For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34417 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL34417 Energy and Water Development: FY2009 Appropriations Updated October 6, 2008 Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator, Anthony Andrews, David M. Bearden, Nicole T. Carter, Mark Holt, Nic Lane, Daniel Morgan, and Fred Sissine Resources, Science, and Industry Division Jonathan Medalia Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Carol Glover Knowledge Services Group The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President's budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products. NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is available to congressional staff at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_ 2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73]. Energy and Water Development: FY2009 Appropriations Summary The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues involving these programs include ! the distribution of Corps appropriations across the agency's authorized planning, construction, and maintenance activities (Title I); ! support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California "Bay-Delta" (CALFED) (Title II); ! a proposal by the Bush Administration to eliminate funding for DOE's Weatherization program for low income homes (Title III, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy); ! the Administration's request for funding of DOE's Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) nuclear weapons program, which Congress declined to fund for FY2008 (Title III, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship); ! funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and ! the Administration's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear Energy). In considering the FY2009 budget, both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees voted to report out an Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. However, neither bill reached the floor in either house. On September 24, 2008, the House passed H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, which continued appropriations for Energy and Water Development, among other programs, at the FY2008 level (with some exceptions) until March 6, 2009. The bill passed the Senate September 27 and was signed by the President September 30 (P.L. 110-329). Key Policy Staff for Energy and Water Development Appropriations Area of Expertise Name Telephone E-Mail General Carl Behrens 7-8303 cbehrens@crs.loc.gov Carol Glover 7-7353 cglover@crs.loc.gov Corps of Engineers Nicole Carter 7-0854 ncarter@crs.loc.gov Steve Hughes 7-7268 Bureau of Reclamation Nic Lane 7-7905 nlane@crs.loc.gov Betsy Cody 7-7229 bcody@crs.loc.gov Solar and Renewable Fred Sissine 7-7039 fsissine@crs.loc.gov Energy Nuclear Energy Mark Holt 7-1704 mholt@crs.loc.gov Science Programs Daniel Morgan 7-5849 dmorgan@crs.loc.gov Nuclear Weapons Jonathan Medalia 7-7632 jmedalia@crs.loc.gov Stewardship Nonproliferation and Carl Behrens 7-8303 cbehrens@crs.loc.gov Terrorism DOE Environmental David Bearden 7-2390 dbearden@crs.loc.gov Management Power Marketing Nic Lane 7-7905 nlane@crs.loc.gov Administrations Bonneville Power Nic Lane 7-7905 nlane@crs.loc.gov Administration Fossil Energy Research Anthony Andrews 7-6843 aandrews@crs.loc.gov Strategic Petroleum Robert Bamberger 7-7240 rbamberger@crs.loc.gov Reserve Energy Conservation Fred Sissine 7-7039 fsissine@crs.loc.gov Budget Data Carol Glover 7-7353 cglover@crs.loc.gov Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade; KSG = Knowledge Services Group. Contents Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Title I: Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Policy Issues -- Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration . . . . . . . 5 Project Backlog and Performance Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funding Approaches . . . . . . . . . . 6 Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . 8 Key Policy Issues -- Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 San Joaquin River Restoration Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Water for America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Key Policy Issues -- Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 23 Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Nuclear Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Loan Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Key Policy Issues -- Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 List of Tables Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2009 . . . 1 Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2002 to FY2009 . . 3 Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 14. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Energy and Water Development: FY2009 Appropriations Most Recent Developments The Administration's request for funding Energy and Water Development programs for FY2009, submitted in February 2008, totaled $31.209 billion, compared to $30.998 billion appropriated for FY2008. The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill June 25 that would have appropriated $33.811 billion for these programs. The Senate's bill, S. 3258, reported by the Appropriations Committee July 14, would have appropriated $33.767 billion. On September 24, 2008, the House passed H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, which continued appropriations for Energy and Water Development, among other programs, at the FY2008 level (with some exceptions) until March 6, 2009. The bill passed the Senate September 27 and was signed by the President September 30 (P.L. 110-329). Status Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2009 Subcommittee Markup Final Approval House House Senate Senate Conf. Public House Senate Report Passage Report Passage Report House Senate Law P.L. 110- 6/17/08 7/08/08 110-416 329* *Continuing resolution funding programs at FY2008 level until March 6, 2009. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development marked up its bill on June 17, 2008. The full Appropriations Committee approved the bill on June 25 and released the draft report of the subcommittee, along with the text of two amendments adopted by the full committee. However, neither the bill nor the report has been assigned a number yet. The figures for the House bill in this update of the CRS report are based on the draft report and the printed amendments. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out S. 3258 on July 14. The Senate figures in this update are derived from the report on that bill, S.Rept. 110-416. (See Table 1.) CRS-2 The continuing resolution (Division A of P.L. 110-329) funds these programs at the FY2008 rate. Special provisions mandate a 3.9% increase in pay rates for employees (Sec. 142), and an additional $250 million for DOE's weatherization program (Sec. 130: see "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" in Title III, below). Sec. 104 prohibits the use of funds to initiate or resume any project or activity for which funds were not available during FY2008. This provision applies to DOE's Reliable Replacement Warhead program, for which no funding was appropriated for FY2008. DOE had requested $10 million for the program for FY2009, but both the House and the Senate bills would have eliminated the program. (See "Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship: Directed Stockpile Work," below.) Sec. 129 of the continuing resolution appropriates $7.51 billion to implement Sec. 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), providing $25 billion in direct loans to automakers and parts suppliers to build new plants or modify existing plants to produce higher fuel efficiency vehicles and parts. This section requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue an interim final rule on the loan program within 60 days of enactment (by November 29, 2008). Automakers and some lawmakers have stated their desire for DOE to fully implement the program as soon as possible, and to begin issuing loans under the program soon after the 60-day deadline. However, in an exchange of letters with House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman stated that, " ... [I]t would take six to 18 months or more, after necessary funds are appropriated, before any section 136 loans could be issued and funds dispersed." Bodman's letter cited statutory requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Congressional Review Act as specific reasons for the extended implementation period.1 Division B of P.L. 110-329, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, appropriated $2,776.8 million for the Corps for emergencies and for southeast Louisiana projects. (See Title I, Army Corps of Engineers.) Overview The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Central Utah Project (CUP) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for FY2002 to FY2009. 1 Bodman, Samuel W. Letter to The Honorable John D. Dingell, dated September 24, 2008. CRS-3 Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2002 to FY2009 (budget authority in billions of current dollars) FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09c 25.2 26.1 26.7 30.2a 36.7b 29.4 30.9 30.9 Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions. a. For FY2005 and later, total includes DOE programs formerly funded in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill and transferred to the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. b. Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers. c. Requested. Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill's four titles. It also lists the total of several scorekeeping adjustments. These figures were not available for the House bill or for S. 3258. Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary ($ millions) FY2009 Title FY2008 Request House S. 3258 Final Title I: Corps of Engineers $5,587.1 $4,741.0 $5,331.0 $5,300.0 Title II: CUP & BOR 1,150.9 786.3 957.5 1,126.8 Title III: Department of Energy 24,489.1 25,917.9 27,217.4 27,016.7 Title IV: Independent Agencies 281.3 268.0 305.7 323.5 E&W Subtotal 31,508.4 31,713.2 33,811.6 33,767.0 Adjustments (510.1) (511.3) NA NA E&W Total 30,998.3 31,209.4 NA NA Sources: Administration FY2009 budget request; House Appropriations Committee draft report; S.Rept. 110-416. Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Tables 4 through 15 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for FY2008-FY2009. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles. Title I: Army Corps of Engineers The President requested $4.741 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works activities; it was less than the budget request of $4.871 billion for FY2008 and an 18% decrease from the $5.586 billion in FY2008 enacted appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee recommended a FY2009 CRS-4 budget of $5.331 billion, an 11% increase over the President's request and a 5% decrease from FY2008 enacted funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5.300 billion, which is $559 million over the President's request, and $287 million before FY2008 enacted funding. Funding for the Corps' civil works program is often a contentious issue between the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically providing more funding than requested, regardless of which political party controls the White House and Congress. The policy debate between Congress and the Administration on the level of funding and the priorities for the agency's civil works continued with the FY2009 appropriations process. The House and Senate reports indicate support for a higher level of investment in the water infrastructure, including its planning, than the Administration's budget. Generally around 85% of the appropriations for the agency is directed to specific projects. Often Congress will direct funding to projects not included in the Administration's request. Consequently, the agency's funding is often part of the debate over earmarks and congressionally requested items. Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers ($ millions) FY2009 Program FY2008 bc Requestd House S. 3258 Conf. Investigations and Planning $167.2 $91.0 $142.9 $166.0 Rescission -- -- (1.9)e -- Construction 2,289.3 1,402.0 2,070.0 2,004.5 Mississippi River & Tributaries 387.4 240.0 278.0 365.0 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 2,243.6 2,475.0 2,300.0 2,220.0 Regulatory 180.0 180.0 180.0 183.0 General Expenses 175.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 FUSRAPa 140.0 130.0 140.0 140.0 Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 (FC&CE) Office of the Asst. Secretary of the Army 4.5 6.0 5.0 4.5 Total Title I 5,587.1 4,741.0 5,331.0 5,300.0 Sources: FY2009 Budget Request, House Appropriations Committee draft report; S.Rept. 110-416. Note: The sum of line items may not match the total due to rounding. a. "Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program." b. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided funds for 2008 disasters and for improving New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which are in addition to supplemental funds provided in FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007. The $604.5 million in funds for 2008 emergencies, most notably Midwest flooding in June, were distributed across several accounts: $61.7 million for Construction, $17.6 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries, and $298.3 million for Operation and Maintenance, and $226.9 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies. The Katrina-related funds included $2,835 million for Hurricane Katrina CRS-5 related construction in the New Orleans area, and $2,962 million for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account for work in coastal Louisiana. c. The Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-329) provided $2,776.8 million in funds for emergencies and for southeast Louisiana projects. Of the $1,538.8 million for the Construction account, $1,500.0 million is to be used to cover the nonfederal cost share for southeast Louisiana projects and $38.8 million for emergency repairs cased by natural disasters. The $82.4 million for the MR&T account is for dredging and repairs of federal projects in response natural disasters. The $740.0 million for O&M is for dredging and repair of Corps projects related to natural disasters, The $415.6 million for the FC&CE account is for emergency operations, eligible repairs and other natural disaster response activities. d. The FY2009 request reflects a transfer of certain activities from the Corps construction account to its O&M account. The House Committee on Appropriations has rejected this proposal. The figures in the "House" column reflect this decision. e. The Committee recommendation reflects a rescission of $1.9 million appropriated in P.L. 110-161. Key Policy Issues -- Corps of Engineers Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration. The Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane protection system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the greater New Orleans area. To date, most of the Corps' work on the region's hurricane protection system has been funded through $14.3 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations, not through the annual appropriations process. In addition to the post-hurricane emergency repairs, these funds are being used for construction of levees, floodwalls, storm surge barriers, and pump improvements to reduce the hurricane flooding risk to the New Orleans area to a 100-year level of protection (i.e., protection against a storm surge of an intensity that has 1% probability of occurring) and to restore and complete hurricane protection in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of protection by 2011. Of the $14.3 billion, $7.3 billion was provided in FY2008 supplementals. The Administration included in its FY2009 budget a request for $5.8 billion in emergency supplemental funds to complete these construction activities and for related purposes. The request said the $7 billion in previously appropriated funds were insufficient to complete these activities because of increased costs, improved data on costs, and other factors. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided the requested $5.8 billion. As proposed by the Administration and enacted in P.L. 110-152, the State of Louisiana would be responsible for $1.3 billion as its nonfederal cost-share contribution for the work. Subsequently in the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-329), Congress provided $1.5 billion to cover the state's share. The Administration also proposed as part of its FY2009 budget request legislative language to consolidate the authorities for Corps hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans area into a single project. Consolidation would allow for the hurricane protection activities funding to be managed systematically, rather than on a project-by-project basis. Although neither P.L. 110-252 nor P.L. 110-329 provides this authority, they provide for flexibility in the expenditure and reprogramming of the funds for southeast Louisiana activities. Project Backlog and Performance Budgeting. Prior to enactment of the $23 billion Corps authorization bill -- the Water Resources Development Act CRS-6 (WRDA, P.L. 110-114) -- in November 2007, estimates of the backlog's size had varied from $11 billion to more than $60 billion, depending on which projects were included. The backlog raises policy questions, such as whether there is a disconnect between the authorization and appropriations process. The Administration developed a performance-based budgeting approach in order to identify which projects from the pool of authorized projects to include in its budget. For example, the Administration's request limited the number of new activities started to only two planning activities, and targeted projects nearing completion. The President's request would fund 79 construction projects, of which 12 are anticipated to be completed in FY2009. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees included funding for numerous projects not included in the President's request. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funding Approaches. Unlike previous budget requests, the FY2009, FY2008, and FY2007 requests did not specify the amount that individual Corps projects would receive for Operation and Maintenance (O&M). Instead, the Administration's request would have divided the country into regions and specified O&M funding for each region by six different categories of activities -- commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environment, hydropower, recreation, and water supply. The FY2009 request divides the nation into 54 river systems. Congress did not adopt the regional approach in its FY2008 funding for the Corps' O&M; instead, the conference report specified amounts for individual projects and directed the Corps to prepare integrated O&M budgets for four regions -- the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas coast, and the California coast. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' report for the FY2009 appropriations reiterated their support for a more systematic and regional approach for operation and maintenance budgeting. However, they chose not to adopt the Administration's approach due to the absence of a regional analysis of how the amounts for each of the 54 systems were derived. The earmark debate also has attracted attention to the Operation and Maintenance account. Unlike for the FY2007 and FY2008 requests, the Corps provided no estimates of how much individual projects within each of the 54 systems would receive in FY2009, until requested by congressional committees. Attempts by Congress to specify O&M amounts for individual projects may be considered congressionally directed since no amounts appear in the President's request. Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The President requested $185 million for FY2009. The agency received $131 million for FY2008 Everglades restoration activities in the omnibus report language; the FY2008 budget request had been $162 million. In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades also are funded through Department of the Interior appropriations bills. Concerns regarding the level of appropriations across the federal agencies and the State of Florida and progress in the restoration effort are discussed in CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter. The activities to be funded under the South Florida Everglades Restoration line item in the Administration's FY2009 request include Central and Southern Florida CRS-7 Project ($100 million), Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($31 million), Everglades and South Florida Restoration Projects ($4 million), and Modified Water (Mod Waters) Deliveries Project ($50 million). The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended that these projects be funded at the amounts requested, except for Mod Waters. Both reports provide no funding and reference that the funding for the project is to occur as part of the Department of the Interior budget and appropriations. FY2006 was the first year that funds for the Mod Waters project were included in the Corps budget request and enacted appropriations; previously, the project was funded solely through Department of the Interior appropriations because of its significance to Everglades National Park. The FY2008 omnibus report language noted appropriators' concerns regarding the changing design of the Mod Waters project. The report directed the Corps to submit to the Appropriations Committees its plan for completion of Mod Waters, and it provided direction to Interior regarding its funding of the project. The Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-329) directs the Corps to carry out the Tamiami Trail component of Mod Waters pursuant to an August 22008 report (For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.) Title II: Department of the Interior The Department of the Interior requested that Congress reduce funding for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account and also for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for FY2009. The total request for Title II funding was originally $961.3 million -- $189.6 million (16%) below FY2008 funding levels. However, the President submitted a budget amendment in June 2008 rescinding $175 million of BOR's budget. The revised total request for Title II is $786.3 million, 32% below FY2008 appropriations. Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account ($ millions) FY2009 Program FY2008 Request House S. 3258 Conf. Central Utah Project Construction $40.4 $39.4 $39.4 $39.4 Mitigation and Conservation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Activities Oversight & Administration 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Total, Central Utah Project 43.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 Source: FY2009 Budget Request, House Appropriations draft report, S.Rept. 110-416. CRS-8 Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ($ millions) FY2009 Program FY2008 Request House S. 3258 Conf. Water and Related Resources $949.9 $779.3 $888.0 $927.3 Policy & Administration 58.8 59.4 54.4 59.4 a b CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF) 59.1 48.6 56.1 56.1b Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED) 40.1 32.0 37.0 42.0 Desert Terminal Lakes Rescission -- (175.0)c (120.0) -- Gross Current BOR Authority 1,107.9 744.3 915.5 1,084.8 Total, Title II (CUP & BOR) 1,150.9 786.3 957.5 1,126.8 Source: FY2009 Budget Request, House Appropriations draft report, S.Rept. 110-416, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Estimate #5 -- FY 2009 Budget Amendments: 2010 Decennial Census, FDA, and Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, with Offsets (various agencies), June 9, 2008. a. This figure is BOR's net request for the CVPRF, and reflects a legislative proposal (H.R. 4074) for BOR to redirect $7.5 million collected from Friant Division water users to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. b. House appropriators indicate that Congress has not enacted the $7.5 million legislative proposal for the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, and directs BOR to expend the funds within the anadromous fish screening program. Senate appropriators also note that legislation authorizing a transfer of $7.5 million to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund has not been enacted, but have included language to allow the use of the $7.5 million under existing authorities in the event that the legislative proposal is not enacted. c. The president proposed a $175 million rescission to BOR's budget on June 9, 2008. See Office of Management and Budget, FY2009 Estimate No. 5. Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief The Administration requested $42.0 million for the CUP Completion Account for FY2009 (Table 5). The amended FY2009 request for BOR totals $744.3 million in gross current budget authority (Table 6). This amount is $363.6 million less than enacted for FY2008. The FY2009 request included "offsets" of $48.3 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund (Congress does not list this line item as an offset and it is not included in Table 6), as well as a $175.0 million rescission proposed in a budget amendment submitted by the President, yielding a "net" current authority of $696.0 million for BOR. The total amended budget request for Title II funding -- Central Utah Project and BOR -- is $786.3 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommends $42 million, the amount requested, for CUP funding (Table 5) for FY2009. The Committee's recommendation for BOR programs (Table 6) is $915.5 million, $171.2 million more than the President's amended FY2009 request. The Committee recommends a $120.0 million rescission, $55.0 million lower than the President's request. CRS-9 The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommends $42 million for FY2009 CUP funding (Table 5). The Committee's recommendation for the remaining Title II programs (Table 6) is $1,084.8 million, $340.5 million more than the President's amended FY2009 request, and $169.3 million more than recommended by House appropriators. The Senate does not include a rescission in its recommendations. BOR's single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency's traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others. The Administration requested $779.3 million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2009 (Table 6). This amount is $170.6 million (18%) less than enacted for FY2008. The House Committee on Appropriations recommends a total of $888.0 million for the Water and Related Resources account, $108.7 million above the FY2009 request of $779.3. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $927.3 million for Water and Related Resources, $39.3 million more than the House recommendation. There are a number of programs whose funding recommendations differ between House and Senate appropriators; however, the single largest difference appears to be for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin's Garrison Diversion Unit. For this line item the Senate recommends $64.4 million and the House recommends $18.5 million -- a difference of $45.9 million. Key Policy Issues -- Bureau of Reclamation Background. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the assistance of, the BOR. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, BOR's mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. BOR is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. BOR facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife species and conflicts among competing water users. CALFED. The Administration requested $32.0 million for the California Bay- Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2009 (Table 6). This request is nearly identical to BOR's FY2008 request of $31.8 million, and is approximately $8.0 million less than the $40.1 million enacted for FY2008. The bulk of the requested funds is targeted at four program areas: the environmental water account, the storage program, water quality, and conveyance. The remainder of the request is allocated for science, planning and management, and ecosystem restoration. CRS-10 The House Committee on Appropriations recommends $37.0 million for CALFED in FY2009. The increase of $5.0 million in this account matches a $5.0 million decrease recommended by the Committee for BOR's Policy and Administration account. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $42.0 million for CALFED funding in FY2009. This recommendation is $10.0 million more than the President's request, and a $5.0 million increase over the House recommendation. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.) San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. BOR is proposing an allocation of $17.3 million to the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund in FY2009. The Fund would be authorized by the enactment of H.R. 4074, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Fund would implement provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit and would be funded through the combination of a reallocation of $7.5 million in receipts from the Friant Division water users (see Table 6, note a) and other federal and non-federal sources. In its FY2008 budget request, BOR also planned for the redirection of $7.5 million in receipts from the Friant Division water users; however, authorizing legislation was not enacted and the $7.5 million planned for the Fund was reallocated to other Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund programs. For FY2009, House appropriators state that Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing the $7.5 million proposal for the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund and direct BOR to expend the $7.5 million in anticipated transferred receipts within its anadromous fish screening program under the CVP Restoration Fund. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also notes that legislation authorizing legislation for a transfer of $7.5 million to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund has not been enacted. Thus, the Senate Committee includes language to allow the use of the $7.5 million under BOR's existing authorities in the event that the legislative proposal is not enacted. (For more information on the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report RL34237, San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, by Betsy A. Cody, et al.) Security. Under BOR's Water and Related Resources account, the Administration requested $29.0 million for site security for FY2009, a decrease of $6.5 million compared with that requested for FY2007. The bulk of the request is for facility operations/security. Funding covers activities such as administration of the security program (e.g., surveillance and law enforcement), antiterrorism activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland.) The FY2009 request assumes that annual costs for guard and patrol activities will be treated as project O&M costs, and hence reimbursable based on project cost allocations. These costs were estimated to be $20.1 million in FY2009, of which $12.2 million would be in up-front funding from power customers, and $7.9 million would be appropriated funds which are reimbursed by irrigation, municipal, and industrial users and other customers. CRS-11 The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each recommend $29.0 million for site security in FY2009, matching the amount requested by the President. Water for America. BOR proposes funding a new program for FY2009. The Water for America Initiative, part of BOR's Water and Related Resources budget account, would be a partnership between BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). BOR indicates that the Water for America Initiative is meant to address increased demand, aging infrastructure, and decreased or changed water availability -- factors that BOR has identified as threats to its ability to continue to provide water to the West. The initiative would subsume two existing BOR programs: Water 2025 and the Water Conservation Field Services program. BOR's funding request for its portion of the program is $31.9 million ($19 million appears under a Water for America line item, and the remaining $12.9 million is included in specific programs for endangered species and other programs). These funds would be used to address two of the program's three strategies: "Plan for Our Nation's Water Future," and "Expand, Protect, and Conserve Our Nation's Water Resources." The third strategic thrust of the initiative, to be addressed by USGS, is "Enhance Our Nation's Water Knowledge." BOR proposes to apply $8.0 million in FY2009 toward activities that fall under the "Plan for Our Nation's Water Future" thrust. This funding would be divided equally between basin studies (two or three comprehensive water supply and demand studies) and investigations (with a focus on analyzing and developing new water supplies). The balance of BOR's funding request for this initiative, $23.9 million, would be devoted to the "Expand, Protect, and Conserve Our Nation's Water Resources" effort. Within this subset of funding is $11.0 million for challenge grants, $4.0 million for the Water Conservation Field Services program, and $8.9 million for endangered species recovery activities. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations both recommend the amount requested, $19.0 million, for the Water for America Initiative line item in FY2009. The total request for the Water for America Initiative was $31.9 million and it is unclear if the $12.9 million balance of the program is funded. Within BOR's budget, $19.0 million appears under a Water for America line item, while the remaining $12.9 million is included in programs for endangered species and other activities. House and Senate appropriators have fully funded an FY2009 request of $22.0 million for Endangered Species Recovery Implementation, which may include the endangered species component of Water for America. Title III: Department of Energy The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE's programs since FY2005. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs, and now includes programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and CRS-12 energy statistics, which formerly had been included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Administration's FY2009 request for DOE programs was $25.9179 billion, compared with $24.3780 billion appropriated for FY2008. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $27.2174 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $27.0417 billion. Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ($ millions) FY2009 Program FY2008 Request House Senate Conf. Energy Supply & Conservation Energy Efficiency & Renewables $1,722.4 $1,255.4 $2,531.1 $1,982.3 Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 138.6 134.0 149.3 166.9 Nuclear Energy 961.7 853.6 1,238.9 803.0 Legacy Management 33.9 -- -- -- Total, Energy Supply & Conservation 2,856.5 2,243.0 3,919.2 2,998.2 Fossil Energy R&D 742.8 754.0 853.6 876.7 Clean Coal Technology (Deferral) (57.0) -- -- -- Naval Petrol. & Oil Shale Reserves 20.3 19.1 19.1 19.1 Strategic Petroleum Reserve 186.8 344.0 172.6 205.0 Northeast Home Heating Oil Rsrv. 12.3 9.8 9.8 9.8 Energy Information Administration 95.5 110.6 120.6 110.6 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup 182.3 213.4 257.0 269.4 Uranium Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 622.2 480.3 529.3 515.3 Science CRS-13 FY2009 Program FY2008 Request House Senate Conf. High Energy Physics 688.3 805.0 805.0 805.0 Nuclear Physics 432.7 510.1 517.1 510.1 Basic Energy Sciences 1,269.9 1,568.2 1,599.7 1,415.4 Bio. & Env. R&D 544.4 568.5 578.5 568.5 Fusion 286.5 493.1 499.1 493.1 Advanced Scientific Computing 351.2 368.8 378.8 368.8 Cong. Directed Proj. 123.6 -- 39.7 58.5 Other 326.3 408.4 458.9 391.1 Adjustments (5.6) -- (15.0) -- Total, Science 4,017.7 4,722.0 4,861.7 4,640.5 Nuclear Waste Disposal 187.3 247.4 247.4 195.4 Departmental Admin. (net) 148.4 154.8 154.8 154.8 Office of Inspector General 46.1 51.9 51.9 51.9 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee 46.5 380.0 465.0 380.0 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons 6,297.5 6,618.1 6,036.6 6,524.6 Nuclear 1,336.0 1,247.0 1,530.0 1,909.1 Nonproliferation Naval Reactors 774.7 828.1 828.1 828.1 Office of 402.2 404.1 428.6 404.1 Administrator Total, NNSA 8,810.3 9,097.3 8,823.2 9,665.8 Defense Environmental 5,349.3 5,297.3 5,425.2 5,771.5 Cleanup Other Defense 754.4 1,313.5 826.5 827.5 Activities Defense Nuclear 199.2 247.4 247.4 193.4 Waste Disposal CRS-14 FY2009 Program FY2008 Request House Senate Conf. Total, Defense 15,113.1 15,955.4 15,322.3 16,457.8 Activities Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) Southeastern 6.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Southwestern 30.2 28.4 28.4 28.4 Western 228.9 193.3 193.3 218.3 Falcon & Armistad 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 O&M Total, PMAs 267.9 232.1 232.1 257.1 FERC 260.4 273.4 273.4 257.1 (revenues) (260.4) (273.4) (273.4) (257.1) Total, Title III 24,378.0 25,917.9 27,217.4 27,041.7 Source: FY2009 Budget Request; House Appropriations Committee draft report; S.Rept. 110-416. Key Policy Issues -- Department of Energy DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the following pages, the most important programs are described and major issues are identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The President's 2008 State of the Union address set out goals to strengthen energy security and confront global climate change, and stated that "... the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology."2 As part of that effort, the Administration proposes to continue its support for the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI, an element of the American Competitiveness Initiative), which aims to reduce America's dependence on imported energy sources. The AEI includes hydrogen, biofuels, and solar energy initiatives that are supported by programs in EERE.3 According to the FY2009 budget document, the Hydrogen Initiative has a long- term aim of developing hydrogen technology, and to "enable industry to commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2020." The Biofuels Initiative seeks to make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012 using 2 The White House. State of the Union 2008. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2008/01/print/20080128-13.html] 3 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix, p. 390. Also see DOE, FY2007 Congressional Budget Request: Budget Highlights, p. 41. CRS-15 a wide array of regionally available biomass sources. The Solar America Initiative aims to "... accelerate the market competitiveness of photovoltaic systems using several industry-led consortia which are focused on lowering the cost of solar energy through manufacturing and efficiency improvements."4 Further, the proposed FY2009 federal budget sets a goal of making solar power "cost-competitive with conventional [sources of] electricity by 2015."5 As Table 8 shows, DOE's FY2009 request contains $1,255.4 million for the EERE programs. Compared to the FY2008 appropriation, the FY2009 request would reduce EERE funding by $467.0 million, or 27.1%. Three proposed cuts would comprise most of this reduction. First, the request would eliminate $186.7 million in congressionally directed assistance. Second, it would reduce Facilities construction spending by $57.3 million.6 Third, the request would cut $227.2 million in funding to terminate the Weatherization Assistance Program, citing a higher benefit-cost ratio for technology programs than for the Weatherization Program.7 A major study of the program's benefits and costs in 1989 was published in 1993. In 2007, DOE launched a plan for a comprehensive review of program benefits and costs based on data collected during program year (PY) 2006.8 At February 2008 hearings on the FY2009 DOE budget request, concerns were raised about DOE's proposed termination of that program.9 4 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Appendix, p. 393. 5 Ibid., p. 59. 6 Facilities funding for construction tends to be provided in a lump sum. No major construction projects would be cancelled as a result of this proposed reduction. 7 DOE states that "EERE's Energy Efficiency portfolio has historically provided approximately a 20 to 1 benefit to cost ratio. In comparison, Weatherization has a benefit cost ratio of 1.53 to 1." DOE, FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 3, p. 44. 8 The 1993 study and the 2007 plan are discussed in DOE. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. National Evaluation of the Weatherization Assistance Program: Preliminary Evaluation Plan for Program Year 2006. February 2007. p. 1. 9 The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the DOE FY2009 Budget Request on February 6, 2008. [http://energy.senate.gov/public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1673]. The House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held its hearing on February 7, 2007. [http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml] CRS-16 Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ($ millions) House Senate FY2009 Appr. Appr. Senate- Program FY2007 FY2008 Request Cmte. Cmte. House Local Gov./Tribal Tech. -- -- -- -- 50.0 50.00 Demonstration Program Hydrogen Technologies $189.5 $211.1 $146.2 $170.0 175.0 5.00 Biomass & Biorefinery Systems 196.3 198.2 225.0 250.0 235.0 -15.00 Solar Energy 157.0 168.5 156.1 220.0 229.0 9.00 -- Photovoltaics 138.4 136.7 137.1 -- -- -- Wind Energy 48.7 49.5 52.5 53.0 62.5 9.50 Geothermal Technology 5.0 19.8 30.0 50.0 30.0 -20.0 Water Power (Hydro/Ocean) 0.0 9.9 3.0 40.0 30.0 -10.0 Subtotal, Renew. & Hydrogen 596.5 657.0 612.8 783.0 761.5 -21.5 Vehicle Technologies 183.6 213.0 221.1 317.5 293.0 -24.5 Building Technologies 103.0 109.0 123.8 168.0 176.5 8.5 Industrial Technologies 55.8 64.4 62.1 100.0 65.1 -34.9 Federal Energy Management 19.5 19.8 22.0 30.0 22.0 -8.0 Subtotal, Efficiency R&D 361.8 406.3 429.0 615.5 556.6 -58.9 Facilities & Infrastructure 107.0 76.2 14.0 33.0 37.0 4.0 Program Management 110.2 114.9 141.8 147.6 136.8 -10.8 R&D Subtotal 1,175.5 1,254.3 1,197.6 1,579.1 1,541.9 -37.2 Federal Assistance -- Weatherization Grants 204.6 227.2 0.0 250.0 201.2 -48.8 -- State Energy Grants 58.8 44.1 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 -- Renewables Deployment 18.4 10.9 8.5 18.0 11.0 -7.0 Federal Assistance Subtotal 281.7 282.2 58.5 318.0 262.2 -55.8 EISA Assistance Program -- -- -- 500.0 0.0 -500.0 b Cong.-Directed Assistance 0.0 186.7 0.0 134.7 124.2 -10.5 Prior Year Balances -- (0.7) -0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.7 Total Appropriation 1,457.2 1,722.4 1,255.4 2,531.1 1,928.3 -602.8 Office of Electricity Delivery & 134.4 138.6 134.0 149.3 166.9 17.7 Energy Reliability (OE)a Sources: DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; Joint Explanatory Statement on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Cong. Record, Dec. 17, 2007, p. H15587 and H15940); DOE FY2009 Request; House Appropriations Committee draft report; S.Rept. 110-416. a. The Distributed Energy Program was moved from EERE to OE in FY2006. b. In FY2006, there was $159.0 million in congressionally-directed funds spread over EERE accounts. For FY2008, the House approved (H.Rept. 110-185, part 2) $104.3 million for congressionally directed assistance to be taken from available funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $90.3 million in assistance, to be provided from a separate (new) account line. CRS-17 In contrast to the Administration's request, the House Appropriations Committee recommends $2,531.1 million for DOE's EERE programs in FY2009. This would be a $808.7 million (47%) increase over the FY2008 appropriation and a $1,275.7 million (102%) increase over the DOE request. Compared with the request, the Committee recommendation would embrace a $381.5 million increase for R&D programs. Further, the Committee would provide $259.2 million more for energy assistance programs, of which $250.0 million would go to the Weatherization Program -- in sharp contrast to DOE's proposal to eliminate it. Also, the Committee recommends $500.0 million for new assistance programs authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA, P.L. 110-140). As a major initiative, the Committee recommends $500.0 million as "initial program investment" for several new programs authorized by EISA. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EISA, §541-548) would receive $295.0 million in start-up funding. The Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Program (EISA §244) would get $25.0 million to begin grant-giving operations. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program (EISA §136[b]) would receive $30.0 million for grants to help convert factories to produce more efficient vehicles. Also, $1 billion in loan authority would be provided for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (EISA §136[d]). Aside from the $500.0 million initiative, some additional EISA-related funding would be provided under the technology programs. The most notable examples are $25 million for the production of advanced biofuels (EISA §207) under the Biomass and Biorefinery Program and $33 million for zero net energy commercial buildings (EISA §422) under the Buildings Program. The Committee recommends $134.7 million for Congressionally Directed Assistance. In addition to funding recommendations, the House Appropriations Committee report includes three policy directives for DOE. First, DOE would be required to report annually on the return on investment for each of the major EERE program funding accounts. Second, DOE would be directed to make up to $20 million of EERE funds available for "projects at the local level capable of reducing electricity demand." Each project would involve multiple technologies and public-private partnerships. Priority would go to projects that have a substantial local cost-share, help reduce water use, or curb greenhouse gas emissions. Third, DOE would be required to implement "an aggressive program" of minority outreach at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and at Hispanic Serving Institutions to deepen the recruiting pool of scientific and technical persons available to support the growing renewable energy marketplace. CRS-18 The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $1,928.3 million for EERE,10 which is $205.9 million (12.0%) more than the FY2008 appropriation and $672.9 million (53.6%) more than the request. Compared with the House Appropriations Committee report, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $602.8 million, or 23.8%, less for EERE programs. The main difference ($450.0 million) is that the House Appropriations Committee proposes an increase of $500.0 million for a new EISA Federal Assistance Program, while the Senate Appropriations Committee proposes an increase of $50.0 million for a new Local Government/Tribal Technology Demonstration Program. Further, the Senate report recommends less funding than the House report for several technology programs. Relative to the House Committee report figures, the Senate Committee report's proposed decreases for renewable energy R&D include Geothermal (-$20.0 million), Bioenergy (-$15.0 million), and Water Energy (-$10.0 million). The major decreases for energy efficiency include Weatherization (-$48.8 million), Industrial Technologies (-$34.9) million, and Vehicle Technologies (-$24.5 million). The continuing resolution (Division A of P.L. 110-329) funds these programs at the FY2008 rate. Special provisions mandate an additional $250 million for DOE's weatherization program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $124.2 million for Congressionally Directed Projects. In general, both committee reports recommend higher funding levels than the request. In particular, each includes more than $200 million for the Weatherization Program. Both committees disagree with the DOE request to fund the Asia Pacific Partnership,11 and neither committee recommends funding it. Both committees call for the Biomass program to emphasize the use of non-food sources for the development of biofuels. The Senate Committee report further stresses R&D efforts to focus on algae as a biofuels source. Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. The FY2009 request includes $134.0 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). The House Appropriations Committee recommends $149.3 million, which is $15.3 million more than the request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $166.9 million, which is $17.7 million more than the House Appropriations 10 The Senate Appropriations Committee report directs that $59.5 million of a proposed $72.9 million increase for the Solar Energy Program, will be provided by a transfer from the Basic Energy Sciences Program under the Office of Science. 11 DOE Request, p. 482-483. The Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) is a multinational undertaking that the federal government supports through several agencies. The Department of State is the lead agency for APP. DOE's request for APP in FY2009 would support new renewable power generating capacity, best manufacturing practices for targeted industries, and best design and construction practices for buildings and efficient appliance standards. During debate over the FY2008 request for EERE, the Administration threatened to veto the appropriations bill, in part, due to the lack of funding for APP. CRS-19 Committee recommends. For OE congressionally directed projects, the House Committee report calls for $5.3 million, while the Senate Committee report seeks $12.9 million. Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development -- including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology and facilities, nuclear hydrogen production, and infrastructure support -- the House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.317 billion for FY2009. DOE had requested $1.419 billion, about 40% higher than the FY2008 appropriation of $1.033 billion. The FY2009 request includes an 80% increase in assistance for new commercial reactor orders (Nuclear Power 2010), a 70% increase for nuclear spent fuel reprocessing R&D (the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative), and a 75% boost for a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility to make fuel from surplus weapons plutonium. Those activities are funded by various appropriations accounts through DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to fully fund the MOX project at the Administration's request of $487.0 million but place it under the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. As a result, the Senate panel's funding total for the Office of Nuclear Energy is $803.0 million, $50.6 million below the comparable request and $120.1 million above the comparable FY2008 level. According to DOE's FY2009 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program is intended "to develop new nuclear energy generation technologies to meet energy and climate goals." However, opponents have criticized DOE's nuclear research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and economically uncompetitive. The increased funding sought for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) would help implement the Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP is intended to develop technologies for recycling uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel without creating pure plutonium that could be readily used for nuclear weapons. According to DOE's budget justification, such technologies could allow greater expansion of nuclear power throughout the world "with reduced risk of nuclear weapons proliferation."12 But nuclear opponents dispute DOE's contention that nuclear recycling technology can be made sufficiently proliferation-resistant for widespread use. The House Appropriations Committee sharply criticized GNEP as "rushed, poorly-defined, expansive, and expensive," and eliminated all funding for the program. On the other hand, the House panel dramatically boosted funding for advanced nuclear reactors, which the Administration had proposed cutting. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mention GNEP, but provided $50.3 million of the Administration's proposed $122.1 million increase for AFCI. 12 Department of Energy, FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request, February 2008, Vol. 3, p. 691. CRS-20 Nuclear Power 2010. President Bush's specific mention of "emissions-free nuclear power" in his 2008 State of the Union address reiterated the Administration's interest in encouraging construction of new commercial reactors -- for which there have been no U.S. orders since 1978. DOE's efforts to restart the nuclear construction pipeline have been focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which will pay up to half of the nuclear industry's costs of seeking regulatory approval for new reactor sites, applying for new reactor licenses, and preparing detailed plant designs. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which includes the Standby Support Program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) to pay for regulatory delays, is intended to encourage near-term orders for advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants. Two industry consortia are receiving DOE assistance over the next several years to design and license new nuclear power plants. DOE awarded the first funding to the consortia in 2004. DOE requested $241.6 million for Nuclear Power 2010 for FY2009, an increase of $107.8 million from the FY2008 funding level. According to DOE's budget justification, the additional funding would be used to accelerate the first-of-a-kind design activities for the two reactors being planned by the two industry consortia, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor and the General Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). The House Appropriations Committee recommended holding the program's FY2009 funding level to $157.3 million, which the panel said was DOE's previous planning level. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the full request. The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program are intended to test the "one-step" licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). Under the process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may grant a combined construction permit and operating license (COL) that allows a completed plant to begin operation if all construction criteria have been met. Even if the licenses are granted by NRC, the industry consortia funded by DOE have not committed to building new reactors. Two consortia are receiving Nuclear Power 2010 assistance: ! A consortium led by Dominion Resources that is preparing a COL for the GE ESBWR. The proposed reactor would be located at Dominion's existing North Anna plant in Virginia, where the company received an NRC early-site permit with DOE assistance. Dominion Energy submitted a COL application for a new unit at North Anna on November 27, 2007. ! A consortium called NuStart Energy Development, which includes Exelon and several other major nuclear utilities. NuStart announced on September 22, 2005, that it would seek a COL for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the site of TVA's uncompleted Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama and for an ESBWR at the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is providing funding for review and approval of the Bellefonte COL, which was submitted to NRC on October 30, 2007. CRS-21 Generation IV. Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment are the focus of DOE's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, for which $70.0 million was requested for FY2009. The request is $44.9 million below the FY2008 funding level of $114.9 million, which was nearly triple the Administration's FY2008 budget request of $36.1 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended an increase to $200.0 million, while the Senate panel recommended the requested level. Most of the FY2009 request -- $59.5 million -- is for Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) research and development, which received an FY2008 appropriation of $114.1 million. Under DOE's current plans, NGNP will use Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology, which features helium as a coolant and coated-particle fuel that can withstand temperatures up to 1,600 degrees celsius. Phase I research on the NGNP is to continue until 2011, when a decision will be made on moving to the Phase II design and construction stage, according to the FY2009 DOE budget justification. The House Appropriations Committee provided $196.0 million "to accelerate work" on NGNP -- all but $4.0 million of the Committee's total funding level for the Generation IV program. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $1.25 billion through FY2015 for NGNP development and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization requires that NGNP be based on research conducted by the Generation IV program and be capable of producing electricity, hydrogen, or both. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. According to the DOE budget justification, AFCI is intended to develop and demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel and recover additional energy. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for reuse in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. Much of the program's research will focus on a separations technology called UREX+, in which uranium and other elements are chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel, leaving a mixture of plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. The FY2009 AFCI funding request is $301.5 million, nearly 70% above the FY2008 appropriation of $179.4 million but below the FY2008 request of $395.0 million. AFCI, the primary technology component of the GNEP program, includes R&D on reprocessing technology and fast reactors that could use reprocessed plutonium. The House Appropriations Committee recommended cutting AFCI to $90.0 million in FY2009, eliminating all funding for GNEP. The remaining funds would be used for research on advanced fuel cycle technology, but none could be used for design or construction of new facilities. The Committee urged DOE to continue coordinating its fuel cycle research with other countries that already have spent fuel recycling capability, but not with "countries aspiring to have nuclear capabilities." The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $229.7 million for AFCI, focusing on advanced fuel separation and fuel fabrication. CRS-22 FY2009 funding of $10.4 million was requested for conceptual design work on an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF) to provide an engineering-scale demonstration of AFCI technologies, according to the budget justification. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations act rejected funding for development of AFCF, as did the House Appropriations Committee for FY2009. Removing uranium from spent fuel would eliminate most of the volume of spent nuclear fuel that would otherwise require disposal in a deep geologic repository, which DOE is developing at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The UREX+ process also could reduce the heat generated by nuclear waste -- the major limit on the repository's capacity -- by removing cesium and strontium for separate storage and decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements would be fissioned in accelerators or fast reactors to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear waste. Even if technically feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste processing has yet to be determined, and it still faces significant opposition on nuclear nonproliferation grounds. Nevertheless, proponents believe the process is proliferation-resistant, because further purification would be required to make the plutonium useable for weapons and because the high radioactivity of the plutonium mixtures would make the material difficult to divert or work with. Under the Administration's GNEP initiative, plutonium partially separated from the highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors would be recycled into new fuel to expand the future supply of nuclear fuel and potentially reduce the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed of in a permanent repository. Under the initial concept for GNEP, the United States and other advanced nuclear nations would lease new fuel to other nations that agreed to forgo uranium enrichment, spent fuel recycling (also called reprocessing), and other fuel cycle facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons materials. The leased fuel would then be returned to supplier nations for reprocessing. Solidified high-level reprocessing waste would be sent back to the nation that had used the leased fuel, along with supplies of fresh nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty guarantees the right of all participants to develop fuel cycle facilities, and a GNEP Statement of Principles signed by the United States and 15 other countries on September 16, 2007, preserves that right, while encouraging the establishment of a "viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies."13 Although GNEP is largely conceptual at this point, DOE issued a Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan in May 2006 that provided a general schedule for a GNEP Technology Demonstration Program (TDP),14 which would develop the necessary technologies to achieve GNEP's goals. According to the Program Plan, the first phase of the TDP, running through FY2006, consisted of "program definition and development" and acceleration of AFCI. Phase 2, running through FY2008, was to focus on the design of technology demonstration facilities, which then were to begin operating during Phase 3, from FY2008 to FY2020. The National Academy of Sciences in October 2007 strongly criticized DOE's "aggressive" deployment 13 See GNEP website at [http://www.gnep.energy.gov] 14 DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, Report to Congress, May 2006. CRS-23 schedule for GNEP and recommended that the program instead focus on research and development.15 As part of GNEP, AFCI is conducting R&D on an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) that could destroy recycled plutonium and other long-lived radioactive elements. DOE requested $18.0 million for the ABR program for FY2009, up from $11.7 million in FY2008. The program is expected to focus on developing a sodium- cooled fast reactor (SFR). The House Appropriations Committee recommended no FY2009 funding for the ABR. (For more information about GNEP and reprocessing, see CRS Report RL34579, Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options, by Mark Holt.) Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In support of President Bush's program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE requested $16.6 million for FY2009 for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, about 67% above the FY2008 funding level but below the FY2007 appropriation. The House Appropriations Committee provided the full FY2009 request, while the Senate panel recommended $10.0 million -- slightly above the FY2008 level. According to DOE's FY2009 budget justification, the program will continue laboratory-scale experiments to allow selection by 2011 of a hydrogen-production technology for pilot-scale demonstration by 2013. Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. DOE requested $487.0 million for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina -- a 75% increase from the FY2008 funding level. The multi-billion-dollar facility is intended to convert surplus weapons plutonium into oxide form and then blend it with uranium oxide to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations act shifted funding for the project to the DOE nuclear energy program from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. For FY2009, DOE proposes to shift the program's funding to the Other Defense Activities account. The House Appropriations Committee provided the full request, but recommended that the funding remain under the nuclear energy account. The Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended the full request but transferred the project back to the nuclear nonproliferation program. (For more details, see "Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship: Directed Stockpile Work," below.) Integrated University Program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the establishment of an Integrated University Program to support university research in the nuclear field and to provide grants to help maintain university nuclear science and engineering programs. Under the Committee recommendation, $15.0 million each would be appropriated to the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for a total of $45.0 million. Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Bush Administration has requested $765.3 million for the Fossil Energy Research and Development budget in FY2009, to be offset by use of $11.3 million in prior year 15 National Academy of Sciences, Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program, prepublication draft, October 2007. CRS-24 balances (resulting in a request for appropriation of $754 million). The administration also requests $149 million deferred as unobligated balances to FY2009, and $166 million in uncommitted balances be transferred from Clean Coal Technology to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen). The total request represents a 33% increase over the FY2008 request of $566.8 million (see Table 9). Under the FY2009 request, programs in Natural Gas Technology, Petroleum-Oil Technology, and Cooperative R&D would be left unfunded. DOE had proposed terminating programs in Natural Gas Technology and Petroleum-Oil Technology in FY2008. OMB rated both programs as ineffective based on its Program Assessment Rating Tool. Nor had DOE requested funding for Plant and Capital Equipment or the Cooperative Research and Development program (believing that research center sponsored work can compete for Fossil Energy funding through the competitive solicitation process, DOE had not requested funding in FY2007 or FY2008). Congress reinstated the funding of these programs in FY2008. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $853.6 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development Programs, a 13.8% increase over the request, of which $149 million would be derived by transfer from prior year unobligated Clean Coal Technology balances (deferred earlier by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) ), and $11.3 million in prior year balances from completed or cancelled construction balances. Major funding categories include the newly created Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative ($241 million), which consolidates the former Clean Coal Power Initiative and the FutureGen project; Carbon Sequestration ($220 million); Fuels and Power Systems ($220.6 million); Petroleum- Oil Technologies ($3 million); Natural Gas Technologies ($25 million); Liquefied Natural Gas Report; Program Direction ($126.3 million); Other ($15.4 million); and Congressionally Directed Projects ($13.7 million). The Senate Committee on Appropriations in its report accompanying S. 3258, recommends increasing the President's budget request by $122.7 billion to accelerate Carbon Sequestration development for a total of $876.7 billion. The Committee recommends spending $232.3 million on the Clean Coal Power Initiative; no funding of the FutureGen account; $412.1 million on Fuels and Power Systems; $20 million on Natural Gas Technologies; $5 million on Oil Technologies; $152.8 million on Program Direction; $9.7 million on Other Programs, and $32.7 million on Congressionally directed programs. The former FutureGen project was intended to demonstrate clean coal-based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation through capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions. In early 2008, after cost estimates for the project escalated to $1.8 billion, DOE announced that it would restructure the program to focus exclusively on commercial application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies for IGCC or other advanced clean coal-based power generation technology.16 Under the "Restructured FutureGen" program DOE proposes a cost- shared collaboration with industry and anticipates making a number of awards ranging from $100 million-$600 million (DOE share). The House Appropriations Committee directs DOE to merge FutureGen and the Clean Coal Power Initiative into 16 Announced June 24, 2008, in Funding Opportunity Number DE-PS26-08NT00496. CRS-25 a single solicitation for a Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative and establishes it as new appropriations control level. Under the Title VII Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110- 140), $241 million is made available for carbon capture and demonstration. Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development ($ millions) FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 FY2009 Request Approp. Request House Senate Clean Coal Technology Deferred Unobligated Balance 149.0 149.0 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D -149.0 -149.0 Fossil Energy R&D Program Clean Coal Power Initiative 73.0 70.0 85.0 0.0 232.3 FutureGen 108.0 75.0 156.0 0.0 0.0 Fuels and Power Systems - Innovations for Existing Plants 36.4 40.0 40.0 50.0 - Advanced IGCC 54.0 69.0 60.0 63.0 - Advanced Turbines 24.0 28.0 24.0 30.0 - Carbon Sequestration 120.0 149.1 -- 149.1 - Fuels 25.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 - Fuel Cell 56.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 - Advanced Research 37.5 26.6 26.6 30.0 Subtotal 245.6 352.9 382.7 220.6 412.1 Carbon Sequestration (new) 220.0 Carbon Capture Demo. Int. (new) 241.0 -- Natural Gas Technologies -- 20.0 0.0 25.0 20.0 Petroleum-Oil Technologies - Stripper Well Consortium 1.5 1.0 3.8 - Risk based Data Management 1.2 2.0 1.2 Subtotal -- 5.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 Program Direction 130.0 150.0 126.2 126.2 152.8 Other Plant and Capital Equipment -- 13.0 5.0 5.0 17.7 Fossil Energy Environ. Restoration 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.7 Special Recruitment Program 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Cooperative R&D 5.0 -- -- 5.0 Subtotal 10.2 28.2 15.3 15.3 33.0 Cong. Directed Projects -- 48.0 -- 13.7 32.7 Prior Year balance -11.3 -11.3 -11.3 Total 566.8 * 750.0 754.0 853.6 876.7 *Does not reflect a 0.91% across-the-board rescission in accordance with P.L.110-161 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. CRS-26 Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas in which nearly 700 million barrels of crude oil are stored. Its current capacity is 727 million barrels, and it is authorized at 1 billion barrels. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration. The NHOR houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Appropriations for the purchase of oil for the SPR ceased in the mid-1990s. Beginning in FY1999, any fill of the SPR was with deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil to the SPR, in lieu of cash royalties on offshore production paid to the federal government. Through FY2007, royalty-in-kind deliveries to the SPR totaled roughly 140 million barrels and forgone receipts to the Department of the Interior were estimated at $4.6 billion. DOE estimated that deliveries of RIK oil during FY2008 would be roughly 19.1 million barrels and $1.170 billion in forgone revenues. However, on May 13, 2008, the House and Senate passed H.R. 6022, suspending RIK fill. President Bush signed the legislation into law (P.L. 110-232) on May 19. A few days earlier, on May 16, DOE announced it would not accept bids for an additional 13 million barrels of RIK oil that had been intended for delivery during the second half of 2008. The Administration request for FY2009 for the SPR was $346.9 million. As in its FY2008 request, the Administration was seeking funding to expand the capacity of the SPR to 1 billion barrels by (1) adding 115 million barrels of capacity at three existing sites; and (2) establishing a new site, in Richton, Mississippi, where 160 million barrels of capacity would be created. The request included $169.7 million for expansion activities. Included as well in the request was $13.5 million to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review process for expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels, a level not yet authorized by Congress but strongly supported by the Administration. Congress approved nearly $25 million in the FY2008 budget for land acquisition at the Richton site but otherwise expressed opposition to funding expansion. Congress approved funding of $186.8 million for FY2008; the Administration had requested $331.6 million. In its report on the FY2008 appropriations bill, the House Committee on Appropriations noted an estimate that it would cost $10 billion to create additional capacity and $105 billion to fill it, and that expansion would not be completed until 2027. The Committee indicated that the benefits of doubling the size of the Reserve were not "commensurate with this enormous cost." For FY2009, the Committee did not alter its position. The Committee recommended funding for FY2009 at $172.6 million, including the use of $2.9 million of prior year balances. The recommendation is $171.4 million less than the Administration request. CRS-27 The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $205 million for FY2009, including $31.5 million "to initiate new site expansion activities and support beyond land acquisition." This would include further work at the Richton site to prepare for the creation of storage capacity. The Administration requested $9.8 million for the NHOR in FY2009, a reduction of $2.5 million from the FY2008 enactment, principally due to a reduction in the need for funds for repurchasing heating oil that was sold during FY2007 to finance new storage contracts. Both House and Senate committees agreed to the Administration request. Science. The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences, high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs, DOE is the third-largest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences.17 For FY2009, DOE has requested $4.722 billion for Science, an increase of 18% from the FY2008 amount of $4.018 billion. This unusually large increase reflects the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which President Bush announced in January 2006. Over 10 years, the ACI would double the combined R&D funding of the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies. The House committee recommended $4.862 billion for Science. The Senate committee recommended $4.640 billion. The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, is $1.568 billion, up 23% from FY2008. Increases include $153 million for a new program of Energy Frontier Research Centers,18 $66 million to initiate construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and $73 million to expand facility operating time. The House and Senate appropriations reports for FY2006 both called for an increase for facility operating time. Increases were proposed in the FY2007 and FY2008 budget requests and funded in the House and Senate appropriations bills for those years, but were not ultimately included in either the FY2007 or the FY2008 appropriation. (The request also includes increases to expand facility operating time in some of the other Office of Science research programs.) The House committee recommended $1.600 billion, including increases of $17 million for a facility at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and $14.5 million for the NSLS-II. The Senate committee recommended $1.415 billion, including a transfer of $59 million of basic solar research to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account and an unspecified reduction of $93 million. 17 Based on preliminary FY2006 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2004-06, NSF 07-323 (June 2007). 18 These are intended to address energy challenges identified by the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee in its December 2007 report Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination, online at [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/ files/GC_rpt.pdf]. CRS-28 For high-energy physics, the request is $805 million, up 17% from FY2008. Included are increases for three programs whose funding Congress sharply reduced in the final FY2008 appropriation: $37 million (up from $6 million) for construction of the NO