1996
AND 1997
========================================================== Appendix VI
Table VI.1
Solar Buildings Technology Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory\a outsourced\b mechanism(s)\ tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Quality 0/100 Grant 50/50 Solar Rating &
Assurance\c Certification Corp.
Technology 50/50 Grant 50/50 Sacramento Municipal
Deployment\d Utility District
Technology 60/40 Grant 100/0 National Renewable
Development Energy Laboratory,
University of
Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Information in this table is typical of work performed and may be
based on a typical project for each category. Outsourced includes
interagency fund transfers, procurements through DOE entities, and
laboratory subcontracts. Contracts with entities that operate the
national laboratories are competitive and are shown in the
competitive/noncompetitive column. Fiscal year 1996 data represent
actual program implementation; fiscal year 1997 data represent a mix
of implemented and planned, since some work is in the procurement
process.
\b Refers to funding agreements through contracts, subcontracts,
grants, cooperative agreements, and CRADAs.
\c Quality Assurance: Rationale for major noncompetitive
procurement: The Solar Rating & Certification Corp. is a nonprofit
organization established by the solar industry to develop standards
by which solar water and solar pool heating systems can be rated.
DOE has supported the development of tests by which the systems can
be certified as meeting minimum standards of durability, reliability,
safety, and operation. One task was the development of a computer
model that simulated the testing of a solar water heating system;
which involves determining the thermal efficiency, operating
characteristics, and required electrical power to drive the system.
\d Technology Deployment: Rationale for major noncompetitive
procurement: The Sacramento Municipal Utility District initiated a
program to sell solar water systems to their customers. DOE provided
funds for technical assistance and instrumentation for a small number
of those systems.
Table VI.2
Solar Buildings Technology Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Quality 45/55 Grant 60/40 Solar Rating &
Assurance\a Certification Corp.
Technology 25/75 Request for 70/30 National Association
Deployment\b proposals of Homebuilders
Research Center
Technology 55/45 Request for 80/20 Energy Laboratory,
Development\c proposals, Inc.
grants, and
CRADAs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Quality Assurance: Rationale for major noncompetitive
procurement: The Solar Rating & Certification Corp. is a nonprofit
organization established by the solar industry to develop a set of
standards by which solar water and solar pool heating systems can be
rated. DOE is supporting a task that will develop a methodology to
determine the ability of solar water and solar pool heating systems
installed on roofs to withstand hurricane winds.
\b Technology Deployment: Rationale for major noncompetitive
procurement: DOE is working with industry associations (e.g., the
National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, National Spa
and Pool Institute, and Solar Energy Industries Association) to hold
workshops, conduct surveys, and develop materials that will educate
homebuilders, pool builders, and utilities about the benefits of
solar energy. This is expected to lead to cooperative projects with
several builders and utilities. DOE would then provide technical
information and instrumentation for selected field projects and share
the costs of field validation projects.
\c Technology Development: Rationale for major noncompetitive
procurement: DOE has cooperative research and development agreements
with companies developing a new selective-absorbing coating for solar
collectors and a new low-cost solar water heating system.
Table VI.3
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive\a (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement & 100/0 \b 100/0 National Renewable
Characterization Energy Laboratory
Basic Research/ 60/40 Competitive 100/0 University of Utah
University request for
Programs proposal (RFP)
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 36/64 Competitive RFP 96/4 Siemens Solar
Partnerships Industries
Crystalline 63/37 Competitive RFP 94/6 Research Triangle
Silicon/High Institute
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research &
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 8/92 Competitive RFP 100/0 ASE Americas
(PVMaT)
System 68/32 Competitive RFP 84/16 Southwest Technology
Engineering & Development Institute
Reliability
PV Integrated 0/100 Competitive RFP 100/0 Energy Conversion
Building Devices, Inc.
Opportunities
(PV: BONUS)
Climate Change 0/100 Competitive RFP 80/20 Utility Photovoltaic
Action Plan (PV- Group
COMPACT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Major noncompetitive procurements typically are unique or special
projects initiated through unsolicited proposals or are unique
projects specified through congressional appropriations.
\b The procurement mechanism was not identified by DOE.
