[House Report 113-486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
{ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES }
2d Session { } 113-486
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015
_______
June 20, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Simpson, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4923]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page Number
Bill Report
Introduction............................................... --
5
I. Department of Defense--Civil: --
14
Corps of Engineers--Civil.......................... 2
14
Investigations............................. 2
25
Construction............................... 3
36
Mississippi River and Tributaries.......... 4
43
Operation and Maintenance.................. 4
46
Regulatory Program......................... 6
70
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 6
71
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...... 6
72
Expenses................................... 6
72
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works)..................... 7
73
General Provisions................................. 8
74
II. Department of the Interior: 11
74
Central Utah Project............................... 11
74
Central Utah Project Completion Account.... 11
74
Bureau of Reclamation: --
75
Water and Related Resources................ 12
77
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.... 13
86
California Bay-Delta Restoration........... 14
86
Policy and Administration.................. 14
87
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account. 15
88
Administrative Provision................... 15
88
General Provisions................................. 15
88
III. Department of Energy: 20
89
Introduction....................................... --
89
Committee Recommendations.......................... --
89
Energy Programs: 20
94
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..... 20
94
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 20
102
Nuclear Energy............................. 21
104
Fossil Energy Research and Development..... 21
107
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves..... 22
112
Elk Hills School Lands Fund................ 22
112
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................ 22
113
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve......... 23
115
Energy Information Administration.......... 23
115
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.......... 23
115
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund................... 24
116
Science.................................... 24
117
Nuclear Waste Disposal..................... 25
124
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.. 25
124
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program...................... 26
125
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program........................... 27
125
Clean Coal Technology...................... 27
126
Departmental Administration................ 27
126
Office of the Inspector General............ 28
127
Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 29
128
National Nuclear Security Administration: 29
128
Weapons Activities......................... 29
129
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........... 29
139
Naval Reactors............................. 30
145
Office of the Administrator................ 31
147
Environmental and Other Defense Activities......... 31
148
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............. 31
148
Other Defense Activities................... 32
152
Power Marketing Administrations: --
153
Bonneville Power Administration Fund....... 32
153
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern
Power Administration................... 33
154
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern
Power Administration................... 34
154
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration......................... 35
155
Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund....................... 37
155
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 38
156
Committee Recommendation........................... --
157
General Provisions................................. 39
191
IV. Independent Agencies: 51
192
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 51
192
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 51
192
Delta Regional Authority........................... 51
193
Denali Commission.................................. 52
193
Northern Border Regional Commission................ 52
193
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............. 52
194
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 52
194
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 54
197
General Provisions................................. 55
197
V. General Provisions 56
198
House of Representatives Report Requirements............... --
199
Additional Views........................................... --
222
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2015. The following table summarizes appropriations for
fiscal year 2014, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended
in the bill for fiscal year 2015.
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2015 totals $34,010,000,000, $50,499,000 below the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and $326,862,000 above
the President's budget request. Total defense funding is
$17,150,000,000, $45,499,000 below the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2014 and $828,688,000 below the budget request.
Total non-defense funding is $16,860,000,000, $5,000,000 below
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and $1,155,550,000
above the budget request. After adjusting for the Department of
Energy's $463,000,000 legislative proposal, which the Committee
rejects, total defense funding is $365,688,000 below the budget
request, and total non-defense funding is $692,550,000 above
the budget request.
Title I of the bill provides $5,492,499,000 for the Civil
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $25,000,000
above fiscal year 2014 and $959,499,000 above the budget
request. Total funding for activities eligible for
reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is
estimated at more than $1,100,000,000, more than $185,000,000
above the budget request.
Title II provides $1,013,569,000 for the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $99,529,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $29,426,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $1,003,695,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, $100,678,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$32,000,000 below the budget request for accounts traditionally
within the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommends
$9,874,000 for the Central Utah Project, $1,149,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $2,574,000 above the budget request.
Title III provides $27,305,845,000 for the Department of
Energy, $24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $1,130,583,000
below the budget request. After adjusting for the Department's
$463,000,000 legislative proposal, which the Committee rejects,
the funding for the Department of Energy is $667,583,000 below
the budget request. Funding for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons
activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors,
and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $11,361,570,000,
$154,570,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $296,430,000 below the
budget request.
Funding for energy programs within the Department of
Energy, which includes basic science research and the applied
energy programs, is $10,323,800,000, $112,996,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and $269,090,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $5,071,000,000 for the Office of Science;
$1,789,000,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;
$899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy; $593,000,000 for Fossil
Energy; and $280,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy.
Environmental management activities--non-defense
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup--are funded
at $5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$6,742,000 above the budget request.
Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided
at the requested levels.
Title IV provides $312,367,000 for several Independent
Agencies, $47,223,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $63,652,000
above the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $172,278,000, $49,062,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and $50,000,000 above the budget request.
Overview of the Recommendation
The Committee recommendation continues the strong
investments in American infrastructure contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Division D of Public
Law 113-76). The recommendation rejects the Administration's
ill-considered request to cut approximately $700 million from
critical Army Corps of Engineers efforts to keep the nation's
rivers and ports dredged and to protect farmland and cities
from flooding. Such a drastic reduction would have a
deleterious impact on the nation's economic competitiveness and
flood defenses. The Committee strongly encourages the
Administration to request a fiscal year 2016 budget that
recognizes and supports these critical missions of the Corps of
Engineers.
The recommendation also includes significant support to
ensure the short- and long-term supply of affordable, clean
energy and the stability of the nation's electrical
infrastructure. This portfolio builds upon this country's
significant fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy resources to
strengthen American energy independence. The recommendation
makes key investments in technologies to help our energy sector
adjust to a challenging regulatory environment by supporting
advances in efficiency and emissions reduction.
Due to the limitation on defense funding contained in the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of Public Law 113-
67), the Committee is unable to provide adequate support for
all priorities within the National Nuclear Security
Administration and other security-related programs funded by
this recommendation. The Committee therefore continues its
strong emphasis on maintaining the nuclear deterrent, including
the nuclear weapons and naval reactors programs. To provide
additional support for nuclear nonproliferation programs above
the budget request, the recommendation redirects prior-year
funding from stalled programs to be used for current
priorities.
National Defense Programs
As in previous years, the Committee considers the national
defense programs run by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to be the Department of Energy's top
priority. Even within the limited resources available for
fiscal year 2015, the recommendation provides robust support
for the President's proposals to modernize the nuclear weapons
stockpile, increase investment in the NNSA's infrastructure,
prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, and support the
naval nuclear propulsion program within funding for Weapons
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval
Reactors.
The recommendation continues the Committee's strong support
for the NNSA's Weapons Activities. The Administration has
embarked on a multi-year plan to modernize the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. Early
formulations of the modernization plan tended to focus on
stretch goals for warhead life extension programs and major
construction projects that were based on overly optimistic
timelines and invalid cost assumptions. The NNSA's failure to
deliver on those promises has damaged the credibility of the
organization. However, the fiscal year 2015 budget request is a
positive development due to the increased emphasis on
conservative strategies that are attainable, affordable, and
ultimately more realistic. While there will continue to be
debate on which specific programs should have higher priority
and how those programs should be carried out, the NNSA must
evolve to become more mission-oriented and focused on
successfully carrying out its modernization plans to provide
assurances that it will not fail in its stewardship of the
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. With new leadership in
place at the Department of Energy and the NNSA, there is an
opportunity to accelerate this transformation. The Committee is
encouraged by the engagement the Secretary has shown to date in
reforming federal oversight at the Department. The Committee is
hopeful that the new NNSA Administrator will continue to
advance management reforms that have been set in motion. As the
NNSA makes progress in resolving the inconsistencies between
its goals for modernization and its ability to achieve those
goals, the Committee will continue to hold the NNSA accountable
for delivering its commitments on time and within budget.
The recommendation fully funds the Administration's budget
request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, while
reprioritizing activities within the account to reinvigorate
the nonproliferation research and development base of the
national laboratories. The United States government has made
great strides working with its global partners to limit the
potential spread of fissile materials, but our national
strategies must evolve with the changing geopolitical
environment. There will be consequences to Russia's recent
behavior in Ukraine with respect to how the United States
government engages with the Russian Federation. The Secretary
of Energy must reevaluate the Department's cooperative nuclear
security activities to ensure those programs are effectively
and measurably promoting our national security interests. At
the same time, those programs must continue to make progress on
preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technologies and
adapt to meet the latest threats.
The Committee strongly supports the strategic protection
afforded by our country's nuclear fleet, which is supported
through the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation
prioritizes strategic activities, such as the Ohio-class
ballistic submarine replacement reactor program, while delaying
infrastructure and technology development needs that, while
also important, can be slightly deferred with no strategic
repercussions. The Committee greatly appreciates the service of
the members of our country's armed forces and will continue to
place the highest priority on support for them and their work.
Supporting American Competitiveness
The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation are
critical engines for the prosperity of the nation. The Army
Corps of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal
waterways open for business. The Corps also has been
instrumental in reducing the risk of flooding for much of this
country's food-producing lands. The Bureau of Reclamation, in
typical water years, supplies reliable water to approximately
ten percent of this country's population and to much of its
fertile agricultural lands. The Department of Energy has been
at the forefront of developing intellectual property in energy
sciences and other disciplines, the commercialization of new
ideas, and improvements in energy supply and utilization.
Working together, these agencies underpin the country's
economic competitiveness and energy security.
As the agency responsible for our nation's federal
waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 coastal,
Great Lakes, and inland harbors and 25,000 miles of commercial
channels serving 41 states. The maintenance of these commercial
waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country to
ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete
with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of
ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled
foreign commerce valued at more than $1,774,000,000,000 in 2012
alone. As a primary supporter of America's waterway
infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring that the nation has the
tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. This
recommendation provides significant funding above the budget
request to ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to
continue to support America's shipping infrastructure.
The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds
or maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people,
businesses, and other public infrastructure investments. In
fact, the average annual damages prevented by Corps projects
from 2003 to 2012 was $36,200,000,000. Between 1928 and 2012,
each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects
prevented $7.90 in damages. The properties and investments
protected by the Corps infrastructure would often be flooded
without that infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and
many valuable acres of cropland.
The Bureau of Reclamation's water infrastructure is a
critical component of the agricultural productivity of this
country. One of every five western farmers, representing
approximately 10 million acres of irrigated land that produces
60 percent of the nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its
fruits and nuts, relies on these facilities for water.
Additionally, more than 31 million people rely on these
facilities for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Without
these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural
producers in the West would not be able to access safe water
for their families and their businesses and many municipal and
industrial users would face critical water shortages.
The Department of Energy supports essential research that
has helped keep America at the cutting-edge of science and
technology innovation. Given the limited resources available
this year, the recommendation places a higher priority on
research that only the government is likely to do, research
that advances our basic scientific understanding, and research
that has commercialization possibilities only in the distant
future.
Research and development for technologies that are closer
to commercialization, and thus that the private sector has more
incentive to take up, receive less funding than in fiscal year
2014. However, the recommendation does continue a long-standing
commitment by the Committee to the type of research that will
improve American energy security and independence. The
recommendations for Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy are balanced to improve the efficiency of existing forms
of energy production, to develop new and innovative forms of
energy for this nation's long-term security and prosperity, and
to help American manufacturing compete in the global
marketplace.
As noted in prior years, the Department has not been as
successful ensuring that intellectual property developed with
U.S. taxpayer funds benefits those same taxpayers. The
Department still has no coherent and implementable strategy to
track and improve domestic exploitation of Department-developed
intellectual property. Without such a strategy, U.S.
manufacturing will too frequently be forced to play ``catch-
up'' with foreign competitors benefitting from ideas formed
here in the U.S. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to
take more of a leadership role in improving U.S. manufacturing
and domestic intellectual property retention.
Program and Project Management
The Committee remains concerned about the Department of
Energy's oversight and management of its programs and projects,
despite several policy, process, and organizational
improvements that have been implemented over the past few
years. While the Department has demonstrated noted progress in
its ability to deliver small projects on schedule and within
budget, the Department continues to struggle to keep its major
construction projects on track. The Department has no baseline
against which it can monitor progress on the full scope of its
major environmental cleanup projects, the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant and the Salt Waste Processing Facility. As
a result, the Department is unable to provide to the Committee
the anticipated cost and schedule for completing those
projects. Of the ongoing major construction projects of the
NNSA, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Uranium
Processing Facility are both facing serious challenges, and it
has become clear that the Department may not have sufficient
funds to complete these facilities in a timely manner. Even as
the Department analyzes potential alternatives, the Committee
is concerned that it may be repeating the mistakes of the past
by relying on poor cost estimates and rushing to commence
construction activities before planning activities are
sufficiently mature. Of significant concern is the Department's
continued practice of avoiding enforcement of its own project
management regulations. The Department's lack of enforcement of
its own standards has been found to be a root cause of its
continued presence on the Government Accountability Office's
``high-risk list'' for project management. The Department
submitted a reprogramming request to the Committee to initiate
a major recapitalization of its plutonium infrastructure at Los
Alamos National Laboratory using operating funds, despite
having formal requirements under DOE Order 413.3B which clearly
applied to the acquisition of those capital assets. The
Committee will not support requests for capital investments
that do not provide sufficient accountability for delivering
those investments within budget and on schedule. The Committee
expects the Department to not only monitor performance of its
projects, but also ensure that its requirements are not being
circumvented by simply redefining what scope of work is
considered to be a ``project.'' The Committee also notes that
the Department is continuing to allow programs to make capital
investments using site indirect funds over which the Department
has little visibility.
While the Department is clearly struggling with how to
consistently enforce its own regulations, the Committee notes
that it has made some progress. The Secretary of Energy has
proposed positive organizational changes that will enhance the
authority of the Office of Management to oversee program and
project performance and to enforce standards. The Committee
supports this proposal and directs the Department to expedite
measures to strengthen internal oversight while its
organizational reforms are being carried out. The budget
request also properly identifies capital projects carried out
by the Office of Environmental Management to comply with
statutory requirements.
The Committee remains concerned about the management of the
Department's research and development activities, although it
notes significant improvements from previous years. The
Department has taken steps to ensure that taxpayer funding is
only invested in programs with clear guidelines and
expectations, and the Committee expects that the nascent
reforms within the energy efficiency and renewable energy
activities will help foster a culture in which projects are
terminated when those expectations are not met.
The Committee recognizes the improvements made by most of
the Department to reduce ``mortgages,'' funding in any fiscal
year promised to awards or agreements started in prior years.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, once one of the
greatest offenders, is now on par with Nuclear Energy and
Fossil Energy, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014
included statutory language requiring the Office of Science to
fully fund its multi-year awards valued at less than
$1,000,000. Minimal mortgages allow these offices to ensure
that new resources in any fiscal year are allocated to the
highest value projects, rather than to previous years'
priorities. Program managers can actively manage their
portfolios, ensuring that well-performing awardees are fully
resourced without having to accommodate uncertainties about
future-years' budgets.
The Committee's concerns regarding program and project
management are not limited to the Department of Energy. The
Corps of Engineers has suffered several significant failings in
recent years that have resulted in cost increases for projects,
such as the massive cost escalation associated with the Olmsted
Locks and Dam project. In some cases, the Administration has
not requested authorization increases in time for the Congress
to act before projects experience delays. The Committee enacted
new requirements in fiscal year 2014 intended to address these
problems, but to date--five months after enactment--the Corps
has not complied with the Committee's directions. In addition,
the Committee notes that the Corps still has not submitted a
complete work plan for fiscal year 2014, nor complied with
several other oversight initiatives necessary to safeguard
taxpayer dollars. As a result, the Committee provides
additional direction regarding the Corps' management of its
programs and projects under the heading ``Title I--Corps of
Engineers--Civil.''
National Energy Policy
Unfortunately, this budget request once again fails to
reflect a coherent energy policy or plan for this country. The
President continues to highlight an ``all of the above'' energy
portfolio in his speeches, but fails to present such a balanced
approach in his budget requests. The fiscal year 2015 budget
request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological
than practical. The request makes cuts to fossil energy
research and, to a much lesser extent, nuclear energy
research--this country's most important energy sources--in
order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs by 22 percent. As attractive as renewable
energy may be, it will supply only a mere fraction of this
country's energy needs over the next 50 years, and it presents
considerable challenges to the nation's existing electric power
grid, given its increasing variability and uncertainty from
supply and demand changes.
At the same time, the Administration is moving forward with
several regulations that will have a significant impact on
energy use in the coming years and that reveal the
inconsistencies of the Administration's purported ``all of the
above'' energy policy. The Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposed rules to regulate carbon pollution from new
fossil-fueled electric power plants, first proposed in
September 2013, and from existing fossil-fueled electric power
plants, first proposed in June 2014, will have a significant
impact on energy production, consumption, and reliability.
Fossil fuels currently provide 82 percent of the energy used by
the nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide
for a majority of our energy needs in the coming years, yet the
Administration has proposed to reduce the fossil energy
research and development program to its lowest programmatic
level since fiscal year 2000. This program conducts the very
research into carbon capture and storage technologies that will
now be required for certain new fossil-fuel electric power
plants given the EPA's proposed rules on carbon pollution.
Further inconsistencies can be seen in the Administration's
proposal to reduce core research funding for nuclear energy,
which will continue to be a vital base load electricity source
in future years, and the Administration's willful disregard of
the federal government's legal responsibilities regarding Yucca
Mountain, which has resulted in no disposition pathway for
civilian spent nuclear fuel and defense waste resulting from
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Time and again this
Administration has failed to put forward a strategic vision for
a truly ``all of the above'' national energy policy that is
sound both scientifically and economically.
The Committee continues its long-standing support for the
investment of taxpayer dollars across the spectrum of all
technologies, as reflected in this recommendation, and supports
a clearly articulated, consensus-based national energy policy
that achieves the long-term strategic goals of energy security,
independence, and prosperity for the nation. Such a vision will
emphasize a balanced approach for all energy sources and
include a long-term strategic vision of the nation's fossil,
nuclear, and renewable energy programs in the coming years, as
well as the scientific and technical challenges to be overcome.
The Committee encourages the new leadership of the Department
of Energy to develop a consensus energy policy which is sound
both scientifically and economically. This policy should
support the budget request for fiscal year 2016.
Committee Oversight Initiatives
The highest priority mission of any federal agency is to be
an effective steward of taxpayer dollars. Any waste, fraud, or
abuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee uses
hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the
Committee on Appropriations' Surveys and Investigations staff,
and its annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying
report, to promote strong oversight of the agencies under its
jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of
Energy.
The recommendation continues the Committee's responsibility
to conduct in-depth oversight into all activities funded in
this bill. Each agency shall designate a specific point of
contact to track each report required in the bill and ensure
its timely production and delivery.