Table VI.4
Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive\a (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Fundamental Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement & 100/0 \b 100/0 National Renewable
Characterization Energy Laboratory
Basic Research/ 60/40 Competitive 100/0 Johns Hopkins
University request for University
Programs proposal (RFP)
Advanced
Materials &
Devices
Thin Film 35/65 Competitive RFP 96/4 Solarex Corporation
Partnerships
Crystalline 60/40 Competitive RFP 94/6 California Institute
Silicon/High of Technology
Efficiency
Devices
Collector
Research &
Systems
Development
Manufacturing R&D 7/93 Competitive RFP 100/0 AstroPower, Inc.
(PVMaT)
System 68/32 Competitive RFP 79/21 New Mexico State
Engineering & University
Reliability
PV Integrated 0/100 Competitive RFP 100/0 Solar Design
Building Associates
Opportunities
(PV: BONUS)
Climate Change 0/100 Competitive RFP 80/20 Interstate Renewable
Action Plan (PV- Energy Council
COMPACT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Major noncompetitive procurements are typically the result of
unsolicited proposals for highly specialized or unique work or for
unique projects specified in congressional appropriations.
\b The procurement mechanism was not identified by DOE.
Table VI.5
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Thermal Systems 68/32 Laboratory 98/2 3M, ELI
Research/Thermal subcontracts,
Systems Research CRADAs
Power 9/91 Laboratory 100/0 SAIC, Stirling Thermal
Applications subcontracts Motors, Arizona Public
Research/Dish/ Service
Engine
Development
Power 18/82 Cooperative 18/82 Southern California
Applications agreement Edison, Bechtel,
Research/Power Rockwell
Tower
Development\a
Power 12/88 Laboratory 100/0 SAIC, Rockwell,
Applications subcontracts McDonnell Douglas
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 71/29 Laboratory 90/10 Kramer Junction,
Applications subcontracts Harper Lake, Daggett
Research/Systems Leasing
& Industrial
Assistance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Rationale for major noncompetitive procurements: The Solar Two
Project (under Power Tower Development) was initiated by a consortium
of U.S. utilities to retrofit the existing 10 MWe Solar One Power
Tower Pilot Plant to add molten-salt storage capability. Although
noncompetitive, the consortium actively solicited membership and no
interested industry participant was excluded. The consortium members
had unique resources and expertise and prior experience with Solar
One.
Table VI.6
Solar Thermal Energy Systems Program,
Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Thermal Systems 63/37 Laboratory 98/2 3M, ELI
Research/Thermal subcontracts,
Systems Research CRADAs
Power 11/89 Laboratory 100/0 SAIC, Stirling Thermal
Applications subcontracts Motors, Arizona Public
Research/Dish/ Service
Engine
Development
Power 30/70 Cooperative 30/70 Southern California
Applications agreement Edison, Bechtel,
Research/Power Rockwell
Tower
Development\a
Power 17/83 Laboratory 100/0 SAIC, Rockwell,
Applications subcontracts McDonnell Douglas
Research/SolMaT
Initiative
Power 61/39 Laboratory 88/12 Kramer Junction,
Applications subcontracts, Harper Lake, Daggett
Research/Systems CRADAs Leasing
& Industrial
Assistance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Rationale for major noncompetitive procurements: The Solar Two
Project (under Power Tower Development) was initiated by a consortium
of U.S. utilities to retrofit the existing 10 MWe Solar One Power
Tower Pilot Plant to add molten-salt storage capability. Although
noncompetitive, the consortium actively solicited membership and no
interested industry participant was excluded. The consortium members
had unique resources and expertise and prior experience with Solar
One.
Table VI.7
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Biofuels Energy 67/33 Contract, 70/30 Arkenol
Systems/Ethanol cooperative
Production agreements
Biofuels Energy 34/66 Contracts, 34/66 USDA Office of Energy
Systems/ cooperative
Biodiesel agreements
Production\a
Biofuels Energy 65/35 Contracts/ 85/15 Oklahoma State
Systems/ laboratory University
Feedstock subcontracts
Production
Biofuels Energy 1/99 Interagency 34/66 Shirel Lumber Company
Systems/Regional agreements,
Biomass Energy grants,
Program\b contracts
Biofuels Energy 100/0 Contract 100/0 Closeout of program
Systems/
Thermochemical
Conversion
Thermochemical 89/11 Contract 100/0 \d
Conversion
Systems 7/93 Contract 51/49 Westinghouse, Hawaii
Development\c Cane & Sugar, Niagra
Mohawk, Minnesota
Valley Alfalfa
Producers
Biomass for OIT project \d \d \d
Cogeneration
Municipal Solid OIT project \d \d \d
Waste
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Major noncompetitive procurements in the Biofuels/Biodiesel
subcategory were small projects involving companies with unique
capabilities together with cost-share opportunities.
\b Major noncompetitive procurements for Regional Program, highly
leveraged (cost-share) projects, addressing regional, state and local
interests were identified and supported with state energy offices and
the private sector involvement.
\c Major noncompetitive procurements for Hawaii Direct Gasifier and
Vermont Indirect Gasifier projects were one of a kind opportunities
to demonstrate technologies and were awarded noncompetitively.
\d Office of Industrial Technologies project. DOE did not provide
any procurement information.
Table VI.8
Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems
Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Biofuels Energy 60/40 Contracts, 65/35 BC International
Systems/Ethanol cooperative
Production agreements
Biofuels Energy 14/86 Contract, 40/60 Columbus Food,
Systems/ laboratory National Biodiesel
Biodiesel subcontracts Board, American
Production\a Sightseeing Company,
Fats & Proteins
Research Institute
Biofuels Energy 50/50 Contract, 85/15 U.S. Forest Service,
Systems/ laboratory Northcentral Forest
Feedstock subcontracts Experiment Station
Production
Biofuels Energy 1/99 Interagency 35/65 Applied Agricultural
Systems/Regional agreements, Technologies
Biomass Energy contracts,
Program\b cooperative
agreements,
grants
Thermochemical 100/0 Management & 100/0 \c
Conversion operating
contract
Systems 9/91 Contract 50/50 Westinghouse, Niagra
Development\d Mohawk, Minnesota
Valley Alfalfa
Producers, Iowa
Electric
Biomass for OIT program \e \e \e
Cogeneration
Feedstock OTT program \f \f \f
Production
Regional Program OTT program \f \f \f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Major noncompetitive procurements for the Biodiesel subcategory
supported projects in which the proposers had unique capabilities and
there was cost-sharing needed by the program.
\b Major noncompetitive procurements for the Regional Biomass Energy
Program focus on regional, state, and local opportunities, identified
and co-funded with state and local agencies and the private sector.
\c The work was performed inhouse.
\d Major noncompetitive procurements for Hawaii Direct Gasifier and
Vermont Indirect Gasifier projects were one of a kind opportunities
to demonstrate technologies and were awarded noncompetitively.
\e Office of Industrial Technologies program. DOE did not provide
any procurement information.
\f Office of Transportation Technologies. DOE did not provide any
procurement information.
Table VI.9
Wind Energy Systems Program, Fiscal Year
1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Applied Research/ 74/26 Subcontract 18/82 AWS Scientific,
Core Research Embedded Systems,
Airfoils, Inc.
Applied Research/ 43/57 Subcontract 100/0 North Carolina A&T,
University Georgia Tech
Research University, University
of Illinois
Applied Research/ 93/7 Subcontract 0/100 University of
Wind Hybrid Massachusetts
Systems
Applied Research/ 30/70 Subcontract 90/10 University of
Avian Research California, WEST, Inc.
Turbine Research/ 0/100 Subcontract 100/0 Cannon/Wind Eagle,
Near Term Zond, R Lynette
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ 0/100 Subcontract 100/0 Wind Turbine Co, Zond
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 0/100 Subcontract 100/0 Windlite, Cannon/Wind
Small Wind Eagle, World Power
Turbine Project Tech, Bergey Windpower
Turbine Research/ 97/3 Subcontract 100/0 Ohio State
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 36/64 Subcontract 14/86 American Wind Energy
Research and Association
Testing/Industry
Support
Cooperative 100/0 \a \a \a
Research and
Testing/
Certification and
Standards
Cooperative 57/43 Subcontract 0/100 Princeton Economic
Research and Research Incorporated,
Testing/Utility Electrotek, AWS
Analysis Scientific (U*WRAP)\b
Cooperative 67/33 Subcontract 100/0 Mountain Valley Energy
Research and
Testing/National
Wind Technology
Center Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The work was performed inhouse.