A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is
provided below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/Account Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Report on 3x3x3 waiver
process
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Direction on Principles
and Guidelines
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Report on impacts of
revised Principles and
Requirements
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Direction to prioritize
ongoing studies and
projects
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Comprehensive estimate for
completing ongoing
projects
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Guidance on ratings
systems for allocating
additional funds
Army Corps of Engineers..................... Guidance on 2015 Work Plan
submission
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations...... Direction on the Passaic
River Main Stem Study
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction........ Guidance and reporting
requirements on the
Savannah Harbor Expansion
project
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction........ Report on distribution of
Continuing Authorities
Program
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Report on status of Corps
Maintenance. lands in the Lower Snake
River
Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory Program.. Guidance on Congressional
interpretation of Clean
Water Act
Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP.............. Guidance on investigation
and study at former
Sylvania site
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses............ Plan and status updates on
funding 2014 Authorizing
legislation provisions
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses............ Report on complying with
ability to pay rule
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions.. Reprogramming requirements
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions.. Restriction on use of
continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions.. Restriction on committing
funds beyond appropriated
amounts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions.. Restriction on changing
certain Clean Water Act
definitions
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions.. Restriction on revising
federal jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Direction on Scoggins Dam,
Resources. Tualatin Project
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Guidance on new scope of
Administration. information for budget
justifications
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Report on five year
Administration. comprehensive spending
plan
Bureau of Reclamation/General Provisions.... Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy........................ Requirement for monthly
financial balances report
Department of Energy........................ Report on Department's
Program Direction
accounts
Department of Energy........................ Guidance on prior-year
balances greater than
five years old
Department of Energy........................ Guidance on
Administration's Yucca
Mountain policy
Department of Energy........................ Guidance on inclusion of
centers in future budget
justifications
Department of Energy........................ Direction on funding
fellowship and
scholarship programs
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Report on national lab
Renewable Energy. capabilities for
expanding battery
performance
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Direction on recycled
Renewable Energy. paper segregated from
municipal solid waste
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Direction on supporting
Renewable Energy. supply chain technology
efforts for solar cells
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Report on benefits of
Renewable Energy. mechanical insulation
maintenance and upgrade
programs in federal
facilities
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Guidance on including CEMI
Renewable Energy. Institutes in future
budget justifications
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Direction on building
Renewable Energy. energy codes
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Guidance on engagement for
Renewable Energy. housing energy standards
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery Report on resiliency and
and Energy Reliability. reliability of national
power grid
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery Report on workforce plan
and Energy Reliability. of future OER program
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery Report on physical and
and Energy Reliability. cyber security of the
grid
Department of Energy/Nuclear................ Direction to support an
SMR design award
Department of Energy/Nuclear................ Guidance on dry cask
storage research and
development
Department of Energy/Nuclear................ Guidance on cost-share of
advanced supercritical
carbon dioxide
demonstration projects
funding
Department of Energy/Fossil................. Report on liquefied
natural gas export
applications
Department of Energy/Fossil................. Guidance on full-time
equivalent information
Department of Energy/Fossil................. Guidance on efficiency of
natural gas research
Department of Energy/Fossil................. Direction on interagency
plan regarding hydraulic
fracturing
Department of Energy/Fossil................. Report on unconventional
fossil energy
technologies
Department of Energy/Non-Defense Report on spent nuclear
Environmental Cleanup. fuel storage costs
Department of Energy/UED&D.................. Report on commencing
decommissioning
activities at Paducah
Department of Energy/UED&D.................. Guidance on funding for
thorium/uranium
reimbursements
Department of Energy/Science................ Guidance on cash
contributions to ITER
Department of Energy/Title 17............... Report on portfolio
monitoring and risk
management
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Prohibition on funding
defined benefit pensions
above requirements
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Report on improvements to
future life extension
programs
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Guidance on dedicated
funding for stockpile
certification
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Prohibition on funding for
new reactor fueling
agreements for reactors
not producing tritium
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Consolidation of
production-related
technology development
under Advanced
Manufacturing Campaign
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Guidance on prioritization
and reporting for NNSA
infrastructure projects
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Analysis of alternatives
for Albuquerque Complex
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Report on acquisition plan
for secure transportation
asset
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Guidance on domestic
nuclear emergency
response
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Guidance on future
domestic enriched uranium
funds
Department of Energy/Weapons................ Analysis of alternatives
for providing enriched
uranium for national
security purposes
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Guidance on new
Nonproliferation. nonproliferation projects
in Russia
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Guidance on reinvestment
Nonproliferation. in nonproliferation-
related R&D
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Prohibition on placing MOX
Nonproliferation. plant in cold standby
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Guidance on continued
Nonproliferation. study of limited MOX
alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Requirement for
Nonproliferation. independent verification
of lifecycle cost
estimate for MOX
alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Review of cost sharing
Nonproliferation. agreement between EM and
NNSA
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors......... Multi-year budget review
of programmatic
requirements
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Report on Hanford tank
Cleanup. maintenance and upgrade
requirements
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Guidance on progress at
Cleanup. SPRU
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Review of cost sharing
Cleanup. agreement between EM and
NNSA
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Direction on developing a
Cleanup. formal WIPP Recovery Plan
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Analysis of DOE spent fuel
Cleanup. storage infrastructure
Department of Energy/Other Defense Report on oversight
Activities. activities
Department of Energy/Other Defense Guidance on updating
Activities. Graded Security Posture
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........ Report on increased
electricity costs and
impacts
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........ Report on plan to complete
consideration of
liquefied natural gas
export applications
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Transfer authority
specifications
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Prohibit funds for high
hazard nuclear facilities
construction unless cost
estimates have been
developed
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Prohibit funds approving
CD-2 and CD-3 without
separate cost estimates
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Notification requirements
for uranium transfers
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Prohibit certain multi-
year funding agreements
in Office of Science
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Requirement for cost
reporting for major
warhead refurbishment
programs
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Restriction of certain
activities in the Russian
Federation
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Restriction of Strategic
Petroleum Reserve
activities and
notification requirements
Department of Energy/General Provision...... Limitation on LDRD
activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Requirement on reporting
unobligated funds
allocations
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Requirement for joint
management of salaries
and expenses
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Prohibition on terminating
programs without
Commissioner approval
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Notification requirement
for use of emergency
functions
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Direction on Yucca
Mountain license
application and funding
needs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Semi-annual report on
licensing and regulatory
activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Report on workforce review
and strategic plan
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Report on input and
regulatory analysis of 10
CFR Part 50 or 52
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............... Report on National
Framework recommendations
Independent Agencies/General Provision...... Reporting requirement on
use of emergency
authority
Independent Agencies/General Provision...... Requirement for NRC to
comply with Congressional
requests
General Provision........................... Prohibition on the use of
funds to influence
congressional action
General Provision........................... Limitation and reporting
requirement on funds that
support a corporation
convicted of a felony
General Provision........................... Limitation and reporting
requirement on funds that
support a corporation
with unpaid tax
liabilities
General Provision........................... Consolidation of transfer
authorities
General Provision........................... Prohibition of funds in
contravention of
Executive Order 12898
General Provision........................... Prohibition on use of
funds to close Yucca
Mountain application
process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds
the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). This program is responsible for activities in support
of coastal and inland navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration,
hydropower, recreation, water supply and disaster preparedness
and response. The Corps also performs regulatory oversight of
navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300
military personnel located in eight Division offices and 38
District offices work to carry out the Civil Works program.
FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Civil Works
program of the Corps of Engineers is $4,533,000,000, a decrease
of $934,499,000 from fiscal year 2014. After adjusting for a
proposed rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year
appropriations, the budget request represents a reduction from
fiscal year 2014 of $906,499,000 (17%). Each of the four main
project-based accounts would see a sharp decrease under the
budget request. As in previous years, the largest dollar
reduction is in the Construction account ($531,000,000),
although the Investigations account sees the largest percentage
reduction (36%). The Mississippi River and Tributaries and
Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced by 20 percent
and 9 percent, respectively. The budget request proposes to
reduce funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by more than $160,000,000
from fiscal year 2014.
Although the Administration, on occasion, talks about the
importance of infrastructure investment, the fiscal year 2015
budget request represents a different story entirely. Under the
budget request, funding for both navigation and flood and storm
damage reduction--the Committee's two highest priorities for
the Corps' Civil Works program--is decreased significantly (20%
and 16%, respectively). Investments in both of these mission
areas not only provide short-term economic benefits by directly
creating jobs, but also provide the foundation necessary for
long-term economic growth. Further, in the case of flood and
storm damage reduction, investment can prevent or reduce the
costs of recovery from flood events.
The Committee rejects the low priority placed on
infrastructure in the budget request. Instead, the Committee
allocates $868,832,000 above the budget request for additional
investments in navigation and flood and storm damage reduction
improvements.
Budget Criteria.--According to the Administration, the
Corps budget request is a performance-based budget developed
using objective performance criteria. Besides that assertion,
though, the budget development process remains considerably
less than transparent. The request lists the general factors
considered for allocating funds within each account, but does
not detail how any of these factors were ranked or weighted
during development of the budget.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the budget metrics
were not applied consistently to all previously funded
projects. In other words, numerous ongoing studies and
projects, previously funded by congressional direction, were
not even eligible to compete for inclusion in the President's
budget with the only explanation the vague characterization of
not being consistent with Administration policy. While this
exclusion is not new this year, or even with this
Administration, it nevertheless casts doubt on the true
objectivity of the budget development process.
Project Completions and Initiations.--The budget request
for the Investigations account includes funding to complete a
total of 34 studies and project designs. Funding is requested
for 10 new studies. The budget request for the Construction
account includes funding to complete nine projects and to
initiate one new project. It should be noted that the sizable
number of budgeted completions is only possible due to the
additional funding provided in previous fiscal years by the
Congress.
DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION
The Committee remains mindful of the evolving
infrastructure needs of the nation's ports. Meeting these
needs--including deeper drafts to accommodate the move towards
larger ships--will be essential if the nation is to remain
competitive in international markets and to continue advancing
economic development and job creation domestically.
Investigations and construction of port projects, including
the deepening of existing projects, are cost-shared between the
federal government and non-federal sponsors, often local or
regional port authorities. The operation and maintenance of
these projects are federal responsibilities and are funded as
reimbursements from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF),
which is supported by an ad valorem tax on the value of
imported and domestic cargo. Expenditures from the trust fund
are subject to annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF
by the beginning of fiscal year 2015 is estimated to be
approximately $8,500,000,000.
Congress historically has appropriated more funding for
HMTF-related activities each year than is included in that
year's budget request. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee
provides more than $1,100,000,000 for HMTF-related activities,
an increase of more than $185,000,000 above the budget request.
This substantial increase should allow the Corps to make
progress on the backlog of dredging needs.
The recently enacted Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) included provisions setting target annual
appropriations levels for use of HMTF receipts and setting
percentages of HMTF funding to be provided to various
activities. The Committee remains committed to providing the
maximum practicable amount of funding for HMTF-reimbursable
activities consistent with annual allocations and after
evaluating funding requirements for other priority activities
within the Civil Works program. In fact, the Committee
increased the amount appropriated for HMTF-reimbursable
activities by more than $300,000,000 from fiscal year 2011 to
this recommendation, even without statutory target levels. The
Committee is in the process of evaluating how the
prioritization provisions may be implemented and the expected
results. Therefore, this recommendation continues the approach
used in previous fiscal years, although changes may be
necessary at a later date.
INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM
The nation's inland waterways system--consisting of
approximately 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels
and 236 lock chambers--also is essential to supporting the
national economy. Freight transported on the inland waterways
system includes a significant portion of the nation's grain
exports, domestic petroleum and petroleum products, and coal
used in electricity generation. Much of the physical
infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and in need of
improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks
typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 percent
of these locks in the United States are more than 50 years old,
with the average age at almost 60 years old.
Capital improvements to the inland waterways system
generally are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and
50 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), while
operation and maintenance costs are funded 100 percent from the
General Treasury. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon
tax on barge fuel. In recent years, the increasing
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs and the escalating
costs of those projects have far outstripped available revenues
in the IWTF. In fact, over the past several years, the majority
of available revenues have been allocated to just one project--
the Olmsted Locks and Dam project.
The recently enacted WRRDA reduced the portion of the costs
of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project to be derived from the
IWTF to 15 percent. This change means there will be revenues
available for the required cost-share for some additional work
on the inland waterways system. Funds from both the General
Treasury and the IWTF are counted under overall discretionary
spending limits, however, so the available revenues should not
be considered free money or automatic allocations in any sense.
The WRRDA provision does allow the Committee to consider the
needs of the inland system along with the needs of other
components of the Civil Works program; in previous years, the
Committee was unable to even consider additional work on the
inland system due to the lack of revenues available from the
IWTF.
For fiscal year 2015, the Committee provides the budget
request of $169,032,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks
and Dam project and the Locks 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River
project, as well as $112,000,000 above the budget request for
additional capital improvements to the inland waterways system.
The Committee also allocates $45,000,000 above the budget
request for additional operation and maintenance activities on
the inland waterways.
PLANNING MODERNIZATION
The Committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the
length of time and the funding required to complete studies
while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate level of
information for congressional authorization and funding
decisions. The Corps is working to make these improvements
through its SMART Planning process (commonly referred to as
``3x3x3''), which sets the goal of completing most feasibility
studies within three years, for no more than $3,000,000, and
with the decision document coordinated by three levels of the
organization (headquarters, division, and district offices).
The Committee is aware, however, that not all studies will
fit within the 3x3x3 model and that the Corps has established a
waiver process for such studies. The Corps shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act on the details of the waiver process. This information
shall include how the waiver process is managed across the
three levels of the organization, how many waivers have been
approved to date, the timeline from district request to
approval for such waivers, ways the Corps is streamlining the
waiver process so as not to delay unnecessarily studies that do
not fit the 3x3x3 model, and any additional steps necessary to
comply with related provisions in the recently enacted WRRDA.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Committee is pleased that the Corps included
performance measures in the fiscal year 2015 budget
justifications. The Committee is concerned, however, that these
performance measures were not results-oriented; did not clearly
demonstrate the extent to which performance reporting under 31
U.S.C. 1116 demonstrates that prior-year investments in
programs, projects, and activities are tied to progress toward
achieving performance and priority goals; and did not include
estimates for how proposed investments will contribute to
additional progress. The Committee encourages the Corps to
continue improving its performance measures, including efforts
to clarify the connections between individual performance
measures and strategic goals and objectives, demonstrate how
the funding requested is expected to affect performance
measures, and avoid overly technical language or jargon.
COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The fiscal year 2014 Act included several reporting
requirements for the Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, to
date, the Corps has not complied with many of these directives.
The Committee does not issue directives frivolously. The
information sought through these reporting requirements is
necessary to the Committee fulfilling its oversight
responsibilities and to developing the fiscal year 2015 and
future year recommendations. The Committee continues to expect
the Corps to submit all required reports.
The following reports required in fiscal year 2014 have not
been submitted as of the writing of this report or have been
incomplete:
(1) Work plan for additional funding--incomplete;
-- ratings system--incomplete;
-- summary of work to be completed with
funding--not submitted;
-- list of and information on eligible but
unfunded projects--not submitted;
(2) New construction starts affordability analysis--
incomplete;
(3) Report on compensatory mitigation for critical
infrastructure projects--not submitted;
(4) Report on metrics suitable for use in evaluating
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects--not submitted;
(5) Comprehensive estimate related to ongoing
construction projects--not submitted;
(6) Plan for the oversight and management of 902
limit project modifications--not submitted;
(7) List of projects with the potential to exceed 902
limits--not submitted;
(8) Report on policy regarding coastal storm damage
reduction projects--not submitted; and
(9) Report on plan for allowing firearms on Corps
lands--not submitted.
To demonstrate clearly the extent of the Committee's
dissatisfaction with the Administration's disregard of
congressional direction, the recommendation reduces funding for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works).
SECTION 902 AUTHORIZATION LIMITS
As noted above, the Administration has not yet submitted
the required plan for the oversight and management of section
902 authorized cost project modifications or the list of
projects with the potential to exceed the 902 limit. The
Committee is aware that the WRRDA included a few such project
modifications and that the Corps currently is working on
completing necessary reports for other projects expected to
exceed the 902 limit. The Committee is prepared to consider
additional project modifications as the Corps completes the
reports and submits recommendations to the Congress.
PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS
Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water
Resources Principles and Guidelines is not proceeding
consistent with the language or intent of section 2031 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007. No funds provided to
the Corps of Engineers shall be used to develop or implement
rules or guidance to support implementation of the final
Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water
Resources released in March 2013. The Corps shall continue to
use the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ``Economic
and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies'' during the
fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for 2015. If Interagency Guidelines for
implementing the March 2013 Principles and Requirements are
finalized, the Corps shall be ready to report to the
appropriate committees of the Congress not later than 120 days
after finalization on the impacts of the revised Principles and
Requirements and Interagency Guidelines. The Corps shall be
prepared to explain the intent of each revision, how each
revision is or is not consistent with section 2031 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007, and the probable impact of
each revision on water resources projects carried out by the
Secretary including specific examples of application to at
least one project from each main mission area of the Corps.
NEW STARTS
Fiscal Year 2014 Implementation.--The Committee considers
very carefully the decision of whether to provide funding for
new starts each fiscal year. After three consecutive fiscal
years with no new starts, the fiscal year 2014 Act allowed the
Corps to initiate a limited number of new studies and new
construction projects. Unfortunately, the Administration's
mismanagement of the fiscal year 2014 authority leaves this
Committee hesitant to provide similar authority in fiscal year
2015. Specifically, the fiscal year 2014 Act allowed for up to
three new study starts where the benefits were primarily for
environmental restoration. The Administration chose to combine
two studies that had been proposed in the fiscal year 2014
budget request into one reconnaissance study and select two
additional studies to initiate. The Administration's gaming of
the statutory limit on new starts was made very clear with the
submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, which split
the combined reconnaissance study into two studies once again.
A substantive argument for combining the two studies may have
been persuasive had the studies remained combined or if the
Administration had chosen only one other study to initiate. As
circumstances stand, however, the Committee has no choice but
to believe the Administration's actions were nothing more than
an effort to contravene clear congressional intent.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2014 Act required the Corps to
submit an out-year funding scenario to demonstrate the
affordability of the new construction starts selected and the
impact these selections would have on other ongoing
construction projects. Ten weeks after announcing the new
starts selected, the Administration submitted an analysis that
fell far short of what was required.
Fiscal Year 2015.--The budget request includes funding for
ten new study starts, even as the Investigations account is
reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 2014. The request also
includes one new construction start, even as the Construction
account is reduced by 32 percent from fiscal year 2014. This
proposed project has an estimated federal cost in excess of
$2,200,000,000, yet the Administration provided no analysis to
demonstrate its affordability, especially in context of a
Construction program proposed at only $1,125,000,000 for work
across the entire country. In light of the Administration's
mismanagement of the fiscal year 2014 new start authority and
the lack of information to support the proposed new starts, the
Committee recommends no new starts in any account in fiscal
year 2015. The Corps is directed to prioritize ongoing studies
and projects in an effort to complete them. The Administration
should be aware that the Committee will remain disinclined to
fund any new construction starts in the future without a clear
understanding of the affordability of the proposed projects and
the impacts to the schedule and cost of other projects in the
construction program. This information will be necessary prior
to allowing new starts, rather than after as in fiscal year
2014.
FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Comprehensive planning provides important information for
more than just the evaluation of new starts. Historically, the
Committee has encouraged the Administration to provide five-
year investment plans for all the agencies within the Energy
and Water Development jurisdiction. The five-year plan should
be based on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It
is the Committee's expectation that once projects have been
initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual
funding levels for them through completion.
The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to
project five-year horizons for projects it has not previously
supported through the budget process. Comprehensive planning is
important for understanding future requirements of projects
that have been supported through the budget process, as well.
While this unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding
additional investment might be reasonable under circumstances
where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the
Congress consistently has supported additional investment in
the nation's water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty
caused by year-to-year federal planning leaves too many non-
federal sponsors unable to make informed decisions regarding
local funding.
It would be beneficial for the Congress, the
Administration, and project partners to have a comprehensive
plan to outline requirements for all projects that have
received an appropriation to date or are proposed to begin
receiving funding this year. The Committee continues to welcome
a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively
plan for all initiated projects.
The Committee notes that last year the Corps was directed
to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum timeline and
funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing projects
that received construction funding in any of fiscal years 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but were not slated by the
Administration for construction funding in the fiscal year 2014
budget request. This report was to have been submitted not
later than 90 days after enactment of the fiscal year 2014 Act.
As of the writing of this report, the Committee still has not
received this information.
FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES
Traditionally, the President requested and the Congress
appropriated funds for the Civil Works program on a project-
level basis. Taken together, however, these funding decisions
indicated programmatic priorities and policy preferences. As
with non-project-based programs, the Congress at times
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills.
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the
President.
On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI.
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed
the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if
there was a more transparent way to highlight programmatic
priorities without abandoning congressional oversight
responsibilities. The fiscal year 2012 Act included a
modification to the format used in previous years, and that
format is continued for fiscal year 2015. As in previous years,
the Committee lists in report tables the studies, projects, and
activities within each account requested by the President along
with the Committee-recommended funding level. To advance its
programmatic priorities, the Committee has included additional
funding for certain categories of projects. Project-specific
allocations within these categories will be determined by the
Corps based on further direction provided in this report.
The Committee notes that one argument frequently made
against congressional earmarks is that these activities are
political decisions that divert funding to parochial concerns
and away from national priorities. This argument assumes that
funding decisions made within the executive branch are
inherently objective and devoid of political influence. This
argument and underlying assumption once again are proven false
by the budget request for the Corps of Engineers. The fiscal
year 2015 budget request includes projects previously funded
only through congressional earmarks that the executive branch
had determined were inconsistent with policy in the past. No
identification or explanation of policy changes accompanies the
budget request for these projects.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully
inadequate for meeting the critical water resources
infrastructure needs of this nation. Numerous continuing
studies and construction projects will be suspended or slowed,
leaving many communities vulnerable to floods and coastal
storms longer than necessary and hindering economic growth and
international competitiveness. Underfunding operation and
maintenance of existing assets results in economic
inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which can
cause substantial economic losses. For these reasons, the
Committee provides a total of $916,599,000 above the budget
request within the Investigations, Construction, Mississippi
River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts
for additional work that either was not included in the
Administration's request or was inadequately budgeted. The
executive branch retains complete discretion over project-
specific allocation decisions within the additional funds
provided.
A project or study shall be eligible for additional funding
within the Investigations, Construction, and Mississippi River
and Tributaries accounts if: (1) it has received funding, other
than through a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous
three fiscal years; or (2) it was previously funded and could
reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in
fiscal year 2015. None of the additional funding in any account
may be used for any item where funding was specifically denied;
to initiate new studies, projects, programs, or activities; to
alter any existing cost-share requirement; or for projects in
the Continuing Authorities Program.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that
category; funding associated with each subcategory may be
allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate,
within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant
to be exhaustive.
Transparency in the Work Plan Development Process.--The
Administration's compliance--or more accurately, lack of
compliance--with congressional direction regarding work plans
in previous fiscal years is troubling. Specifically, in fiscal
year 2014, the only component of the work plan the
Administration submitted on time was the list of projects with
funding allocations. Three weeks later, the Administration
submitted a list of general factors and management controls
considered when making allocation decisions, but this list
clearly was not responsive to congressional direction to
develop ratings systems for use in allocating additional
funding to specific projects. As of the writing of this report,
the Committee is still waiting for the remaining components of
the fiscal year 2014 work plan, including a summary of the work
to be accomplished with each funding allocation and the
information on eligible projects that were not funded. The
order in which information has been submitted suggests that the
Administration made project-specific funding decisions and only
then half-heartedly attempted to justify those decisions. Under
a truly transparent and performance-based process, the order of
events would be reversed--the necessary analytical tools would
be developed first and then projects would be evaluated using
those tools in order to arrive at project-specific funding
allocations.
The Committee expects considerable improvement in the
quality and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2015
regarding the allocation of these additional funds. To assist
the Administration in improving the transparency of the
process, the Committee reiterates its direction to the Corps to
develop ratings systems for use in evaluating projects for
allocation of the additional funding provided in this Act.
These evaluation systems may be, but are not required to be,
individualized for each account or for each category of
projects to be funded. The Corps retains complete control over
the methodology of these ratings systems, but shall consider
giving priority to the factors discussed under the heading
``Additional Funding for Ongoing Work'' within each relevant
account. Each study or project eligible to receive additional
funds shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system; a
study or project may not be excluded from evaluation under
these ratings systems for being ``inconsistent with
Administration policy.''
Work Plan.--The fiscal year 2015 work plan shall be
submitted in two phases. First, not later than 21 days after
enactment of this Act, the Corps shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a detailed description of the ratings system(s)
developed and used to evaluate studies and projects within each
account, including the weighting given to each factor or
criterion if multiple factors or criteria are used. This phase
shall not include any results of project-specific evaluations,
but only information on the methodology of the ratings
system(s). To ensure compliance with this directive in fiscal
year 2015, the Corps shall not allocate additional funds to any
study or project nor issue a work allowance for any study or
project receiving funding under this Act until the Committees
provide written acknowledgement of the Corps' compliance with
this directive. To be clear, the Committee shall not attempt to
reject, approve, or modify the ratings system(s) submitted, but
rather simply shall indicate that the Corps has provided a
sufficiently-detailed description to represent a transparent
allocation process.
Second, not earlier than 21 days and not later than 60 days
after the Committees provide written acknowledgement of receipt
of phase one of the work plan, the Corps shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate phase two of the work plan, including the
following information:
(1) Delineation of how these funds are to be
allocated;
(2) A summary of the work to be accomplished with
each allocation, including phase of work, as
appropriate;
(3) The results of each project-specific evaluation
under the rating system(s); and
(4) A list of all studies and projects that were
considered eligible for funding but did not receive
funding, including:
a. an explanation of whether each study or
project could have used funds in fiscal year
2015,
b. whether the study or project was rated as
highly or more highly than other studies or
projects that did receive funding, and
c. the specific reasons each study or project
was considered as being less competitive for an
allocation of funds.
For any study or project excluded from funding for being
``inconsistent with administration policy,'' the work plan
shall include a detailed explanation of why such study or
project is inconsistent with administration policy.
Full Allocation of Funds.--The Committee has provided
additional funding in amounts consistent with estimates of
additional capability for fiscal year 2015 that were provided
by the Corps. As such, the Committee expects the Corps to
allocate in the work plan all additional funds provided. If
during development of the work plan, however, the Corps
determines that capability estimates have changed such that not
all funding can be obligated within the fiscal year, the Corps
is directed to review capability estimates at least every other
month and to allocate funds to studies and projects in
accordance with the same general process as the initial work
plan. The Corps shall not hold back funds for later allocation
if there are any studies or projects that, during development
of the initial work plan, are expected to be able to obligate
the funds within the fiscal year.
ASIAN CARP
The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic
nuisance species to the nation's water bodies and recognizes
the critical role of the Army Corps of Engineers in preventing,
controlling, and managing the threat of Asian carp. The
Committee notes that the Corps cooperates with other federal,
state, and local government agencies through the Asian Carp
Regional Coordinating Committee to execute a comprehensive
strategy to deal with Asian carp. The Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 included permanent authority for
the Corps to implement certain actions to prevent aquatic
nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of
any hydrologic connection between the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River Basin. Therefore, the recommendation does not
include the annual provision included in previous years.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING
To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2015
is consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the
movement of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the
bill carries a legislative provision outlining the
circumstances under which the Corps of Engineers may reprogram
funds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,492,499,000 for the Corps of
Engineers, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $959,499,000
above the budget request. The recommendation does not include
the rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations
proposed in the budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the
Committee-recommended levels is provided below:
(Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 FY 2015
Account enacted request Cmte. rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.................................................. $125,000 $80,000 $115,000
Construction.................................................... 1,656,000 1,125,000 1,704,499
Mississippi River and tributaries............................... 307,000 245,000 260,000
Operation and maintenance....................................... 2,861,000 2,600,000 2,905,000
Regulatory program.............................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000
FUSRAP.......................................................... 103,499 100,000 100,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies........................... 28,000 28,000 28,000
Expenses........................................................ 182,000 178,000 178,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works... 5,000 5,000 2,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, Program Level.................................... 5,467,499 4,561,000 5,492,499
Rescission...................................................... - - - -28,000 - - -
-----------------------------------------------
NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers--Civil............ 5,467,499 4,533,000 5,492,499
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2014................................... $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 80,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 115,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +35,000,000
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for,
the engineering and economic feasibility of, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; preconstruction engineering and
design; data collection; interagency coordination; and
research.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $115,000,000,
$10,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $35,000,000 above the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee notes
that funding for Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA, is provided in
the Construction account, as in previous years.
Passaic River Main Stem, New Jersey.--The Committee is very
concerned with the Corps' management of the Passaic River Main
Stem study to date. This region experienced significant
flooding from Hurricane Irene in 2011. In fact, the President
and other Administration officials traveled to the area to
promise federal assistance. Yet progress on this study has been
hampered by a breakdown in coordination among the three levels
of the organization (district, division, and headquarters),
even though coordination is one of the three tenets of the
Corps' new 3x3x3 planning framework. The Committee directs the
Corps to be prepared to brief the Committee not later than 14
days after enactment of this Act on a detailed plan and
schedule for this study.
Fiscal Year 2014 New Starts.--As explained in the Title I
front matter, the budget request includes funding for four
environmental restoration studies initiated in fiscal year 2014
even though only three new starts were authorized. The
recommendation does not include funding for any of these four
studies individually, but rather includes a line item under
``Remaining Items'' with funding to be allocated to three of
these studies. The Corps retains complete discretion over which
three studies to continue funding. The Administration shall not
combine studies or in any other way attempt to continue funding
in fiscal year 2015 for all four studies included in the budget
request. No further work shall be done on the fourth study
until such future time as it is selected as a new start.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional
funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps should
use these funds in recon, feasibility, and PED, as applicable.
When developing the rating system(s) for use in allocating
additional funds under this account, the Corps shall consider
giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies
that: (1) will enhance the nation's economic development, job
growth, and international competitiveness; (2) are for projects
located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters;
or (3) are for projects to address legal requirements. The
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation
decisions within the additional funds provided.
Research and Development.--The Committee continues to
support the Corps' efforts to significantly improve the safety,
efficiency, reliability, and cost of performing inspections of
critical and aging infrastructure. The Committee is aware that
innovative and technologically advanced methods of inspection
that would assist in performing this vital mission, such as
non-destructive testing (NDT) and non-destructive evaluation
(NDE) techniques for the inspection of trunnion rods on dams,
are being developed collaboratively by the Corps and the
private sector. In order to accelerate the delivery and
deployment of innovative technologies for infrastructure
inspection, the Committee urges the Corps to prioritize funding
for the validation of proven, high-payoff, innovative practices
and technologies at the national level.
Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included
for this new item.
CONSTRUCTION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,656,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,125,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,704,499,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +48,499,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +579,499,000
This appropriation funds construction, major
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resource
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,704,499,000, $48,499,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$579,499,000 above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The budget request for
this item that was proposed in the Investigations account has
been moved to this account where it has been funded since it
received a new construction start in fiscal year 2009. As such,
the Corps is directed to consider the project an ongoing
construction project. Additionally, in light of the project's
inclusion in the recently enacted WRRDA and the fact that the
non-federal sponsor has significant funding available to begin
work on its project responsibilities, the Committee anticipates
the Corps will execute a project partnership agreement with the
non-federal sponsor before the end of fiscal year 2014. If an
agreement has not been signed by the date of enactment of this
Act, the Corps shall report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than
14 days after enactment of this Act regarding the specific
reasons for the delay, as well as a schedule for executing the
agreement. Thereafter, the Corps shall provide weekly updates
until such time as the agreement is executed.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. Of the additional funds
provided in this account, the Corps shall allocate not less
than $12,450,000 to projects with riverfront development
components. Of the additional funds provided in this account
for flood and storm damage reduction and flood control, the
Corps shall allocate not less than $18,000,000 to additional
nonstructural flood control projects. When developing the
rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under
this account, the Corps shall consider the following:
(1) benefits of the funded work to the national
economy;
(2) extent to which the work will enhance national,
regional, or local economic development;
(3) number of jobs created directly by the funded
activity;
(4) ability to obligate the funds allocated within
the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability
of the non-federal sponsor to provide any required
cost-share;
(5) ability to complete the project, separable
element, project phase, or useful increment of work
with the funds allocated;
(6) for flood and storm damage reduction projects,
-- the population, economic activity, or
public infrastructure at risk, as appropriate;
and
-- the severity of risk of flooding or the
frequency with which an area has experienced
flooding;
(7) for navigation projects, the number of jobs or
level of economic activity to be supported by
completion of the project, separable element, project
phase, or useful increment of work; and
(8) for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects, the
economic impact on the local, regional, and national
economy if the project is not funded, as well as useful
increments of work that can be completed within the
funding provided in this line item.
The executive branch retains complete discretion over
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee
continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities
Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total
of $56,800,000, an increase of $46,800,000 above the budget
request, which proposed funding for only five sections. This
program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small
localized projects without the lengthy study and authorization
process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management
of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue
consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2014. This
direction is restated here for convenience.
For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated
utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
-- capability-level funds for ongoing projects that
have executed cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase;
-- capability-level funds for projects that are ready
for execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters
authorizes execution of the agreements;
-- funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other
projects previously funded for the applicable phase but
not ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements;
and
-- funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects
not previously funded for the applicable phase.
Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate
Field Operating Agency (FOA) for projects requested by that
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned
to the Corps' headquarters to be reallocated based on the
nationwide priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain
these funds for use on a different project than the one for
which the funds were requested without the explicit approval of
the Corps' headquarters.
Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in
that section that rank high according to the following factors:
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of
phase or previous funding history.
The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in
writing its support for the project and establishes its
willingness and capability to execute its project
responsibilities.
In order to provide a mix of studies, design, and
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act detailing how funds will be distributed to the individual
items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The
Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end of each
fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog of
projects. The report should include the completions and
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be
funded over time based on historical averages of the
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 245,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 260,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +15,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with projects
to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial
valley below Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $260,000,000,
$47,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional
funding is shown under remaining items, the Corps should use
these funds in investigations, construction, and operation and
maintenance, as applicable. When developing the rating
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing
or accelerating ongoing work that (1) will enhance the region
and nation's economic development, job growth, and
international competitiveness; or (2) is for projects located
in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. The
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation
decisions within the additional funds provided.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriation, 2014................................... $2,861,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 2,600,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 2,905,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +44,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +305,000,000
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at water resource projects the Corps
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of
dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood
Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the
collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics.
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$2,905,000,000, $44,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$305,000,000 above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. When developing the rating
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the
following:
(1) ability to complete ongoing work maintaining
authorized depths and widths of harbors and shipping
channels, including where contaminated sediments are
present;
(2) ability to address critical maintenance backlog;
(3) presence of the U.S. Coast Guard;
(4) extent to which the work will enhance national,
regional, or local economic development, including
domestic manufacturing capacity;
(5) extent to which the work will promote job growth
or international competitiveness;
(6) number of jobs created directly by the funded
activity;
(7) ability to obligate the funds allocated within
the fiscal year;
(8) ability to complete the project, separable
element, project phase, or useful increment of work
within the funds allocated;
(9) the risk of imminent failure or closure of the
facility; and
(10) for harbor maintenance activities,
--total tonnage handled;
--total exports;
--total imports;
--dollar value of cargo handled;
-- energy infrastructure and national
security needs served;
--designation as strategic seaports;
--lack of alternative means of freight
movement;
--savings over alternative means of freight
movement.
The executive branch retains complete discretion over
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation.--Concerns persist
that the Administration's criteria for navigation maintenance
do not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and
waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance
funds. The Committee directs the Corps to provide an update to
the Committee on its previous request that the Corps review the
criteria used for determining which navigation projects are
funded in order to develop a reasonable and equitable
allocation for small, remote, or subsistence harbors and
waterways under this account.
Hopper Dredges.--The Water Resources Development Act of
1996 directed the Secretary to initiate a program to increase
the use of private industry hopper dredges for the construction
and maintenance of federal navigation channels and to develop
and implement procedures to ensure that private industry hopper
dredge capacity is available to meet both routine and time-
sensitive dredging needs. The Committee notes that this
``industry first'' policy has worked well, with private
industry increasing capacity by commissioning new hopper
dredges and with the Corps instituting ``raise the flag''
procedures for time-sensitive situations. The Committee
encourages the Corps to maintain the federal commitment to the
``industry first'' policy, including by scheduling the federal
hopper dredges in ready reserve status for only the number of
routine testing days necessary to ensure the ability of the
vessel to perform urgent and emergency work.
Lower Snake River Project.--The Committee is aware that the
Walla Walla District and certain landowners adjacent to the
project have been working together to resolve an issue
regarding the use of Corps lands. The Committee encourages the
Corps and the landowners to continue exploring all options,
including potential land exchanges as necessary, to resolve
this issue. The Committee directs the Corps to maintain the
status quo use of these lands as long as good-faith efforts are
being made to find resolution. The Corps shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this
Act an update on the status of the situation, including any
actions taken or planned as well as any legislative authority
that may be needed to resolve the situation.
Hydrilla.--Hydrilla is a submersed aquatic plant native to
Asia that is now a serious nuisance plant in the United States.
The Committee understands the challenges posed by the spread of
hydrilla and supports ongoing work by the Corps to contain the
spread of and treat the invasive species at existing Corps
projects, including Walter F. George Lake in Alabama, Lake
Seminole in Georgia, and the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway in
Mississippi.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2014................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 200,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 200,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
This appropriation provides funds to administer laws
pertaining to the regulation of activities affecting U.S.
waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit
applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect
important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning
efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with
states and local communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
In fiscal year 2014, the Committee raised two issues in
which the Corps in recent years has changed its interpretation
of Clean Water Act requirements. Congress rejected both new
interpretations. Unfortunately, the Committee continues to hear
concerns on these issues, including communications from the
Corps expressing no intention to adhere to congressional
direction. The Committee directs the Corps to ensure that all
field offices adhere in all instances to the interpretations
directed by the Congress. The fiscal year 2014 direction is
repeated here for emphasis and clarity.
The Committee is aware of at least two recent instances in
which local economic development organizations have applied for
permits to prepare sites to attract new economic activity but
the Corps has denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts.
Although the local organizations have established precedent by
providing several examples of where similar applications were
approved, the Corps now claims its regulations require the
identification of a specified end-user of a proposed
development so it can review final design plans and other exact
specifications of the proposed development in order to issue a
permit. The Committee strongly rejects this new interpretation
of Clean Water Act requirements. The Corps is not a local land-
use planning agency, and the Clean Water Act provides neither
the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume such
responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work
with these permit applicants, and any others with similar
applications, to reach a better balance between allowing
desperately needed economic development while still
safeguarding important environmental resources.
In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to exempt
ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, and mining related
activities from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act
permits when undertaken as normal activities to prepare and
maintain land, roads, ponds, or ditches. A ``recapture
provision'' also was included to provide reasonable limits on
the scope of these statutory exemptions, but not to nullify the
exemptions. Concerns have been raised that in recent years the
Corps has changed its interpretation of these provisions to
significantly reduce the application of the statutory
exemptions. The Corps is directed to ensure that the original
balance intended by statute is implemented by all field
offices.
Public Safety Projects.--The Committee continues to hear of
public safety infrastructure projects that have been delayed
due to excessive and repeated reviews. Many communities depend
on these projects to protect residents from natural disasters.
Considering the risk to life and other damages that these
disasters inflict upon communities, it is in the public
interest to have local governments mitigate for such harm.
Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to keep in mind
the public safety aspects of a project when considering permit
applications and to pursue ways to shorten review times,
including by performing reviews concurrently and eliminating
duplicative reviews to the maximum extent practicable.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
Appropriation, 2014................................... $103,499,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 100,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 100,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -3,499,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level
radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites
contaminated as a result of the nation's early efforts to
develop atomic weapons.
The Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of
Energy to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP
sites where the Department had not completed cleanup. The
Committee did not transfer to the Corps ownership of and
accountability for real property interests, which remain with
the Department. The Committee expects the Department to
continue to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise
to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation
and the affected communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000,
$3,499,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the request.
The Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites,
especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds
provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is
directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville,
New York, and, as appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a
Record of Decision and initiation of any necessary remediation
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 28,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 28,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
This appropriation funds planning, training, and other
measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support
emergency operations in response to such natural disasters,
including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency
operations, the provision of potable water on an emergency
basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage
reduction projects.
The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for this account, the
same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $182,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 178,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 178,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
This appropriation funds the executive direction and
management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the
Division Offices, and certain research and statistical
functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $178,000,000,
$4,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget
request.
Enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of 2014 (WRRDA) provides the Corps with many new and amended
authorities and directives for civil works projects, programs,
and activities, including the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). The Committee believes these
new authorities will require specific appropriations prior to
implementation, but has not had sufficient time to evaluate
each provision for funding in fiscal year 2015. In the
meantime, the Corps is directed to provide the Committee with
notification prior to obligating funds for any provision not
requiring specific appropriations, as well as monthly updates
on the status of implementation guidance documents in draft and
final form. Additionally, the Corps is directed to develop and
submit to the Committee a detailed plan for how the WIFIA
provisions, if funded, would be implemented. This plan shall
discuss all aspects of implementation, including which types of
projects would be eligible or prioritized; criteria for
selecting specific projects for financing; the steps and
general schedule of a potential application process; agency
personnel and expertise needs; expected administrative costs;
and measures necessary to ensure appropriate protections of
federal tax dollars. Recognizing that the Corps has no prior
experience with administering a loan or loan guarantee program,
the Committee directs the Corps to consult with the Government
Accountability Office and other federal agencies with similar
authorities in order to avoid the problems that have occurred
in other federal loan and loan guarantee programs.
Ability To Pay Rule.--The Committee recognizes that Indian
tribes do not always have the ability to pay the non-federal
portion of costs for water resources development projects on
Tribal land. Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 established the Tribal Partnership Program and directed
that the cost-share be subject to the non-federal interest's
ability to pay to be determined by the Secretary in accordance
with procedures established by the Secretary. The Corps then
drafted a rule, but to date the rule has not been finalized.
The Committee encourages the Corps to finalize an ability to
pay rule. Unless a rule has been finalized, the Committee
directs the Corps to submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than
90 days after enactment of this Act an explanation of why the
ability to pay rule has not yet been finalized and a schedule
for finalizing the rule.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Appropriation, 2014................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 5,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 2,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -3,000,000
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
oversees the Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps'
executive direction and management of the Civil Works program
are funded from the Expenses account.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000,
$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
The Committee is concerned that the Administration has not
been taking congressional direction seriously. As discussed
earlier in this report, the Administration has missed numerous
deadlines and provided insufficient detail in response to other
requests for information included in the fiscal year 2014 Act.
The Committee also has been dissatisfied with the delays and
lack of substance in providing information requested during
hearings and other communications, including information
related to the regulatory program. For these reasons, the
recommendation reduces funding for this account. The Assistant
Secretary would be well-served to develop and implement a plan
for improving responsiveness to the Committee's concerns.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the
obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of
funds in this title except in certain circumstances.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds
in this Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond
the amounts appropriated for that program, project, or
activity.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of
continuing contracts for any project for which funds are
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as
a long-term mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet
the cost-sharing requirements is enacted.
The bill continues a provision authorizing the transfer of
funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for
fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.
The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from
being used to develop or implement changes to certain
definitions for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from
being used to implement revised guidance on determining
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2014................................... $8,725,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 7,300,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 9,874,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +1,149,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +2,574,000
The budget requests the Central Utah Project as part of the Bureau of
Reclamation. For purposes of comparison, the budget request is shown
here.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request again proposes to
repeal the statutory prohibition on delegation of
responsibility and put oversight of the Central Utah Project
under the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee again rejects
this proposal.
The Committee recommendation includes a total of $9,874,000
for the Central Utah Project Completion Account, which includes
$7,574,000 for Central Utah Project construction, $1,000,000
for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission, and $1,300,000 for necessary
expenses of the Secretary of the Interior. This appropriation
is $1,149,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,574,000 above the
budget request.
Bureau of Reclamation
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is
to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in
an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since its establishment by the
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal,
urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation continues to develop
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western states. Reclamation maintains 337 reservoirs with the
capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water.
As Reclamation's large impoundments and appurtenant
facilities reach their design life, the projected cost of
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating Reclamation
infrastructure continues to grow, yet Reclamation has not
budgeted funding sufficient to implement a comprehensive
program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At the same time,
Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide water supply
to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water
settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water
Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing
priorities will be challenging and requires active
participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its
technical staff.
DROUGHT CONDITIONS
Adding even greater challenges and consequences to
Reclamation's operational decisions, much of the Western United
States has been experiencing harsh drought conditions over the
past year or more. As of May 15, the entire State of California
was in severe, extreme, or exceptional drought, with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate
Prediction Center expecting conditions to at least persist if
not intensify through midsummer. The first half of water year
2014 (October 2013-March 2014) was the third-driest in history
statewide, behind only the periods ending in 1977 and 1924.
The severity of the current drought coupled with
Reclamation's Central Valley Project operational decisions have
serious consequences for a wide variety of reasons. Continued
high temperatures are expected and could pose a risk of rapid
depletion of reservoir storage, which stood at only 69 percent
of average in mid-May. For the first time, Reclamation has
announced releases from Friant Dam to address contractual
obligations with the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors.
Even with this historic action, these contractors and other
contractors whose water supply is based on senior water rights
have been allocated 75 percent or less of their contract
supply. Many other agricultural water service contractors have
been allocated no water at all. Considering the U.S. Department
of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012
state report estimated the market value of products from
California farms as approaching $45 billion annually, the
economic consequences of these allocations are disastrous. Even
Municipal and Industrial water service contractors have been
allocated only 50 percent of their historic use, leading to
water use restrictions in many communities.
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget
request does not prioritize funding for those activities that
will respond directly to the severity of drought conditions in
California and other Reclamation states, including potential
long-term solutions that can eliminate or mitigate drought's
impacts. Discussed most prominently in the budget justification
materials are various components of the WaterSMART program,
including two new programs related to comprehensive drought
planning and resilient infrastructure. Unfortunately,
Reclamation has provided very little detailed explanation of
what these programs will accomplish and how they differ from
existing programs.
FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $1,042,995,000. After accounting for
proposed changes in account structure, the request for
activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent
years is $1,035,695,000. The Committee recommendation totals
$1,003,695,000, $100,678,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$32,000,000 below the adjusted budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the
Committee recommendation is provided below.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 FY 2015
Account enacted request Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources...... $954,085 $760,700 $856,351
Central Valley Project 53,288 56,995 56,995
Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration. 37,000 37,000 37,000
Policy and Administration........ 60,000 59,500 53,849
Indian Water Rights Settlements.. - - - 90,000 - - -
San Joaquin River Restoration - - - 32,000 - - -
Fund............................
Central Utah Project Completion.. - - - 7,300 - - -
--------------------------------------
TOTAL, Bureau of Reclamation. 1,104,373 1,043,495 1,004,195
Rescission....................... - - - -500 -500
--------------------------------------
NET APPROPRIATION, Bureau of 1,104,373 1,042,995 1,003,695
Reclamation.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... $954,085,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 760,700,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 856,351,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -97,734,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +95,651,000
The Water and Related Resources account supports the
development, construction, management, and restoration of water
and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The
account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits,
to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources.
For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends
$856,351,000, $97,734,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$95,651,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes in this account certain Indian water
rights settlements proposed for funding under a separate
account in the President's budget request. No funding is
included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the
President's request also proposed as a new separate account.
Adjusted for this change in account structure, the
recommendation is $26,349,000 below the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.--The budget request
again proposes an account separate from the Water and Related
Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin
River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee
includes this line item within the Water and Related Resources
account, although no funding is provided.
Indian Water Rights Settlements.--The budget request again
proposes a new appropriations account for certain Indian water
rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the
Committee includes funding for these settlements in the Water
and Related Resources account.
Central Valley Project Operation and Maintenance Rates.--
The Central Valley Project is operationally and financially
integrated, meaning construction and operation and maintenance
costs are pooled across the system and allocated accordingly.
The Committee strongly supports this model. During
extraordinarily severe drought years--such as the current
drought--in which very little water is delivered to Central
Valley Project water contractors, however, this approach can
lead to disproportionate operation and maintenance rates for
the contractors that receive very little of their allocated
water. Reclamation is encouraged to review its authorities to
see if steps can be taken to help alleviate the impacts of
these operation and maintenance rates during the current
drought.
Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.--As part of its Dam
Safety Program, Reclamation is working on a Corrective Action
Alternatives Study (CAS) for Scoggins Dam, the main feature of
the Tualatin Project. Working with local stakeholders,
Reclamation is evaluating how water supply objectives, such as
increased storage, may be coordinated with CAS implementation.
The Committee supports such integrated efforts and directs
Reclamation to submit legislative language to the appropriate
congressional committees as soon as it becomes clear such
authorization is necessary and advisable.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.--The
Committee is aware of the Integrated Plan that has been
developed by the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project
Working Group, including the Bureau of Reclamation, to address
water storage and water supply needs for agriculture, fish, and
municipalities within the Yakima River Basin in Central
Washington. The Committee is supportive of the Plan and
encourages the Bureau to move forward on implementing
authorized components of the Plan. The State of Washington has
made significant investments in the land acquisition components
of the Integrated Plan. Therefore, instead of using the
proposed federal Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project
funding for land and water acquisition, Reclamation should use
these dollars for additional investments in Integrated Plan
water storage and supply reliability activities.
WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse program is intended to help ensure the
reliability of water supplies throughout the West. The
Committee continues to hear from advocates of regional-scale
projects. The Committee notes that Reclamation adjusted the
parameters of its most recent funding opportunity to address
these suggestions. Reclamation is encouraged to continue
periodic reviews of this program to ensure the most effective
results.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2014................................... $53,288,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 56,995,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 56,995,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +3,707,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
This fund was established to carry out the provisions of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide
funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley area of California. Resources are derived from
donations, revenues from voluntary water transfers and tiered
water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also
is financed through additional mitigation and restoration
payments collected on an annual basis from project
beneficiaries.
For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $56,995,000,
$3,707,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget
request. The Committee notes that the increase for this account
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the
authorizing statute.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 37,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 37,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the
federal share of water supply and reliability improvements,
ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds
by a state and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal
participation in this program was initially authorized in the
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act
enacted in 1996.
For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $37,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
The recommendation includes funding consistent with the
budget request for four feasibility studies associated with the
water storage projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the
Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act
(Public Law 108-361). According to information received from
Reclamation, no additional funding for these studies could be
used in fiscal year 2015. The Committee notes that one study is
expected to be completed by December 2014, another study by
July 2015, and the schedules for the remaining two studies are
uncertain subject to further funding participation by the non-
federal sponsor. Reclamation is strongly encouraged to take
necessary steps, including use of the shortest applicable
process under the National Environmental Policy Act, to meet
the established schedules.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 59,500,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 53,849,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -6,151,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -5,651,000
The Policy and Administration account provides for the
executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's office in
Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver,
Colorado; and, in five regional offices. The Denver and
regional offices charge individual projects or activities for
direct beneficial services and related administrative and
technical costs. These charges are covered under other
appropriations. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends
$53,849,000, $6,151,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,651,000
below the budget request.
This reduction in funding is a direct result of
Reclamation's lack of responsiveness to congressional and
statutory direction and to Committee information requests. The
fiscal year 2012 joint explanatory statement provided direction
regarding buried metallic water pipe. Reclamation chose to
implement only certain pieces of that direction, so the fiscal
year 2013 House report (House Report 112-462) and the fiscal
year 2014 Act and explanatory statement included additional
direction to Reclamation on this topic. The fiscal year 2014
language could not have been clearer that the status quo was
unacceptable. Yet the status quo is exactly what was described
in the report submitted by Reclamation.
Lengthy response times and incomplete answers to Committee
requests also have been concerns over the past few years. It
often takes weeks for Reclamation to respond to what should be
simple information requests. The lack of timely and pertinent
information weakens the Committee's ability to provide
appropriate oversight. The Committee would like to believe it
is not Reclamation's intent to slow delivery of information to
the Committee to avoid rigorous oversight, but rather is a
problem easier to solve, such as being a result of an overly
bureaucratic clearance process or similar administrative issue.
The Committee welcomes a discussion with Reclamation on ways to
improve the Committee's access to information.
The Committee remains concerned about the limited
information regarding activities included in the annual budget
request that is provided to the Committee. Particularly as new,
large, and costly projects and programs are proposed for
initiation, Reclamation must provide detailed analysis and
explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future
and the impacts to ongoing projects and programs. Without an
understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the
budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee
to evaluate the budget proposal and the prioritization of
actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to work with the
Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope of information
to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard budget
justification materials provided to the Congress.
The Committee previously has directed the Administration to
produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by
providing visibility into Reclamation's future plans and
spending. To date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan
to the Committee. The Committee once again directs the
Administration to fulfill the Committee's request to provide an
adequate and useful five-year plan.
The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include
the following: (1) a funding scenario that reflects the
Administration's expenditure ceilings, including inflation for
the out-years; (2) a list of active projects, as defined by a
project receiving funding in the previous three years, for
which funding is not proposed in the plan; (3) a full
accounting of all rural water, Indian water rights settlements,
and Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total
authorization, the balance to complete, and total
appropriations to date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of
extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to
address the backlog of project needs due to the aging of
Reclamation infrastructure; and (5) an explanation of the
methodology used in determining the project allocations,
together with the direction provided to field offices in the
preparation of the five-year plan.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015................................. $-500,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -500,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public
Law 84-984), loans and grants were made to non-federal
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment
of small water resource projects. The Loan Program currently
has an outstanding loan balance of approximately $42,000,000.
The most recent discretionary appropriation to this account was
in fiscal year 2002 for direct loans and in fiscal year 2004
for loan program administration. The fiscal year 2015 budget
request proposes to cancel $500,000 in unobligated balances in
this account. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends a
rescission of $500,000, the same as the budget request. Loan
program administration costs can be accommodated using
remaining carryover funds.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances
in which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds.
The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit
and Kesterson Reservoir in California.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
INTRODUCTION
Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department
of Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear
Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, the
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, Innovative
Technology Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental Administration,
Office of the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator), Defense Environmental Management, Other Defense
Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Committee Recommendation
The Department of Energy has requested a total budget in
fiscal year 2015 of $28,436,428,000, as estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office, to fund programs in its four
primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and
national security. The Department of Energy budget request is
$1,155,382,000 above fiscal year 2014 and, once again, includes
significant increases to renewable energy programs and national
defense mission areas while proposing significant reductions to
Fossil Energy Research and Development and, to a much lesser
extent, Nuclear Energy.
The Committee recommendation is $27,305,845,000 for the
Department of Energy, $24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$667,583,000 below the budget request after adjusting for the
Department's legislative proposal, which the recommendation
does not include. The Committee's recommendation recognizes the
difficult budgetary realities faced for fiscal year 2015. It
restructures the balance of the bill to ensure inherently
federal responsibilities, such as national security, basic
science activities, and environmental cleanup, are supported,
while investing in long-term research to improve the efficiency
of existing forms of energy production and to develop new and
innovative forms of energy for the nation's long-term energy
independence and prosperity. The remaining resources are
allocated to programs that can best address the threat of high
gasoline and electricity prices and to those that help support
American economic competitiveness in a global energy
marketplace.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution
states ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law''.
The Committee continues the Department's reprogramming
authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out
its programs consistent with congressional direction. This
reprogramming authority is established at the program, project,
or activity level, whichever is the most specific included in
the text or table detailing the Committee's recommendation for
the Department of Energy's various accounts. The Committee also
prohibits new starts through the use of reprogramming and
includes other direction to improve public oversight of the
Department's actions. In addition, the recommendation continues
a general provision specifying which transfer authorities may
be used for accounts funded by this Act.
FINANCIAL REPORTING
The Department is directed to continue to provide monthly
Financial Balances Reports to the Committee. The reports should
provide, for each program at the congressional control level as
specified in the table in this Report an accounting of the
following balances: total available (prior and current year);
unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated,
uncosted. Data should be provided both in summary form and by
the fiscal year the funding was appropriated. Emergency
funding, including any unspent American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act balances, should be displayed separately
within the Report. When submitting its monthly report to the
Committee, the Department shall identify and provide an
explanation for any use of the Department's limited programming
authority as provided under Section 301 of this Act. This
direction shall apply to future fiscal years unless
contradicted by the Committee.
The Committee remains concerned over the lack of
transparency in the Department's use of program direction funds
and has specified program direction funding in the bill for the
relevant accounts. In order to address excessive prior-year
balances in program direction accounts, the Committee has also
limited the period of availability of all program direction
funds for the Department of Energy. The Committee directs the
Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate an annual Program
Direction Report that includes details for expended amounts for
salaries and benefits, travel, support services, other related
expenses, and other relevant categories. This report should
include program direction balances in summary form and by the
fiscal year.
In addition to the buildup of unexpended prior-year program
direction balances, the Committee is concerned by the buildup
of excessive prior-year balances that are greater than five
years old. The Department of Energy has exceptional operational
flexibility because the period of availability of most of its
funding is not limited. However, the Department has not
properly managed its prior-year balances to ensure that funds
are expeditiously expended. Retaining these old balances places
a cumbersome administrative burden on DOE programs and makes
the Department's financial management processes inefficient and
unnecessarily complex. The bill contains a General Provision
that eliminates unobligated balances older than five years from
the Department's science and energy programs. By rescinding
these old balances, this General Provision will serve to
eliminate approximately one hundred existing budget and
reporting codes that the Department is continuing to maintain
and report against. For future years, the Department should
consider all balances greater than five years old effectively
expired. The Department shall submit all remaining unexpended
balances greater than five years old as an offset to its annual
budget request. If there is a valid justification for retaining
certain balances, the Department may submit a specific request
to retain such balances as an exception to this general
direction.
MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE
Again this year, the Obama Administration continues its
willful disregard for its legal responsibilities regarding
Yucca Mountain. By unilaterally halting the Yucca Mountain
High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration has
delayed fulfilling the federal government's legal requirement
to take responsibility for civilian spent nuclear fuel,
increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must bear. The
Department's fiscal year 2013 Financial Report shows the
estimated liability facing taxpayers is $25,100,000,000, an
increase of $2,800,000,000 from the previous year and
$9,800,000,000 since 2010, with $3,700,000,000 already paid by
the Judgment Fund. This liability will continue to grow. In
addition, high-level defense waste at sites across the country
now have no disposition pathway, presenting the likelihood that
the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states
as deadlines for removal are missed.
The credibility of the federal government has been further
eroded by the blatant political maneuverings the Administration
needed to skirt the law and halt the program. On August 13,
2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals definitively ruled that
the Administration's refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain
license application was illegal. As a result, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has restarted the license application
process and is scheduled to soon complete the final Safety
Evaluation Report. The D.C. Circuit Court also unanimously
ruled that the Department must stop collecting Nuclear Waste
Fund fees ``until such time as either the Secretary chooses to
comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it is currently
written, or until Congress enacts an alternative waste
management plan.''