\b Utility Wind Resource Assessment Program (U*WRAP).
Table VI.10
Wind Energy Systems Program, Fiscal Year
1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Applied Research/ 53/47 Subcontract 13/87 AWS Scientific, NASA
Core Research Ames, Mech Dynamics,
Dynamic Designs
Applied Research/ 24/76 Subcontract 100/0 North Carolina A&T
University
Research
Applied Research/ 63/37 Subcontract 41/59 University of
Wind Hybrid Massachusetts
Systems
Applied Research/ 58/42 Subcontract 38/62 Boise State University
Avian Research
Turbine Research/ \a \a \a \a
Near Term
Research and
Testing
Turbine Research/ \a \a \a \a
Next Generation
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ \a \a \a \a
Small Wind
Turbine Project
Turbine Research/ 85/15 Subcontract 100/0 McNiff Light Industry
Supporting
Research,
Testing, and
Management
Cooperative 63/37 Subcontract 12/88 American Wind Energy
Research and Association
Testing/Industry
Support
Cooperative 71/29 Subcontract 33/67 Underwriters
Research and Laboratory, American
Testing/ Wind Energy
Certification and Association
Standards
Cooperative 37/63 Subcontract 45/55 Princeton Economic
Research and Research Incorporated,
Testing/Utility Utility Wind Interest
Analysis Group
Cooperative 85/15 Subcontract 41/59 Mountain Valley Energy
Research and
Testing/National
Wind Technology
Center Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a DOE did not provide procurement information for the turbine
research subcontracts funded from uncosted obligations balances in
fiscal year 1997.
Table VI.11
Geothermal Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration/ 80/20 Grants, 95/5 Oxbow, CalEnergy,
Production contracts Caithness, Far West,
Technology Unocal
Drilling 80/20 Contracts 85/15 Halliburtton, AZ
Technology Grant, Baker Hughes
INTEQ, Security
Diamond Products,
Hughes Christensen,
Unocal, Tonto,
Schlumberger,
International Logging
Hot Dry Rock 50/50 Contracts 95/5 Project in closeout
Fenton Hill mode.
Experimental Site
Energy Conversion 80/20 Contract 95/5 CalEnergy, Pacific Gas
Technology & Electric, Unocal,
Douglas Energy
Site Development 0/100 Grants, 0/100 Unocal, Calpine Corp.,
Activities cooperative Northern California
agreements Power Agency, Pacific
Gas & Electric
Geothermal Heat 80/20 Grants, 95/5 Geothermal Heat Pump
Pumps cooperative Consortium--over 100
agreements member companies,
consisting of
utilities and service
and equipment
companies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.12
Geothermal Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Geothermal Electric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration/ 80/20 Grants, 95/5 Oxbow, CalEnergy,
Production contracts Caithness, Far West,
Technology Unocal
Drilling 80/20 Contracts 90/10 Halliburtton, AZ
Technology Grant, Baker Hughes
INTEQ, Security
Diamond Products,
Hughes Christensen,
Unocal, Tonto,
Schlumberger,
International Logging
Hot Dry Rock 50/50 Contracts 95/5 Project in Closeout
Fenton Hill mode.
Experimental Site
Energy Conversion 80/20 Contract 95/5 CalEnergy, Pacific Gas
Technology & Electric, Unocal,
Douglas Energy
Site Development 0/100 Grant 0/100 Unocal, Calpine Corp.,
Activities Northern California
Power Agency, Pacific
Gas & Electric
Geothermal Heat 8 0/20 G rant 9 5/5 G eothermal Heat Pump
Pumps Consortium--over 100
member companies,
consisting of
utilities and service
and equipment
companies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.13
Hydrogen Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 66/34 Solicitation 95/5 Texaco, Air Products,
SRT Inc., Praxair
Storage 68.5/31.5 Solicitation 100/0 A.D. Little, Energy
Conversion Devices,
Inc., Materials &
Electrochemical
Research Corp.,
Praxair
Utilization 61/39 Solicitation 100/0 International Fuel
Cells Corp., DCH
Technology, Inc.
Systems Analysis 32.6/67.4 Solicitation 85/15 National Hydrogen
Association, Sentech,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Letter, Directed
Technologies, 122 West
Longitude
Technology 38.5/61.5 Solicitation 100/0 City of Palm Desert,
Validation Dupont, Bluebird
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.14
Hydrogen Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Research and Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production 55/45 Solicitation 95/5 Texaco, Air Products,
SRT Inc., Praxair
Storage 53/47 Solicitation 100/0 Energy Conversion
Devices, Inc., A.D.
Little, Materials &
Electrochemical
Research Corp.,
Praxair
Utilization 47/53 Solicitation 95/5 International Fuel
Cell Corp., DCH
Technology Inc.
Systems Analysis 30/70 Solicitation 85/15 National Hydrogen
Association, Sentech,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Letter, Directed
Technologies
Technology 25/75 solicitation 100/0 Teledyne Brown,
Validation International Fuel
Cell Corp., MC Power,
Energy Conversion
Devices, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.15
Hydropower Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Hydropower 67/33 Competitive 97/3 Voith Hydro, Inc.
Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.16
Hydropower Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
Hydropower 45/55 Competitive 84/16 Alden Research
Development Laboratory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.17
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
Program, Fiscal Year 1996
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv Typical
Laboratory Primary e/ partners
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti (company
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 80/20 Cooperative 100/0 Electric
Partnership\a agreements Power
Initiative Research
Institute,
Reliance,
Lockheed
Martin
2nd Generation 100/0 CRADA 100/0 Midwest
Wire Initiative\a Superconducti
vity
Strategic 90/10 CRADA 100/0 American
Research\a Superconducto
r,
Intermagnetic
s General,
Southwire
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 28/72 Competitive 75/25 GNB
contract Technologies
Components 62/38 Competitive 75/25 JCI, ZBB
contract
Analysis 69/31 Competitive 75/25 Frost &
contract Sullivan
Electric & 56/44 Competitive 98/2 The member
Magnetic Fields contracts, companies\c
Research & grants of EEI, APPA,
Development\b NRECA & NEMA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a There are no major noncompetitive procurements. The outsourced
funding is for small laboratory subcontracts ($100,000 or less) to
universities to obtain unique expertise needed by the program.
\b Major noncompetitive procurement is the contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) that is required by law (section 2118 of
EPA Act). NAS provides scientific review of all completed research.
\c Edison Electric Institute (EEI), American Public Power Association
(APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
Table VI.18
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
Program, Fiscal Year 1997
(Amounts in percents)
Competitiv
Laboratory Primary e/
Budget category/ inhouse/ procurement noncompeti Typical partners
subcategory outsourced mechanism(s) tive (company names)
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------------
High-Temperature Superconductivity Research & Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductivity 80/20 Cooperative 80/20 Electric Power
Partnership\a agreements Research Institute,
Initiative Reliance, Lockheed
Martin
2nd Generation 100/0 CRADA 100/0 3M, Midwest
Wire Initiative\a Superconductivity
Strategic 95/5 CRADA 100/0 American
Research\a Superconductor,
Intermagnetics
General, Waukeshau
Electric
Energy Storage
Research &
Development
Integration 12/88 Competitive 75/25 AC Battery Corp.,
contract Virginia Power
Components 29/71 Competitive 75/25 JCI, ZBB
contract
Analysis 26/74 Competitive 75/25 Energetics
contract
Electric & 48/52 Competitive 98/2 The member companies\c
Magnetic Fields contracts, of EEI, APPA, NRECA,
Research & grants and NEMA
Development\b
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The tables in this appendix were developed by GAO from data
provided by DOE.
\a There are no major noncompetitive procurements. The outsourced
funding is for small laboratory subcontracts ($100,000 or less) to
universities to obtain unique expertise needed by the program.
\b Major noncompetitive procurement is the contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) that is required by law (section 2118 of
EPA Act). NAS provides scientific review of all completed research.
\c Edison Electric Institute (EEI), American Public Power Association
(APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
*** End of document. ***