Nevertheless, the Administration's fiscal year 2015 budget
request once again includes a proposal to implement the
Department's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which was
informed by the Administration's Blue Ribbon Commission that by
its very charter did not examine the suitability of Yucca
Mountain as a permanent repository. This strategy is estimated
to cost $5,700,000,000 over the next ten years and proposes to
reform the current funding arrangement for the Department's
nuclear waste fund management program. The Committee notes that
the Department's proposal has not been considered by Congress,
yet the Administration included $79,000,000 in its fiscal year
2015 request for used nuclear fuel disposition, including
activities necessary solely as a consequence of the
Administration's Yucca Mountain policy. The recommendation
rejects these non-Yucca proposals and makes clear that any
activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in
support of Yucca Mountain.
In addition, the recommendation provides $150,000,000
within Nuclear Waste Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain
High-Level Waste Geological Repository and $55,000,000 within
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support the continued
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The
Committee notes that geological repositories in addition to
Yucca Mountain will be needed. If the Congress provides the
authority for such repositories, as well as for a consensus-
based siting process, the Committee will consider support for
such activities at that time. In the meantime, the bill
contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca
Mountain license application or to take actions that would
irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option for a
repository.
PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS
The Committee has for years expressed concern with the
Department's establishment of a variety of new research
centers, or persistent, location-based grantees that receive
funding across a number of years and that often require out-
year commitments subject to appropriations. Examples include
Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs, and
BioEnergy Research Centers. The Department has continued to add
to this list by proposing at least one additional Clean Energy
Manufacturing Innovation (CEMI) Institute in fiscal year 2015,
in addition to the two to be established using fiscal year 2014
funding and the one already established using fiscal year 2013
funding--each for five-year awards. The Department is also
proposing to renew two of its Energy Innovation Hubs for their
second five-year terms.
Unfortunately, the Administration continues to propose
these new ideas without examining, or at least articulating,
why existing programs are inadequate or underperforming. No
offsets are offered within existing programs, and no policy
prescriptions are offered. The Committee continues to support
the ongoing review of all existing research centers and expects
frequent and thorough updates as the Department considers their
relative effectiveness and potential renewal or termination in
future years. The Committee urges the Department to look at its
programs as a portfolio of approaches to achieve results and to
propose eliminating less effective programs and support
mechanisms.
While many of these centers have been proposed openly and
established with congressional concurrence, several have been
established or renewed over the years with little or no
justification in the budget requests, including Manufacturing
Demonstration Facilities and CEMI Institutes. Further, many
centers have been funded perennially and lack a concrete goal
after which they would be terminated. This practice has led to
the proliferation of centers across many Departmental programs
consuming program budgets and preventing prioritization of
funds towards other higher-priority activities. Addressing this
problem requires greater transparency, evaluation, and
prioritization to ensure that only highly-effective centers
closely aligned to program missions are funded.
In fiscal year 2014, the Department was directed to submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a comprehensive list of all
centers to be funded in the fiscal year, including the date of
establishment, purpose, milestones, funding level in the fiscal
year, total funding received to date, out-year mortgages, and
expected termination date. The Department has yet to submit
this list, so the Committee reiterates its previous direction.
Furthermore, the Department is directed to explicitly include
in future budget justifications all centers, hubs, institutes,
facilities, and any other persistent, location-based grantee;
their current and proposed funding levels; expected out-year
commitments; and details on their programmatic and technical
goals.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2015 unless the programs
were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded
within this recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that
the Department chooses to fund in fiscal year 2015 must be
detailed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request documents. This
direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless
contradicted by the Committee.
Understanding that harnessing scientific and technological
ingenuity has long been at the core of America's prosperity,
the Department of Energy has programs designed to increase the
number of underrepresented minorities in the Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) area. The
Committee strongly encourages the Department to maintain this
commitment by engaging in competitions supporting programs,
including within the energy sciences and nonproliferation and
in partnership with the national laboratories, that increase
the number of underrepresented college minorities in STEM
fields.
The Department has also recognized that beyond federal
programs, there are successful initiatives being pursued by
non-profit organizations that provide examples of best
practices, including exposure to STEM education and career
opportunities at all levels of education, financial assistance,
one-on-one mentoring, and expanded participation in crucial
research and development. The Committee encourages the
Department to look for opportunities to leverage its investment
with these non-profits.
REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to inform the
Committee promptly and in detail when a change in program
execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. The
Department's reprogramming requirements are detailed in
statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the following
guidance is provided for programs and activities funded in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation. The
recommendation includes a general provision providing internal
reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no
program, project, or activity is increased or decreased by more
than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to
the levels in the text or table detailing the Committee's
recommendations for the Department's various accounts. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project to another
project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is
less, in the scope of an approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or activity until the next fiscal year
would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or
priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the
Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by
increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or
preference should not be a factor for consideration. A
reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs, or
to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in
the Act or report.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--In recognition of the
security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines
allow the Secretary and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the
reprogramming restriction by certifying to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the nation's security interest to do so. The
Department shall not deviate from the levels for activities
specified in the report that are below the level of the detail
table, except through the regular notification procedures of
the Committee. No funds may be added to programs for which
funding has been denied. Any reallocation of new or prior-year
budget authority or prior-year de-obligations, or any request
to implement a reorganization which includes moving previous
appropriations between appropriations accounts must be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in writing and may not be
implemented prior to approval by the Committees.
Transfers.--As in fiscal year 2014, funding actions into or
out of accounts funded by Title III of this Act may be made by
transfer authorities provided only by this or other
Appropriations Acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs in fiscal year 2015 are described in the following
sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of
this title.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,901,686,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 2,316,749,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,789,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -112,686,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -527,749,000
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs
include research, development, demonstration, and deployment
activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs.
The EERE program is divided into three portfolios: sustainable
transportation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The
sustainable transportation portfolio, which consists of the
vehicles, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel cell programs,
advances the development of plug-in electric and other
alternative vehicles, high-efficiency advanced combustion
engines, and the replacement of oil with clean domestic
transportation fuels. The renewable energy portfolio, which
consists of the solar, wind, water, and geothermal programs,
aims to develop innovative technologies to make renewable
electricity generation cost competitive with traditional
sources of energy. The energy efficiency portfolio, which
consists of the advanced manufacturing, buildings, and federal
energy assistance programs, seeks cost-effective solutions to
reduce energy consumption in plants, buildings, and homes.
The Committee recommends $1,789,000,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $112,686,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $527,749,000 below the budget request.
For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee
encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of
ultraconductive copper as an application-driven, crosscutting
technology area, including funding to support prototype
development and the scale-up of manufacturing with established
experts within EERE.
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
The Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American
exposure to future high oil prices. Research into cutting-edge
technologies that will increase the fuel economy of gasoline
and diesel fuel vehicles--the vast majority of today's fleet--
will allow Americans to spend less on fuel while traveling the
same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and
fuel cell technologies that power vehicles with domestic energy
sources such as natural gas, electricity, biofuels, and
hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower the impact of future
high gas prices on Americans.
The Committee recommends $557,500,000 for Sustainable
Transportation, $57,822,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$147,683,000 below the budget request.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$277,500,000 for Vehicle Technologies, $12,410,000 below fiscal
year 2014 and $81,500,000 below the budget request. Within
available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the
SuperTruck program, a cost-shared project with industry to
design a heavy-duty Class 8 truck with 50 percent improvement
in overall freight efficiency. The Committee acknowledges the
progress made towards the SuperTruck program's goals,
anticipates continued progress in fiscal year 2015, and
supports the fulfillment of existing contracts to advance
commercialization of truck technologies demonstrated by
industry partners. The Committee encourages the Department to
assess the achievements of the current program and whether
additional measures should be identified to further advance
fuel economy gains and to demonstrate the most promising
technologies that incorporate both the long-haul and regional-
haul segments.
The recommendation provides $102,000,000 for Batteries and
Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced
battery development. With additional funds above the request
for advanced battery development, the Department is directed to
expand high quality, independent, national laboratory
performance testing and lifecycle diagnostic assessment
activities, in order to validate and verify advanced battery
performance under normal operating conditions. The Department
is further directed to submit, not later than December 31,
2014, a report on its plan to utilize national laboratory
capabilities to expand battery performance science capabilities
for validation and to predict energy storage performance.
The recommendation provides $27,900,000 for Outreach and
Development, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities
program. No funding is provided for Advanced Fuel Vehicle
Community Projects or the Transportation Electrification
Program.
For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the
recommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems
Simulation and Testing, of which no funding is included for the
grid integration initiative; $49,000,000 for Advanced
Combustion Engines; $36,000,000 for Materials Technology; and
$25,000,000 for Fuels Technology.
The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to leverage
the expertise of various experimental and computational
collaborative programs among universities, national
laboratories, and industry to develop sustainable technologies
that will improve the overall fuel economy of heavy-duty
transportation systems.
Bioenergy Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$180,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $52,429,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $73,200,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$46,500,000 for Feedstocks, of which $30,000,000 is for
research and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks;
$90,500,000 for Conversion Technologies, of which no funding is
included for a conversion incubator; $25,800,000 for
Demonstration and Deployment, of which no funding is for the
joint initiative with the Navy and the Department of
Agriculture to develop commercial diesel and jet biofuels
production capacity for defense purposes; and $11,000,000 for
Strategic Analysis and Crosscutting Sustainability.
The Department is directed not to procure or use commonly
recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste
for electricity generation or to make grants for renewable
biofuels production to any facility that uses as a feedstock
recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste.
For the purposes of allocating resources, the Department is
encouraged to include biosolids derived from the municipal
wastewater treatment process and other similar renewables
within the definition of noncellulosic biomass. The Committee
also encourages the Department to evaluate the potential for
the conversion of degradables in combined trash to liquid- and
gaseous-fuels, and chemical intermediates at distributed
locations where optimal, in order to determine the national
resource potential and the benefits of this approach compared
to other approaches, including the densification of wastes to
be transferred to centralized conversion facilities.
The Committee notes that research, development, and
demonstration of direct liquefaction of biomass via a pyrolysis
event and the subsequent upgrading and cracking to renewable
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels is a high priority pathway to
produce fuels from a range of biomass sources. The Committee
supports the Department's continued efforts to examine the
testing of new catalysts, separations strategies, and
engineering designs at the bench- and pilot-scale to enable
rapid evaluation of promising technologies.
The Committee also notes that the oil content of algae is
only approximately 25 percent of the total biomass of algae,
yet efforts to date have predominantly focused on extracting
and processing oil from algae. The Committee encourages the
Department to examine the commercial potential for value added
renewable products that are derived from biomass intermediates
or a slipstream on the trajectory towards biofuels, which might
include proteins, fish food, and other renewable chemicals.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $100,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies, $7,017,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $7,017,000
above the budget request.
Of the funding provided above the budget request, an
additional $5,000,000 is for Technology Validation to conduct
testing and analysis of fuel cells as industrial-scale energy
storage devices, with validation and testing using full-scale
testing and demonstration capabilities. To support this effort,
the Committee recommends that the Department leverage national
laboratory, university, and regional stakeholder partnerships
and capabilities, including at-scale grid infrastructure,
modeling expertise, extreme environment testing capabilities,
and public-private partnerships. The remaining $2,017,000 above
the request is to support cost-shared advanced demonstration
and deployment activities that validate commercial viability,
including material handling equipment, ground support
equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary power units, and
associated hydrogen infrastructure.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal
Technologies programs fund applied research, development, and
demonstration to reduce the cost of renewable energy to
economically competitive levels. Research into innovative
technologies, such as photovoltaic and concentrating solar
technologies, offshore wind, hydropower, and ground heat, can
expand energy production from our domestic resources and reduce
our dependence on foreign oil.
The Committee recommends $369,500,000 for Renewable Energy,
$80,292,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $151,800,000 below the
budget request.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for
Solar Energy, $79,211,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$104,300,000 below the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $37,000,000 for Concentrating Solar
Power, of which $10,000,000 is for the joint Supercritical
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation program with
the Offices of Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy; $38,000,000
for Photovoltaic Research and Development; $39,500,000 for
Systems Integration, of which no funding is included for the
grid integration initiative; and $43,000,000 for Innovations in
Manufacturing Competitiveness, of which $10,000,000 is for the
Sunshot Incubator.
Within the funds available for Innovations in Manufacturing
Competitiveness, the Committee directs the Solar Technologies
program to provide funding opportunities, as proposed in the
budget request, that support U.S. equipment supply chain
technology efforts, which will reduce the cost of manufacturing
silicon photovoltaic cells by reducing the amount of raw
material silicon needed to produce a solar cell while also
increasing manufacturing efficiencies by removing manufacturing
process steps to produce solar cells.
Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be
a major priority for the Committee across all technology areas,
and the Committee encourages the Department to continue to
prioritize solar manufacturing initiatives within this program
and, to the extent possible within available funding, to
explore crosscutting advanced solar films aimed at improving
the cost-effectiveness of solar technologies. The Committee
also recognizes the need to lower the cost of solar power
products and installation for customers and requests that the
Department work with interested stakeholders to achieve that
end.
Wind Energy.--The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for
Wind Energy, $18,821,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $8,000,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides the requested level of $42,613,000 for
the Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; an
additional $5,000,000 to continue research and development in
support of the offshore demonstration project; and $500,000 for
the Wind for Schools program.
The Committee continues to support wind activities with
large generation potential that rely on technology innovations
that would not be developed by the private sector alone. To
this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind
technologies that address the unique opportunities and issues
across the nation's waterways, such as high winds, icing, and
deep water, rather than those technologies currently being
considered by the private sector.
Water Power.--The Committee recommends $38,500,000 for
Water Power, $20,100,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $24,000,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $19,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic
technologies and $19,000,000 for conventional hydropower, of
which $3,960,000 is for the purposes of Section 242 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Geothermal Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $198,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and $15,500,000 below the budget request. Within
available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000 for
Enhanced Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for site
selection and characterization activities for the Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy project.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The Advanced Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Federal
Energy Management, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental
programs advance cost-effective solutions to reduce energy
consumption through increased efficiency. Research into
cutting-edge technologies that enhance manufacturing processes,
develop advanced materials, and reduce energy use in buildings,
homes, and factories can serve the national interest by greatly
reducing our energy needs, while also giving American
manufacturers an advantage to compete in the global
marketplace.
The Committee recommends $644,000,000 for Energy
Efficiency, $26,182,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $213,700,000
below the budget request.
Within available funds for energy efficiency, the Committee
directs the Department to work with its partner agencies and
relevant industry partners to submit, not later than September
30, 2015, a report on the potential benefits, cost savings, and
reduced energy use of a mechanical insulation maintenance and
upgrade program in federal facilities, as well as an evaluation
of approaches for increasing the use of mechanical insulation
in federal energy efficiency programs.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends
$206,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $25,421,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $99,100,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less
than $4,205,000 for improvements in the steel industry; not
less than $20,000,000 for combined heat and power activities
relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in
manufacturing processes; and not less than $500,000 to continue
efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue to support
technical assistance for combined heat and power demonstrations
and deployments that support systems-level optimization,
microgrids, and grid integration, as well as research and
development into next-generation combined heat and power
technologies.
For subprograms within Advanced Manufacturing, the
recommendation provides $84,900,000 for Next Generation
Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, of which
$12,900,000 is for the Advanced Manufacturing Incubator;
$28,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance; and
$92,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development
Facilities, of which $25,000,000 is for the fourth year of
funding for the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub,
$10,000,000 is for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and
the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, $1,500,000 is for the joint
additive manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of
Defense, and $56,000,000 is for four Clean Energy Manufacturing
Innovation (CEMI) Institutes. The Department may use up to
$6,000,000 of funding provided under Research and Development
Projects to support operations of the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility,
should additional funding be needed.
The Committee notes that CEMI Institutes constitute the
largest funding activity within Advanced Manufacturing's fiscal
year 2015 budget request, yet the Department has provided scant
justification on its proposed research topics or mission needs.
For example, the Department requests $155,500,000 for CEMI
Institutes in fiscal year 2015 to establish ``at least one new
Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute,'' in addition
to the two to be established using fiscal year 2014 funds and
one already established using fiscal year 2013 funds, with the
balance of the request presumably to forward fund existing CEMI
Institutes or to establish additional CEMI Institutes not
enumerated in the request. The recommendation supports the
establishment of one new CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2015, in
addition to the three established using fiscal years 2013 and
2014 funding. Should the Department propose funding for
additional CEMI Institutes in the future, the Committee directs
that all future budget justifications include a specific
research topic associated with a CEMI Institute, which will
provide the Committee with the necessary transparency to
evaluate and prioritize funding to ensure that only highly-
effective centers closely aligned with Advanced Manufacturing
program missions are funded.
The Committee is aware that efficiency is a key focus in
the upcoming Advanced Manufacturing Office motors survey study.
The Department is encouraged to investigate efficiencies that
will be derived from electric propulsion systems, which the
Committee recognizes can equate to significant national annual
energy savings on the magnitude of $100,000,000,000.
The Committee is also aware that the U.S. represents the
largest market for lithium metal, a near critical material with
national security and advanced manufacturing applications. The
U.S. military relies on primary lithium batteries to provide
power for communication devices, countermeasure devices, global
positioning systems, guidance systems, missiles, torpedoes,
guided artillery, and fuses. Lithium metal is also essential in
fuel-efficient aircraft bodies, medical devices, and as a means
to produce organometallics, which are used in manufacturing
eco-friendlier tires, widely used drugs, superior fungicides,
recyclable polymer materials, and grid energy storage devices.
The Committee notes that the U.S. domestic supply and
technology position of lithium metal is on a downward trend
relative to China and Russia should U.S. domestic supply not
increase by 2020. The Committee directs the Department to
examine the impact federal investment may have in strengthening
our availability and usage of lithium, including low-sodium
lithium metal.
Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$165,000,000 for Building Technologies, $12,974,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $46,700,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, up to $15,000,000 is to continue high
value research into energy efficient building systems with
national application, should the Department determine
additional work to be merited. Prior to execution of these
funds, the Department shall ensure that the research has clear
and measurable goals with realistic timeframes to improve the
energy efficiency of buildings and submit the research plan to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
Furthermore, the recommendation includes $14,000,000 for
the Building America program, the same as the request, and
$6,000,000 for research and development activities for small
scale combined heat and power systems that can be used for
residential and small commercial settings.
For the subprograms within Building Technologies, the
recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings
Integration; $55,862,000 for Emerging Technologies, of which
$25,800,000 is for solid state lighting and, in addition to
funds recommended for lighting research and development,
$5,000,000 is for the second Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, or
``L Prize,'' which offers both a monetary prize and federal
procurement and other benefits to the first organization that
manufactures highly-efficient PAR38 halogen replacement lamps
meeting various technical requirements; $40,438,000 for
Equipment and Buildings Standards; and $23,000,000 for
Residential Buildings Integration. The recommendation provides
no funding within Building Technologies for the grid
integration initiative.
Consistent with current policy, the Department is directed
not to advocate, promote, or discourage the adoption or
inclusion of a particular building energy code or code
provision, other than the technical and economic analysis work
required by statutory mandate, or to provide funding to private
third parties or non-governmental organizations that engage in
this type of advocacy.
The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to
develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a
responsibility which had previously been assumed by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
Committee directs the Department to work closely with HUD,
industry, and tenant groups to ensure that any proposed
standards take equally into account the up-front cost of
housing and life cycle operating costs.
In June 2010, the Department of Energy amended the existing
energy conservation standards for residential water heaters.
The Committee is concerned that efficiency standards for large-
capacity water heaters, scheduled to take effect in April 2015,
would endanger the long-term sustainability of more than 250
voluntary demand response programs in 34 states. These programs
reduce energy use during peak hours, improve the integration of
renewable energy resources, and lower energy costs for
consumers. The Committee is aware of bipartisan agreement in
both chambers to create a new classification for certain grid-
enabled residential water heaters that are intended for use as
part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program
and that would be exempt from this final rule. The Committee
continues to track progress of this bipartisan legislation and
directs the Department to work with stakeholders to allow for
the continued manufacture and use of grid-enabled water
heaters.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $20,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management
Program, $8,265,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $16,200,000
below the budget request.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.--The
Committee recommends $253,000,000 for Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Programs, $22,000,000 above fiscal year 2014
and $51,700,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation provides $200,000,000 for Weatherization
Assistance Grants, all of which is for formula grants;
$3,000,000 for Training and Technical Assistance; and
$50,000,000 for the State Energy Program. The recommendation
includes no funding for Clean Energy and Economic Development
Partnerships or for competitive awards within the
Weatherization Assistance Program to develop and test financing
models to support energy efficiency retrofits. The
recommendation includes the Tribal Energy Program in
Departmental Administration.
Social Cost of Carbon.--The Committee understands that the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently reviewing
the process the Administration used to develop estimates to
calculate the social cost of carbon. The Committee believes
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs should
not allow any regulations to be finalized using the Technical
Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United
States Government, May 2013 until public comments on the
document have been evaluated, the GAO report has been submitted
and reviewed, and any necessary changes to the technical
support document are incorporated.
CORPORATE SUPPORT
The Program Direction, Strategic Programs, and Facilities
and Infrastructure budgets provide the necessary resources for
program and project management across all of EERE's technology
programs, for the adoption of technologies to market, and for
the operation and upkeep of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
The Committee recommends $218,000,000 for Corporate Support
programs, $13,554,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $19,779,000
below the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000
for Program Direction, $12,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$10,000,000 below the budget request.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000
for Strategic Programs, of which $2,000,000 is for the U.S.-
Israel energy cooperative agreement and $2,000,000 is for the
joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and
development effort with the Office of Nuclear Energy.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$56,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, of which
$26,000,000 is for Operations and Maintenance and $30,000,000
is for Facility Management.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriation, 2014................................... $147,306,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 180,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 160,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +12,694,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -20,000,000
The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program
advances technologies and provides operational support to
increase the efficiency, resilience, and security of the
nation's electricity delivery system. The power grid employs
aging technologies at a time when power demands, the deployment
of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats
are imposing new stresses on the system. The Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a
modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies,
intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, and energy
storage systems.
The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $12,694,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $20,000,000 below the budget request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $109,500,000 for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development, $3,800,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $11,900,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $32,700,000 for Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability, of which $5,000,000 is for the
Energy Systems Predictive Capability activity; $14,600,000 for
Smart Grid; $15,200,000 for Energy Storage; and $47,000,000 for
cyber security for energy delivery systems, of which $5,000,000
is to continue development of the industry-scale electric grid
test bed.
Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee
encourages the Department to continue examining evolving
battery technologies when funding research and development and
pilot programs on the basis of long lifecycle and low capital
and maintenance costs, with the battery system able to provide
grid storage of energy that can be drawn on by demand.
The Committee recognizes the value an independent
assessment may have to verify, criticize, and reinforce key
issues within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability's mission to support the nation's electricity
delivery system. Within available funds for Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability, up to $1,000,000 shall be for the
Department to contract with an appropriate organization, such
as the National Research Council, to conduct a national level
comprehensive study on the future resilience and reliability of
the nation's electric power transmission and distribution
system. At a minimum, the report should include technological
options for strengthening the capabilities of the nation's
power grid; a review of federal, State, industry, and academic
research and development programs; and an evaluation of cyber
security for energy delivery systems. Not later than September
30, 2015, the Department shall submit the findings to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate.
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).--The
Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Infrastructure Security
and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$6,600,000 below the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $8,000,000 for the ISER activity
and $8,000,000 for the Operational Energy and Resilience (OER)
program, of which all funding shall be to support construction
of the Energy Resilience and Operations Center within the
Department's Washington, D.C. headquarters. The Committee notes
that physical construction of this strategic operations center
will take approximately one year and must be completed before
equipment installation may take place. The recommendation
provides no funding for dedicated staff for the OER program,
about which the Committee reiterates its concerns of the
Department's intent to embed staff within each of the ten
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. The
Committee directs the Department to submit not later than
February 1, 2015, a strategic workforce plan, including out-
year budget costs, for a modified OER program in which staff is
not embedded into the FEMA regional offices. The Committee
further directs any funding for staff be included in Program
Direction in future budget submissions.
The Committee directs the Department to submit not later
than three months after enactment of this Act a report on its
efforts to support the physical and cyber security of the
electricity grid. The report should include the following: an
analysis of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
physical security standards developed in response to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's March 7, 2014, order, as
well as areas for improvement, if necessary; the Department's
plans to better understand and respond to the correlation of
threats against physical infrastructure, operational technology
systems, and informational technology systems of the
electricity grid; the Department's efforts to reach out to and
incorporate the private sector; and whether the Department
should have a larger role to assist owners of critical
infrastructure to develop the necessary capabilities to provide
security to the nation's electricity grid.
Nuclear Energy
Appropriation, 2014................................... $889,190,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 863,386,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 899,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +9,810,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +35,614,000
Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the
nation's electricity and will continue to be an important base-
load energy source in the future. The Department of Energy's
Nuclear Energy program invests in research, development, and
demonstration activities that develop the next generation of
clean and safe reactors, further improve the safety of our
current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation's long-term
leadership in the global nuclear power industry.
The Committee recommends $899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy,
$9,810,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $35,614,000 above the
budget request.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $483,500,000 for Nuclear Energy
Research and Development, $5,130,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$15,614,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $101,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies, $29,870,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$22,754,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $14,000,000 for Crosscutting
Technology Development; $26,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced
Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above the request is
for additional support of the advanced computational tools and
methods developed by various Nuclear Energy programs;
$24,300,000 for the first year of the second five-year term of
the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation; and
$36,500,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which
funding above the request is to complete the installation of
advanced post-irradiation examination equipment at the
Irradiated Materials Characterization Laboratory.
Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which
is critical to ensuring the nation's nuclear science and
engineering workforce in future years.
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical Support.--
The Committee recommends $54,500,000 for SMR Licensing
Technical Support, $55,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$42,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs
that all fiscal year 2015 funding within this program is to
support the second award for an SMR design. The Committee is
aware that the need for fiscal year 2015 funding for the first
award under the SMR Licensing Technical Support program may
change throughout the year and will consider additional funding
according to developments.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration,
$25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $37,460,000 above the
budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation
provides $35,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, of
which $12,700,000 is to support advanced safety methods
development and the risk informed safety margin
characterization methodology; $2,000,000 for the joint
industrial scale integrated energy systems research and
development effort with the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy; and $101,000,000 for Advanced Reactor
Concepts to include the following activities: $33,000,000 is
for research of the fuel and graphite qualification program for
the High Temperature Gas Reactor; $12,500,000 is for the
further development of two performance-based advanced reactor
concepts, of which $7,500,000 is for industry-only competition
of two performance-based advanced reactor concepts and
$5,000,000 is for the national laboratories selected to work
with the awardees to perform the work required by the awardees
to meet the goals of the awards; and $7,000,000 is for an
advanced test/demonstration reactor planning study by the
national laboratories, industry, and other relevant
stakeholders of such a reactor in the U.S. The study will
evaluate advanced reactor technology options, capabilities, and
requirements within the context of national needs and public
policy to support innovation in nuclear energy. The
recommendation funds other activities within Advanced Reactor
Concepts at the requested level and accepts the Department's
proposal to consolidate Advanced SMR Research and Development
with Advanced Reactor Concepts.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $182,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development, $4,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $7,100,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels
Program to continue implementation of accident tolerant fuels
development, of which $12,000,000 is for additional support of
feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor
fuels and $5,000,000 is for additional support of capability
development of transient testing, including test design,
modeling, and simulation.
The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for Used Nuclear
Fuel Disposition (UNFD), $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$24,000,000 below the budget request. The budget request for
UNFD is organized into two distinct activities: $49,000,000 for
research and development activities to enable storage,
transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes
generated by existing and future nuclear cycles, and
$30,000,000 for integrated waste management system activities
to lay the groundwork and develop options for decision makers
on the design of an integrated waste management system. The
recommendation provides $55,000,000 for UNFD research and
development activities, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$6,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the Committee directs the Department to support research and
development of advanced sensors, online monitoring, and other
non-destructive evaluation and examination technologies to
ensure long-term dry cask storage integrity. Of the funding
provided above the budget request for UNFD research and
development, $6,000,000 is to support activities to design and
certify a rail car or cars for use with licensed and
anticipated transportation casks. No funding is provided for
integrated waste management system activities.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Radiological
Facilities Management, $20,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request, to support the continued
operation of U.S. research reactors by providing research
reactor fuel services and maintenance of fuel fabrication
equipment.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $206,000,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management, $9,440,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000
above the budget request.
INL Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee
recommends $200,631,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure,
$20,469,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000 above the
budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request,
the recommendation provides an additional $5,000,000 for
nuclear facility and support systems major maintenance;
$6,000,000 for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) safety margin
improvement preliminary design and estimating; $4,000,000 for
ATR evaporation pond liner replacement; and $3,000,000 for the
replacement of windows, manipulators, and process equipment at
the Hot Fuel Examination Facility.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $5,369,000 for
Construction, $11,029,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same
as the request, for design and construction of the Remote-
Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with
Naval Reactors.
IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide
Safeguards and Security, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request. The recommendation continues to
fund this activity out of the Nuclear Energy account, as
proposed in the budget request, and not out of Other Defense
Activities, as it was prior to fiscal year 2014.
SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the Supercritical
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative,
$27,500,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget
request, to develop and scale up advanced supercritical carbon
dioxide Brayton Cycle energy conversion technologies to pre-
commercial pilot demonstration to facilitate commercial
development. This is a joint initiative with the Office of
Fossil Energy and the Solar Energy program within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
The Committee directs that any demonstration funding be to
support a partnership with commercial channel partners to
develop a pilot-scale supercritical carbon dioxide
demonstration facility for temperatures greater than 700
degrees Celsius and that has broad applicability to fossil,
nuclear, and solar heat sources. The Department may modify the
cost-share ratio in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of
2005 as well as the temperature requirement upon certification
the operating parameters have broad applicability to fossil,
nuclear, and solar heat sources that achieve the high
performance characteristics afforded by supercritical carbon
dioxide cycles. The Committee encourages the Office of Nuclear
Energy to utilize the expertise already developed within the
Office of Fossil Energy's turbine program, which has experience
in similar conversion work and component development.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriation, 2014................................... $562,065,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 475,500,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 593,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +30,935,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +117,500,000
Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural
gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the
nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for
the majority of our needs for the foreseeable future. The
Fossil Energy Research and Development program funds research,
development, and demonstration activities to improve existing
technologies and to develop next-generation systems in the full
spectrum of fossil energy areas. At a time when fossil fuel
power generation is expanding around the globe and gas prices
remain at historically high levels, the activities funded
within this program advance our nation's position as a leader
in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the full
extent of our domestic resources safely and efficiently.
The Committee recommends $593,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, $30,935,000 above fiscal year 2014
and $117,500,000 above the budget request.
Once again, the budget request proposes severe reductions
to the Office of Fossil Energy's coal program and requests
funding be focused on carbon capture and storage technologies
and projects. This focus underemphasizes two areas critical to
our nation's energy future: the efficient use of existing
fossil energy resources and the full, safe, and responsible use
of untapped domestic resources. The Committee recommendation
increases funding in these areas to improve the efficiency of
power generation and to bolster efforts that can help protect
Americans from future high gasoline and diesel prices. In
addition to securing the domestic energy sector and protecting
consumers and businesses from future increases in electricity
and gas prices, technological advances in these areas will help
American industry compete in the booming global marketplace for
fossil energy technologies.
Liquefied Natural Gas Export Applications.--The Committee
remains concerned about the backlog of liquefied natural gas
export applications at the Department of Energy. To date,
applications for export to non-free trade agreement (FTA)
countries have been prone to lengthy delays, with only seven of
33 applications approved to date and multiple applications
pending at the Department for more than two years. On May 29,
2014, the Department proposed to discontinue conditional
approvals of applications for export to non-FTA countries and
instead make final public interest determinations only after
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conducts environmental
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. It is
unclear whether these proposed changes would accelerate the
Department's adjudication of applications or make them
susceptible to further bureaucratic delays. The Committee
continues to support a clearly communicated, timely process to
reach an appropriate determination on each application and
reiterates its previous direction to the Department, as first
required in House Report 113-135 and referenced by the fiscal
year 2014 Act, to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than one
month after enactment of this Act its plan to complete
consideration of all applications filed with the Department.
Carbon Utilization Technologies.--The Committee encourages
the Office of Fossil Energy to examine the feasibility of
carbon utilization technologies in addition to its work on
enhanced oil recovery, such as projects that utilize large
volumes of carbon dioxide in the production of algae. The
Committee urges the Office of Fossil Energy to coordinate with
the Bioenergy Technologies program within the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy in areas of mutual interest,
such as algae production.
COAL--CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $412,000,000 for Coal Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $19,664,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $134,593,000 above the budget request. The
Committee notes the Department improperly requested $25,000,000
for a natural gas carbon capture and storage demonstration
project within the coal program; subprogram totals referenced
within this report reflect that proposal as if it were made
within the Natural Gas Technologies program. The Department is
directed to use funds within the coal program only for coal
research and development, with the exception of the
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation
program, which has applications to all high-temperature fossil
heat sources.
The Committee encourages the Department to establish
university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy
programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies,
and to expand its technology transfer efforts. The Department
has previously funded several university-based CCS projects and
can build on an established research base to support ongoing
research and to address the wider implementation of CCS
technologies.
The Committee is aware that the Fossil Energy program
supports research for all coal types, including lignite, which
presents unique technical challenges due to its higher moisture
content and lower heating value than other varieties of coal.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue supporting
projects that advance technology development for power sources
that use lignite as a primary feedstock.
Carbon Capture.--The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for
Carbon Capture, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion
capture systems and $78,000,000 for post-combustion capture
systems, of which funding above the request is for additional
support of bench-scale and pilot projects.
Carbon Storage.--The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for
Carbon Storage, $8,900,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$19,916,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $13,500,000 for Geologic Storage
Technologies; $10,000,000 for Monitoring, Verification,
Accounting, and Assessment; $2,000,000 for Carbon Use and
Reuse; $8,500,000 for Carbon Sequestration Science; and
$66,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, of which not less than
$6,000,000 is for additional support of enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) technologies and projects, which can advance American
industry and clean fossil energy power generation while
increasing domestic oil production.
The Committee encourages the Department to expand its
support for carbon dioxide EOR technologies beyond the current
scope and urges the Department to support the demonstration and
deployment of promising, next-generation technologies at mature
oil fields.
Advanced Energy Systems.--The Committee recommends
$107,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $7,500,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $56,000,000 above the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $30,000,000
for Advanced Combustion Systems, of which funding above the
request is for additional support of pressure gain reduction,
chemical looping, and pressurized combustion technologies and
projects; $27,000,000 for Gasification Systems, of which
$8,000,000 is for the Advanced Air Separation Program to
continue activities improving advanced air separation
technologies; $15,000,000 for Hydrogen Turbines; $5,000,000 for
coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to produce
liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources
with reduced emissions and land and water use through
integration of carbon capture and other technologies; and
$30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which have the
potential to increase substantially the efficiency of clean
coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities for
the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute
significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles.
Crosscutting Research.--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000 for Crosscutting Research, $8,075,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and $14,708,000 above the budget request. Within
available funds, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 for
Coal Utilization Science; $1,500,000 for Energy Analyses;
$3,900,000 for University Training and Research; and
$18,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which
$5,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical Program to
identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers capable
of producing components from high temperature materials and
$7,000,000 is for water management research and development.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research
and Development.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for NETL
Coal Research and Development, $11,000 below fiscal year 2014
and $15,969,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes
that this program was funded within Program Direction prior to
fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue
including in the budget request all full-time equivalent
employee information within this program, as it does under
Program Direction.
The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Department
to continue its activities to economically recover rare earth
elements from coal and coal byproduct streams, such as fly ash,
coal refuse, and aqueous effluents, pending the submission of
findings on the feasibility of rare earth element recovery from
coal and, if determined feasible, a multi-year research and
development program as directed in House Report 113-135 and
referenced by the fiscal year 2014 Act.
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP)
Generation Program.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000
within Fossil Energy for the STEP program, a joint initiative
with the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Solar Energy program
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to
spur the development of the necessary designs, materials,
components, operation and control systems, sensors, and
understanding and characterization for large-scale
supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion.
The supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle energy
conversion system transforms heat energy through use of a
supercritical fluid medium with no condensation rather than
through steam and water and offers the possibility of higher
cycle efficiency over steam turbines by increasing turbine
inlet temperatures. Within the Fossil Energy program, higher
inlet temperatures and materials development are already
underway to develop ultrasupercritical steam turbines at 700
degrees Celsius in conjunction with coal power plants. At this
inlet temperature, the supercritical carbon dioxide cycle-based
plant systems offer the potential for efficiency improvements
of up to four percent compared to steam systems.
The approach to develop supercritical carbon dioxide-based
power conversion is crosscutting except for the difference in
heat sources and, thus, the inlet temperatures expected.
Currently, only fossil heat sources have achieved the desired
high temperature inlet conditions necessary to achieve
significant thermal efficiency gains afforded by supercritical
carbon dioxide cycles. The Committee, therefore, has included
$15,000,000 for the Office of Fossil Energy to support the
technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based
power conversion from fossil heat sources, as well as
$10,000,000 for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy to support the technology development of supercritical
carbon dioxide-based power conversion from solar energy. The
Committee has also included direction within Nuclear Energy
requiring the Department to ensure that a pilot demonstration
project takes advantage of the current availability of high-
temperature fossil heat sources.
Natural Gas Technologies
The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural Gas
Technologies, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $37,400,000
below the budget request.
Research.--The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural
Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $12,700,000 for research into the cost-
effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a
vast but currently inaccessible resource whose total energy
reserves rival those from all other known fossil fuels
combined; $5,200,000 for the Risk Based Data Management System;
and $4,700,000 for midstream natural gas infrastructure
research and development. The Committee directs that any
funding for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and
development be to enhance the deliverability efficiency of
natural gas.
Other than its support for the Risk Based Data Management
System, the recommendation provides no funding for the joint
research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) into hydraulic
fracturing technologies. The Committee notes the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014 restricted certain fiscal year 2014
funding for this collaborative research effort pending
submission of a finalized interagency research plan to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. The Department has not yet submitted this plan,
which will allow the Committee to understand why the Department
of Energy has allocated funding for this joint research effort
the last two fiscal years despite no funding being allocated by
the EPA and significantly reduced funding being allocated by
the USGS. The Committee directs the Department to submit this
plan as previously directed. The Committee further reiterates
its previous direction that any funding in the area of
hydraulic fracturing, including any funding to support the
proposed joint effort with EPA and USGS, is for research into
hydraulic fracturing technologies that aims both to improve the
economics and recoverability of reserves and to address the
health, safety, and environmental risks of shale gas
extraction.
Natural Gas Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration
Project.--The recommendation includes no funding for a Natural
Gas Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration project.
UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional
Fossil Energy Technologies, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014
and $13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides not less than $12,500,000
for activities to improve the economic viability, safety, and
environmental responsibility of offshore exploration and
production in challenging conditions, of exploration and
production from unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
resources, and of production by small producers; and up to
$500,000 for the Department to assess the technical landscape
of scalable energy conversion technologies, such as gas-to-
liquid or solid-to-liquid conversions or electrical power
generation, for use on unconventional and underutilized energy
resources such as stranded, sour, and hindered gas; anaerobic
digester wastes; small coal and waste coal streams; municipal
treatment plants; and municipal solid waste. The Department is
directed to report its findings to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than six months after enactment of this Act.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriation, 2014................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 19,950,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 19,950,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -50,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's,
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of
Elk Hills, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the
Interior, the Department retains one Naval Petroleum Reserve
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming
(Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the
Department has maintained while it remained economically
productive.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request supports continued
implementation of the disposition plan for NPR-3 as recommended
in a June 2013 report. Fiscal year 2015 activities include
disposal through competitive sale and continued environmental
remediation.
The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $19,950,000, $50,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
Appropriation, 2014................................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015................................. $15,579,815
Recommended, 2015..................................... 15,579,815
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +15,579,815
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
Payment to the State of California through the Elk Hills
school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with
the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 (NPR-1). Under
the settlement, payments to the State are to total nine percent
of the net proceeds of the sale. Payments to date have totaled
$299,520,000. Final equity for the sale of NPR-1 was settled in
fiscal year 2011, allowing the Department and the State to
agree on the amount of a final payment.
The Committee recommendation for the final payment is
$15,579,815, the same as the budget request.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriation, 2014................................... $189,400,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 205,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 205,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +15,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry
out obligations under the international energy program. The
capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current
inventory is approximately 691 million barrels or approximately
111 days of net import protection for the United States
economy. Operational activities, however, will leave
approximately 59 million barrels unavailable for drawdown,
thereby reducing the U.S. net import protection to 102 days.
Additionally, damage at one storage tank reduces the drawdown
rate to 4.25 million barrels per day from 4.4 million barrels
per day.
The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is $205,000,000, $15,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request. The funding increase above
fiscal year 2014 is primarily for the major maintenance program
to address aging infrastructure and the deferred maintenance
backlog.
In March 2014, the Department announced it would be
conducting the first test drawdown and sale since 1990. This
test sale of 5 million barrels was said to be necessary in
light of significant changes in the system, including pipeline
expansions, construction of new infrastructure, reversed flow
of existing pipelines, and increased use of domestic crude oil
terminals. The Committee looks forward to reviewing all
information learned from this test sale once the Department's
detailed explanation of the test, required by statute, is
received. Based on original bids, the Department estimates as
much as $495,000,000 in revenues from this test sale will be
deposited in the SPR Petroleum Account.
In May 2014, the Secretary announced, as part of the
President's Climate Action Plan, the creation of the first
federal regional refined petroleum product reserve. This
reserve is to contain gasoline and be located in the Northeast
United States. It is described as enabling a more secure and
resilient energy infrastructure, building on lessons learned
from Superstorm Sandy. Fuel acquisition and commercial storage
service contracts for 4.5 years will be funded through the SPR
Petroleum Account, using receipts from the March 2014 test
sale. The Department has indicated it is conducting a series of
regional fuel resiliency studies and, based on the results, may
consider additional regional refined petroleum product
reserves.
The Committee acknowledges that a test drawdown sale may
provide useful information in light of changes in the crude oil
system. The Committee also acknowledges that the concept of
regional refined petroleum product reserves may have merit and
deserves further consideration. The timing of these
announcements, the use of receipts from the test sale rather
than appropriated funds, and the lack of prior consultation
with the Congress, however, is extremely concerning.
The SPR has been focused on creating and maintaining a
supply of emergency crude oil. The Department's own web site
explains that only crude oil is stored in the Reserve because
``. . . in preparing the 1977 SPR Plan for development of the
Reserve, an analysis of the U.S. refining industry indicated
that the industry was robust and had the refining capacity to
satisfy the major portion of the nation's demand for petroleum
products. This continues to be true today--over 30 years later.
The U.S. petroleum import dependency is overwhelmingly crude
oil, not refined products. In addition, crude oil is cheaper to
acquire, store and transport than refined products. Crude oil
quality does not degrade over time as do refined products and
crude oil provides flexibility in responding to fluctuations in
refined product market needs; whereas, refined products are
expensive to maintain and are subject to changes in
specifications mandated by environmental legislation.'' To
date, the Department has not provided any analysis to
contradict this explanation or justify a change in course for
the SPR.
The Department has conceded that certain management and
oversight functions associated with the newly announced
regional reserve will need to be funded through the annual
appropriations process. The Committee assumes that storage
costs beyond the initial 4.5 years will need to be funded
through the annual appropriations process also. Based on
current estimates, these costs may represent an increase in
funding requirements of 5 percent of the total SPR annual
appropriation. For all these reasons, the creation of new
regional refined petroleum product reserves constitutes
significant policy and budgetary changes that the Department
should have discussed with the Congress prior to making a
public announcement and taking administrative action.
The recommendation includes a general provision requiring
the Department to provide the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate with advance
notification of any test drawdown and sale or exchange of
petroleum products from the SPR. The information required will
enable the Committees to ensure that future test sales are
conducted solely for the purpose of testing the drawdown and
sales processes and not to generate funds outside the annual
appropriations process for use by the Department for activities
not specifically approved by the Congress.
The general provision also prohibits the Department from
using any funds remaining from revenues generated by the March
2014 test sale for the purchase of any petroleum product other
than crude oil, since that is the petroleum product that was
sold. The Committee strongly believes the Congress must be a
partner in such a significant policy and budgetary decision as
expanding the location or types of petroleum product stored in
the SPR. The Committee expects that if the Department completes
regional fuel resiliency studies and determines that additional
regional refined petroleum product reserves are advisable, then
the Department will provide the analysis to the Congress,
engage the appropriate committees in discussions over details,
and include any necessary funding in subsequent budget
requests.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... $8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,600,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -6,400,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy,
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve contains one
million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), with
approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in
Boston, Massachusetts and approximately one-half located in
commercial facilities in Groton, Connecticut. This reserve is
the equivalent of three to four days of emergency stocks in New
England.
The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve is $1,600,000, $6,400,000 below fiscal year 2014
and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a
rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in
the recommendation and the use of $6,000,000 in prior-year
balances in the budget request, the fiscal year 2015 program
level is $400,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the
budget request.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriation, 2014................................... $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 122,500,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 120,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -2,500,000
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-
independent agency within the Department of Energy established
to provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related
information to the Congress, the executive branch, state
governments, industry, and the public. The Committee recommends
$120,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration,
$3,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,500,000 below the
budget request.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2014................................... $231,765,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 226,174,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 241,174,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +9,409,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +15,000,000
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage
and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-
defense related activities. These past activities resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination that
requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The
Committee recommends $241,174,000 for Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup, $9,409,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000
above the budget request. To the extent possible within
available funds, the Department of Energy should take advantage
of near-term opportunities to realize lifecycle cost savings by
accelerating completion of ongoing small sites projects.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $65,223,000,
$5,981,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,000,000 above the
budget request. Within funding for Small Sites, $5,000,000 is
provided to clean up outstanding Department of Energy
liabilities at the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for
physical security upgrades at the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear
Generating Station. Considering the growing cost of continuing
to store these materials for which the Department has assumed
responsibility, the Department is directed to provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than December 1, 2014, a report that
describes the costs of continuing to store spent nuclear fuel
at Fort St. Vrain and the feasibility and costs of
consolidating this material at another DOE site.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2014................................... $598,823,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 530,976,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 585,976,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -12,847,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +55,000,000
The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to pay
for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth,
Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology Park
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends $585,976,000
for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $12,847,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $55,000,000 above the budget request.
Oak Ridge.--The Committee recommends $157,898,000,
$38,092,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $20,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee commends the Department for its
high level of performance in completing demolition of the K-25
building and provides funding above the budget request to
preserve momentum on completing cleanup work at the site.
Paducah.--The Committee recommends $207,215,000,
$58,005,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget
request. The Committee is aware that the Department intends to
carry over approximately $107,000,000 into fiscal year 2015 as
a result of the delays in the turnover of the gaseous diffusion
plant from the United States Enrichment Corporation. With the
additional funds provided in this bill, the Department will
have approximately $314,000,000 to conduct cleanup activities
in fiscal year 2015. The Department is obligated to
decommission and decontaminate the gaseous diffusion plant and
other structures at the Paducah site in a timely fashion, but
has done a poor job explaining its future cleanup plans to the
Committee, stakeholders, and the public. The Committee does not
support placing the gaseous diffusion plant in a cold and dark
state. The Department is directed to submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate not later than 30 days after enactment a report that
clearly describes the anticipated timeline for decontamination
and decommissioning of the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant and
that includes the Department's five-year projected cost and
schedule planning assumptions for accomplishing work at the
site.
Portsmouth.--The Committee recommends $175,000,000,
$37,387,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the
budget request. Additional funds above the budget request are
to compensate for reduced uranium barter proceeds anticipated
by the continued depression of uranium market prices.
Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.--The Committee
recommends $20,000,000 to reimburse private licensees for the
federal government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium
and thorium processing sites in accordance with Title X of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, $20,000,000 above fiscal year 2014
and $20,000,000 above the budget request. The Department
reports that it has $54,586,000 in approved but unpaid claim
balances, but the Department has failed to provide plans for
addressing these liabilities. These cleanup activities are
important to the health and safety of a number of communities,
and the recommendation provides funding above the budget
request to reduce the backlog of outstanding claims. The
Committee expects the Department to provide sufficient
resources within future budget plans to reimburse licensees for
approved claim balances.
Science
Appropriation, 2014................................... $5,071,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 5,111,155,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 5,071,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -40,155,000
The Office of Science funds basic science research across
national laboratories, universities, and other research
institutions in support of American innovation and the
Department's energy-focused missions. Through research in
physics, biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines,
these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the
nation's leadership in energy innovation. The Office of Science
funds a significant portion of science research nationwide.
The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific
Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and
Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers
and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards
and Security, and Program Direction. The Committee has placed a
high priority on funding these activities within the limited
resources available in fiscal year 2015, given the private
sector is not likely to fund research whose findings either
have high non-commercial value or are not likely to be
commercialized in the near- or medium-term. However, this work
is vital to sustaining the scientific leadership of the United
States and can provide the underpinnings for valuable
intellectual property in the coming decades.
The Committee recommendation is $5,071,000,000 for the
Office of Science, the same as fiscal year 2014 and $40,155,000
below the budget request.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops
and hosts some of the world's fastest computing and network
capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation,
and research. The Committee recommends $541,000,000 for
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $62,407,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
Exascale Computing.--The Committee continues to support the
exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation
of computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than
today's fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to
enabling basic and energy-focused science research not
previously possible and to maintaining the nation's global
leadership in computing technologies. The recommendation
includes the requested level of $91,000,000.
High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.--In
addition to the long-term exascale intiative, the Committee
supports continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership
Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National
Laboratories and of the High Performance Production Computing
capabilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These
systems' capabilities are a critical component of science and
industrial research and development across the nation, and they
should be maintained as world-leading facilities. The
recommendation includes the requested levels of $80,320,000 for
the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility; $104,317,000 for the
Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility; and $69,000,000 for
the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
All other activities within the Advanced Scientific
Computing Research program are funded at the requested level.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in
materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The
science breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of
innovation in energy technologies and other industries critical
to American economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends
$1,702,000,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $10,757,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $104,500,000 below the budget request.
The program's budget consists of funding for research, the
operation of existing user facilities, and the design,
procurement, and construction of new facilities and equipment.
The long-term success of the program hinges on striking a
careful balance among these three areas. However, the
increasing level of research commitments and completion of new
facilities make it difficult to adequately fund all three
components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within existing
budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions the
Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when
planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and
research funding.
Research.--The Committee recommends $1,574,000,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences research, $36,757,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $93,800,000 below the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides $100,000,000 for Energy
Frontier Research Centers.
For materials science and engineering research, the
recommendation includes $371,382,000, of which $10,000,000 is
for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
and $8,000,000 is for Computational Materials Sciences. All
other activities within this subprogram are funded at the
requested level, including $24,175,000 for the third year of
the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub.
For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the
recommendation includes $291,280,000. The recommendation
includes no funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub,
which received its final year of funding for its initial five-
year award term in fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes the
Department has made no decision for continued funding for the
hub beyond the initial term, which ends in September 2015.
For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes
$911,338,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; $42,500,000
is for major items of equipment; and $9,300,000 is for other
projects costs. The recommendation includes $799,529,000 for
facilities operations of the nation's synchrotron radiation
light sources, high flux neutron sources, and nanoscale science
research centers, of which $248,490,000 is for the High-Flux
Neutron Sources to operate at optimal levels and $105,000,000
is for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven
National Laboratory to transition from early operations to full
operations during fiscal year 2015.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $128,000,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and $10,700,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation supports the second year of construction funding
for the revised LINAC Coherent Light Source II project to
include the addition of a superconducting linear accelerator
and additional undulators to generate an unprecedented high-
repetition-rate free-electron laser.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Biological and Environmental Research program supports
advances in energy technologies and related science through
research into complex biological and environmental systems. The
Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research, $70,196,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$88,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems
Science subprogram, which focuses on the biology of plant and
microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations
of biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass
sources. In addition to reducing our nation's dependence on
petroleum-based fuels with chronically high prices, the
biofuels produced through this program's science breakthroughs
can lower the cost of, improve the sustainability of, and ease
industry's transition to those fuel alternatives.
The recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the third year
of the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research
Centers, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
The recommendation includes no funding for the new Climate
Model Development and Validation activity.
Quickly advancing capabilities in high performance
computing, informatics, data science and analysis, and
simulation and modeling have a profound impact on scientific
discovery and innovation. The Committee encourages the
Biological Systems Science subprogram to leverage the
computational, data, and informatics capabilities of the
national laboratories, research universities, and other
stakeholders to advance its biological mission, and to see that
the benefits of these resources are accessible to a broad set
of researchers.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research
and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy
production. The Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Fusion
Energy Sciences, $34,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$124,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides not less than $71,220,000 for the
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than
$80,250,000 for DIII-D; and not less than $22,260,000 for
Alcator C-Mod.
Research.--The Committee recommends $315,000,000 for the
domestic fusion program, $9,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$49,000,000 above the budget request. The domestic fusion
program is a critical component of United States science
leadership and a necessary building block of any successful
fusion project, including the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER).
For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive
understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions
with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides
$184,138,000, of which $35,500,000 is for DIII-D research;
$8,000,000 is for Alcator C-Mod research; $11,545,000 is for
international research; $28,500,000 is for NSTX research;
$17,500,000 is for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas;
$25,170,000 is for theory; and $9,500,000 is for Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing.
For facilities operations, which support operation,
maintenance, and modifications to the research equipment and
diagnostics at the major U.S. fusion facilities, the
recommendation provides $103,855,000, of which $44,750,000 is
for DIII-D; $38,250,000 is for NSTX operations; $3,470,000 is
for the NSTX upgrade project; and $14,260,000 is for Alcator C-
Mod.
For enabling research and development, which develops and
continually improves the hardware, materials, and technology
incorporated into existing and next-generation fusion research
facilities, the recommendation provides $27,007,000, of which
$13,597,000 is for Materials Research.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for
the U.S. contribution to the ITER project, $25,000,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $75,000,000 above the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less
than $200,000,000 for in-kind hardware contributions and up to
$25,000,000 for cash contributions to the ITER Organization.
The recommendation continues a reprogramming control point for
the ITER project, as well as bill language restricting cash
contributions to the ITER Organization pending implementation
of the Third Biennial International Organization Management
Assessment Report recommendations.
The Committee continues its support for a robust fusion
program and believes ITER to be an important international
collaboration that represents a major step forward for the
fusion energy sciences. However, the Committee is alarmed by
the breadth of the findings in the latest management assessment
report and dismayed that the main challenge for the project
remains its management, rather than the science and technology
of the experiment itself. The Committee interprets the
collection of these shortfalls as a serious threat to the
ultimate success of the project. The Committee will not
tolerate lower project management standards for scientific
experiments conducted outside of the U.S. compared to those
conducted inside of the U.S., particularly those that result in
cost overruns, lengthy delays, and unrealistic schedules.
Nevertheless, if successful, the ITER project continues to
represent a significant leap forward towards the ultimate goal
of a prototype commercial fusion reactor. It has the support of
35 countries and seven member organizations, of which the U.S.
is responsible for approximately nine percent of the total cost
and in-kind hardware contributions. It remains the most
practical U.S. investment in the fusion energy sciences,
pending implementation of the management assessment reforms.
The Committee strongly supports the recent efforts of the ITER
Council to adopt the latest management assessment
recommendations and, by the summer of 2015, to adopt a
realistic schedule and funding profile for the ITER project
among all member nations. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee
includes funding to allow the ITER Council the time it needs to
implement these recommendations as soon as practicable. Should
the ITER Council fail in its attempts to create a strong
project culture within the ITER Organization, the Committee
questions whether the project can succeed as a scientific
experiment and, as such, will be forced to reconsider its
support for the international project.
The Committee is discouraged by the Department's budget
request of $150,000,000 for ITER, of which $110,000,000 is for
in-kind hardware contributions and $40,000,000 is for cash
contributions. If adopted, the request would only serve to
extend the timeline of the project by six months to two years
and result in cost overruns--both for U.S. in-kind hardware
contributions and the U.S. share of the ITER Organization--for
no apparent reason. This is not a fiscally responsible
proposal. According to the Department's latest cost estimate of
the ITER project, which was submitted before the fiscal year
2015 budget request, the U.S. share to reach first plasma--the
primary major milestone on the path to total project
completion--is $2,751,885,000, with the total U.S. share of
construction, operating and decommissioning costs at
$3,900,000,000 excluding contingency funding. The
recommendation supports the Department's latest estimate to
meet the U.S. obligations to first plasma by 2023.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental
research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy,
and ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program
focuses on particle physics theory and experimentation in three
areas: the energy frontier, which investigates new particles
and fundamental forces through high-energy experimentation; the
intensity frontier, which focuses on rare events to better
understand our fundamental model of the universe's elementary
constituents; and the cosmic frontier, which investigates the
nature of the universe and its form of matter and energy on
cosmic scales. The Committee recommends $775,000,000 for High
Energy Physics, $22,521,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$31,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee notes that the high energy physics research
community is currently engaged in developing a ten-year plan
for U.S. particle physics, which will include a ten-year report
by the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel under
various budget scenarios. The Committee applauds the Department
for this undertaking and continues to support a clearly
articulated vision under realistic budget scenarios for each of
the Science programs. The Committee encourages the Department
to make modifications to its high energy physics fiscal year
2015 budget request as necessary based on the findings of this
multi-step planning process.
The Department is directed to submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a work plan
that would advance second-generation dark matter direct
detection experiments, stage four cosmic microwave background
experiments, and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE)
and its alternatives, to include $10,000,000 for research and
development and $12,000,000 for project engineering and design
activities. The recommendation includes no funding for long-
lead procurements or construction activities for the LBNE
project. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
project to maintaining American leadership in the intensity
frontier and to basic science discovery of neutrino and
standard model physics. However, the Committee also recognizes
that LBNE construction must be affordable under existing
budgetary constraints.
The recommendation also includes $23,000,000 to support
Superconducting Radio Frequency Accelerator research and
development, as well as facilities and infrastructure.
Research.--The Committee recommends $738,000,000 for High
Energy Physics research, $8,521,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$19,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation
rejects the Department's proposal to reduce core research
funding by three percent and instead restores funding for all
affected activities.
For energy frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $157,888,000. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $15,000,000 for two new major items
of equipment, consisting of $7,500,000 for the A Large Toroidal
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Apparatus Detector Upgrade and
$7,500,000 for the LHC Compact Muon Solenoid Detector Upgrade.
For intensity frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $266,691,000. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $52,946,000 for research;
$179,775,000 for facility operations and experimental support,
of which $156,796,000 is for Fermi Complex Operations and
$15,000,000 is for Homestake Mine; and $33,970,000 for
projects, of which $13,000,000 is for the Muon g-2 Experiment
and $10,000,000 is for Future Projects research and
development.
For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $103,056,000. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $50,364,000 for research;
$11,692,000 for facility operations and experimental support;
and $41,000,000 for projects, of which $35,000,000 is for the
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera and $6,000,000 is for
the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments, to include
$2,000,000 for design activities as a major item of equipment.
For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics
program, the recommendation provides $60,670,000 for
theoretical and computational physics; $125,076,000 for
advanced technology research and development, of which
$54,736,000 is for General Accelerators; and $3,000,000 for
accelerator stewardship.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for
High Energy Physics construction, $14,000,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Muon to
Electron Conversion Experiment.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Nuclear Physics program supports basic research into
the fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter, how they
interact, and how they combine to form the different types of
matter observed in the universe today. The Committee recommends
$600,000,000 for Nuclear Physics, $30,062,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $6,427,000 above the budget request.
Operations and Maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$493,500,000 for Nuclear Physics operations and maintenance,
$4,062,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $6,427,000 above the
budget request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the
recommendation provides $153,842,000, of which $100,000,000 is
for operations at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility to support up to 27 weeks of runtime at the 12 GeV
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. For heavy ion
nuclear physics, the recommendation provides $201,466,000, of
which $167,572,000 is for operations at Brookhaven National Lab
to support 22 weeks of runtime at the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider. All activities within the low energy nuclear physics,
nuclear theory, and isotope development and production for
research and applications subprograms are funded at the
requested level.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $106,500,000 for
Nuclear Physics construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal year
2014 and the same as the request. The recommended level of
funding includes the requested level of $90,000,000 for the
Facility for Rare Isotope Beams.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2014................................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015................................. - - -
Recommended, 2014..................................... $150,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +150,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$150,000,000 above the budget request, to continue the
Department of Energy's statutorily required activities for the
Yucca Mountain license application. Within available funds, the
Department is directed to reestablish its organizations to
respond to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during its
adjudicatory process, and to otherwise fully support the Yucca
Mountain licensing process.
While the Committee notes that some of the recommendations
within the Administration's Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
may have merit, Congress has neither formally considered nor
approved them. In addition, the implementation of many of the
recommendations would require changes to authorizing statutes.
Nuclear waste disposal is too complex of an issue for the
Administration to unilaterally develop or implement policy, and
the Committee encourages the Administration to take this into
account while formulating its fiscal year 2016 budget request.
The Committee reiterates that the Administration's repeated
statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ``workable option''
ignores both the support of the host community and the
expressed intent of Congress.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriation, 2014................................... $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 325,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 280,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -45,000,000
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E)
supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy
technologies whose development and commercialization are too
risky to attract sufficient private sector investment but are
capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address
our critical economic and energy security challenges. Projects
funded by ARPA-E include such wide-ranging areas as production
processes for transportation fuel alternatives that can reduce
our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and
improvements in petroleum refining processes.
The Committee recommends $280,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy, the same as fiscal year 2014
and $45,000,000 below the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Program
Direction.
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 42,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 42,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS
Appropriation, 2014................................... $-22,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. -25,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -25,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 17,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 17,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Committee recommends administrative expenses of
$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the same as the
budget request, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to
section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act, for a final net
appropriation of $17,000,000.
The Committee is concerned about the credit review,
compliance, and reporting functions that the Department has in
place to adequately monitor risk. The Department is directed to
provide a report to the Committee not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act evaluating the effectiveness of the
Department's portfolio monitoring and risk management efforts.
This report is to also include a plan for fully complying with
its credit review, compliance, and reporting functions.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Appropriation, 2014................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 4,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 4,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
established a direct loan program to support the development of
advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the
United States. The program provides loans to automobile and
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping,
expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the
United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or
qualified components, and for associated engineering
integration costs.
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000
below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The
funds provided support administrative operations only.
Clean Coal Technology
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015................................. $-6,600,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -6,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -6,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Clean Coal Technology Program was established in 1985
to perform commercial-scale demonstrations of advanced coal-
based technologies. All projects within this program have
concluded and only closeout activities remain. The fiscal year
2015 budget request proposes to cancel $6,600,000 in
unobligated balances in this account. For fiscal year 2015, the
Committee recommends a rescission of $6,600,000, the same as
the budget request.
Departmental Administration
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $234,637,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 248,223,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 255,171,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +20,534,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. 6,948,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $-108,188,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. -119,171,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -119,171,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -10,983,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $126,449,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 129,052,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 136,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +9,551,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. 6,948,000
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $255,171,000, $20,534,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $6,948,000 above the budget request. The
recommendation for revenues is $119,171,000 as requested,
resulting in a net appropriation of $136,000,000. Funding
recommended for Departmental Administration provides for
general management and program support functions benefiting all
elements of the Department of Energy, including the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array
of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the
execution of specific programs.
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.--The
recommendation includes $4,700,000, $1,600,000 less than the
request.
International Affairs.--The Committee is aware the
Department of Energy is examining the potential for leveraging
its expertise in support of energy-related issues in Ukraine.
The Department is directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than July 30, 2014, on what appropriate technical
assistance the Department could provide in support of U.S.
foreign assistance through the State Department.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee
recommends $16,000,000, $16,000,000 above the budget request,
to coordinate and implement energy management, conservation,
education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. The
Committee includes full funding for the Department's request in
this account rather than in a new account, as requested.
Office of Human Capital.--The recommendation includes
$24,500,000 for the Office of Human Capital, $900,000 below the
budget request.
Minority Economic Impact.--The recommendation includes
$2,800,000 for Minority Economic Impact, $1,127,000 above the
budget request.
Office of Management.--The recommendation includes
$67,352,000 for the Office of Management, $941,000 below the
budget request.
Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.--The
recommendation includes $31,181,000, $7,364,000 below the
budget request. The Committee includes requested funding to
support the development of the Quadrennial Energy Review. If
the Department wishes to pursue activities related to grid
modernization and consumer energy consumption, the Committee
will consider funding for those projects in the appropriate
program accounts. Until then, these activities should continue
in the program accounts where they have been traditionally
funded.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The recommendation includes
the use of $4,205,000 in prior-year balances, as requested.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriation, 2014................................... $42,120,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 39,868,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 42,120,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +2,252,000
The Office of the Inspector General performs agency-wide
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and
correct management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
The budget request proposes the use of $10,420,000 in
prior-year balances to offset fiscal year 2015 needs. While the
recommendation does not direct the use of specific prior-year
balances, the Office of the Inspector General should ensure it
is effectively managing its prior-year funds and is using those
balances to fully support its mission in fiscal year 2015.
The Committee recommendation is $42,120,000, the same as
fiscal year 2014 and $2,252,000 above the budget request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense
Environmental Management and Other Defense Activities.
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S.
national security through the military application of nuclear
technology and reducing the global danger from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA, a semi-
autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation
of the nation's nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and
nuclear nonproliferation activities. The Office of the NNSA
Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--The fiscal
year 2014 Act updated the percentage of funds that the
Secretary could authorize for laboratory directed research and
development (LDRD). It has come to the attention of the
Committee that the NNSA is considering allowing some NNSA
laboratories to charge as much as 7.75 percent to DOE programs
in fiscal year 2014 because it has interpreted the statutory
cap to apply to the total operating budget of the laboratory,
which includes additional amounts received from Work For Others
(WFO). The bill contains a general provision which clarifies
congressional intent that no greater than the statutory cap,
established at 6 percent in the fiscal year 2014 Act, shall be
charged to any individual DOE activity for LDRD. The provision
should not be interpreted to limit the ability of the national
laboratories to charge LDRD to WFO or to conflict with the
Department's policy to charge the same LDRD percentage that is
authorized for DOE programs to WFO customers.
The Committee is concerned that the LDRD funds derived from
cleanup work performed by the Office of Environmental
Management do not sufficiently benefit the cleanup mission of
the Department. The Department must provide additional
information on the use of these funds to better justify to the
Committee why cleanup funds should continue to be charged for
LDRD.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is not
accurately representing the size and nature of individual LDRD
projects in the annual LDRD report to Congress. To improve
reporting, the Department is directed to include the total
amount of funding awarded to each LDRD project if that LDRD
project is a multi-year award and to identify all major items
of equipment and real property assets to be funded by any LDRD
project, consistent with other Committee reporting requirements
for multi-year grants, minor construction, and capital
equipment.
Overpayments into the NNSA's Contractor Defined Benefit
Pension Plans.--The budget request includes more than
$400,000,000 to avoid potential future costs predicted in the
NNSA's latest out-year projections for its contractor defined
benefit pension plans. These additional payments represent
amounts that are above requirements established by the Congress
in the Pension Protection Act and other applicable legislation.
Defined benefit pension costs are highly dependent on market
conditions and the Department's ability to accurately predict
payments several years in advance is inherently limited. With
emergent national security needs such as the recovery of the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and time-sensitive
modernization plans at risk, the actual needs today outweigh
the hypothetical future benefits of overpayment. None of the
funds for the NNSA shall be available to make contractor
defined benefit pension payments above requirements in fiscal
year 2015 if those payments would result in a funded status in
excess of 100 percent. This direction shall not be interpreted
to permit the Department to transfer funds already contributed
to a pension plan or reduce payments into any contractor
employee pension plan below statutory or contractual
requirements. The recommendation contains a provision that
allows the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to $120,000,000
of NNSA funds that are requested for payments above
requirements to meet the needs of WIPP recovery. These funds
shall be proportionally derived according to the normal
distribution of pension costs for the NNSA, with 75 percent of
the total amount to be derived from Weapons Activities and 25
percent of the total amount to be derived from Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2014................................... $7,781,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 8,314,902,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 8,204,209,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +423,209,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -110,693,000
Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile. The activities funded under this
appropriation include the maintenance and refurbishment of
nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their security,
safety, and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium
and arms reduction treaties. The Committee recommends a fiscal
year 2015 program level of $8,204,209,000 for Weapons
Activities, $423,209,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$110,693,000 below the budget request.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification,
dismantlement, and disposal activities. The Committee
recommends $2,696,960,000 for Directed Stockpile Work,
$254,927,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $49,644,000 below the
budget request.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends full
funding for the NNSA's life extension programs (LEPs),
including the ongoing refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76,
and W88. The recommendation includes $17,018,000 for a new life
extension study for the cruise missile warhead, $7,600,000
above the budget request.
In response to the reporting requirements in the fiscal
year 2014 Act, the NNSA has provided a detailed analysis of its
alternatives for extending the life of the B61 and has
certified to the Committee that the less costly alternatives
that were originally considered do not address the needs for
extending the life of the B61. Rather, pursuing a more limited
near-term scope would drive up costs considerably due to the
successive updates that would still be needed to extend the
life of the B61 to an extent comparable to the W76-1. The
NNSA's analysis also showed that the cost of the B61 LEP is
much higher than the cost of the W76-1 largely due to the
complexity of the B61's nonnuclear components. While the
Committee supports continued full funding for the B61 LEP, the
high cost of the program will continue to exert significant
pressure on the NNSA's budget. The process of conducting a
comprehensive analysis of alternatives, informed by
independently-verified cost estimates, must be incorporated
into the NNSA's normal way of doing business. The bill contains
an updated provision that permanently establishes a requirement
to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives as part of
all future life extension programs. The NNSA is directed to
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after
enactment of this Act a report that describes the interagency
plan for revising and updating its joint Phase 6.x warhead
acquisition process to ensure these improvements are formalized
and integrated into future life extension programs.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $54,264,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and
$24,256,000 above the budget request. The NNSA continues to cut
funding for dismantlement in its budget request, despite a
clear requirement to continue to dismantle warheads, sustain
production line capacity, and harvest materials for recycling
to meet stockpile needs.
Research and Development Certification and Safety.--The
Committee recommends $154,508,000, $3,375,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $46,971,000 below the budget request. No funding is
provided for technology maturation or exploratory development
activities, the same as in fiscal year 2014. It is essential
that the NNSA establish dedicated funding to conduct
Significant Finding Investigations and respond to stockpile
issues, rather than continuing to fund technology maturation
and exploratory development activities within Stockpile
Services in an effort to distribute funding for these
activities across multiple control points.
Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommends $138,053,000,
$58,053,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation includes a one-time increase
for the purchase of low enriched uranium to fuel multiple
reactors. No funds shall be available for the NNSA to enter
into a future agreement to supply low enriched fuel to reactors
that are not being actively used for tritium production.
CAMPAIGNS
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, the weapons
production plants, and selected external organizations to
address critical capabilities needed to achieve program
objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends
$1,726,989,000, $68,662,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$114,358,000 below the budget request.
Science.--The Committee recommends $395,091,000,
$25,368,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $61,339,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation provides a substantial
increase for a robust experimental effort in fiscal year 2015
to better understand the properties of plutonium and ensure the
NNSA can support certification requirements for pit reuse as an
option for future LEPs. The recommendation includes full
funding for Primary Assessment Technologies to expand
predictive science capabilities to enhance U.S. capabilities to
assess foreign state weapons activities. The recommendation
includes no funding for new radiography capabilities at U1a
within Advanced Radiography. The NNSA has outstanding reporting
requirements related to its scaled experiments program and must
be able to provide a clear and direct linkage to stockpile
needs if additional radiography capabilities are needed.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.--The Committee
recommends $511,993,000, $1,964,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$902,000 below the budget request. Within these funds,
$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University
of Rochester and $328,500,000 is for the National Ignition
Facility.
Readiness.--The Committee previously directed the NNSA to
eliminate the Readiness Campaign and provides no funding in
fiscal year 2015, $125,909,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation includes funding requested for these and related
activities under Advanced Manufacturing as described below.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends
$93,900,000 to develop, demonstrate, and utilize advanced
technologies that are needed to enhance the NNSA's secure
manufacturing capabilities and ensure timely support for the
production of nuclear weapons and other critical national
security components. The NNSA has requested funding for a
variety of manufacturing development-related projects under
Readiness Campaign, Recapitalization, Material Recycle and
Recovery, and Directed Stockpile Work. The Committee recommends
consolidating funding for these related activities within
Campaigns because these development efforts represent more
focused programmatic investments that have the potential to
shorten production schedules, reduce risks, enhance personnel
safety, and ultimately improve the NNSA's ability to meet its
production requirements on time and within budget.
Development funds within Advanced Manufacturing shall be
limited to low technology readiness levels, whereas production
engineering that is at a sufficient maturity level as to be
associated with a particular LEP or project should be planned
and executed within funds for that LEP or project. Development
activities that are related to a construction project should be
fully incorporated into that project's performance baseline at
Critical Decision-2.
The NNSA has yet to close out recommendations from a 2009
Government Accountability Office report that attributed the
significant cost growth for the W76 LEP to the NNSA's failure
to plan for manufacturing of a critical material used in the
W76. In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently
investigated the NNSA's manufacturing technology maturation
efforts for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) and
identified numerous risks in developing and integrating new
production technologies. The Committee is seriously concerned
that the NNSA has failed to integrate its technology
development requirements with its major construction plans and
has primarily funded UPF technology development from plant-
directed research and development, which should not be used to
meet programmatic needs. These production technologies remain
at low technology readiness levels and will require dedicated
funding to ensure they are sufficiently mature prior to
selection in the UPF project to reduce technology-related
risks.
Within funds for Advanced Manufacturing, the recommendation
includes $12,600,000 for development of Additive Manufacturing
technologies that will support secure stockpile production
needs, including $2,100,000 for a secure additive manufacturing
machine at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The
recommendation includes $60,000,000 for Component Manufacturing
Development for development activities requested within the
Readiness Campaign. The recommendation includes $21,300,000 for
Processing Technology Development to develop and demonstrate
new production technologies and ensure new technologies reach
optimal levels of maturity prior to critical project and
program acquisition milestones. Within Processing Technology
Development, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Direct
Electrolytic Reduction, $2,000,000 for Enriched Uranium Salt
Synthesis, $7,800,000 for the Y-12 Calciner, and $6,500,000 for
Y-12 Electrorefiners, as requested within the budget request
for Recapitalization and Material Recycle and Recovery.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides
funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization
of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends
$2,045,962,000 for RTBF, $21,463,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$9,559,000 below the budget request.
The Committee takes a dim view of the NNSA's prioritization
of its infrastructure needs in its fiscal year 2015 budget
request. The NNSA historically has failed to adequately fund
its facility maintenance and recapitalization needs. The NNSA's
budget request proposes to defer ten percent of its
preventative maintenance planned at each of its eight sites,
activities that are critical to ensure long term sustainment
and viability of the infrastructure. At the same time, the
budget request proposes to start two new projects that together
will cost approximately $65,000,000 in order to replace
emergency operations facilities that are not yet beyond their
useful lifetimes. Meanwhile, buildings are literally falling
apart elsewhere in the complex and the NNSA has yet to request
project funding to address those safety and security needs. The
Committee will continue to prioritize infrastructure funding
within Weapons Activities to address the backlog of facilities
operating beyond their useful lifetimes and to ensure that
legacy facilities can be operated safely and securely.
Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.--The Committee
recommends $227,000,000, $591,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$22,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is
disappointed that the NNSA continues to undercut maintenance
and repair in its budget request. The recommendation includes
funding above the request to restore overall maintenance and
repair funding to the fiscal year 2014 level. Within this
amount, $10,000,000 is provided to address immediate health and
safety issues at the NNSA Albuquerque Complex while the NNSA
reexamines its long-term recapitalization plans using line-item
project funds as directed below.
Recapitalization.--The Committee recommends $224,600,000,
$44,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,279,000 above the
budget request. Despite instructions to submit a project list
in the budget request, the NNSA was able to provide details on
only a portion of its Recapitalization funds. In addition, the
NNSA was considerably late in providing an accounting of its
use of fiscal year 2014 funds and did not provide sufficient
detail in its report. The Committee requires considerably
better planning and reporting from the NNSA to ensure that it
will efficiently execute funds for the highest priority
projects. As a result, the Committee will designate funding for
specific recapitalization projects until the NNSA can
demonstrate it has made improvement in its infrastructure
planning processes. The NNSA shall allocate Recapitalization
funds according to the table that follows. To the extent
possible, the recommendation provides full funding for small
sized projects, instead of funding those projects over multiple
years as in the budget request. The recommendation includes
$23,400,000 for advanced manufacturing projects within the
Advanced Manufacturing Campaign, instead of within
Recapitalization as requested. Including the shift of those
projects, the Committee's recommendation for recapitalization-
related projects totals $248,000,000, which represents a
substantial investment to sustain and modernize the NNSA's
nuclear security enterprise.
Albuquerque Complex Upgrades.--The Committee recommends
$12,000,000 for recapitalization of the NNSA's federal complex
at Albuquerque, rather than $19,900,000 to lease new space
under Office of the Administrator as in the budget request.
Twenty years of deferred maintenance with no major upgrades has
resulted in deteriorating conditions at the Albuquerque
Complex. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has failed to
take any action to sustain its existing infrastructure and has
instead made a decision to lease commercial space that does not
provide the best value to the government, does not take
responsibility for ultimate disposition of the existing
infrastructure, and will introduce security vulnerabilities and
operational inefficiencies by locating secure federal functions
off-site.
The NNSA's previous efforts to address these
recapitalization needs resulted in an overbuilt and
unaffordable big-box design that did not leverage the ability
to use existing facilities that are not yet beyond their useful
life and that prioritized goals for obtaining energy efficiency
savings over the need to provide clean and safe facilities for
its workers. In addition, the NNSA inappropriately eliminated
an option to construct several smaller stand-alone facilities
early on in its analysis. The Committee directs the NNSA to
undertake a new analysis of alternatives using an expedited red
team approach to develop a more cost-effective solution that
might accelerate delivery of the NNSA's most immediate and
pressing federal space needs. In conducting this analysis, the
NNSA is directed to make use of recent Government
Accountability Office workspace utilization studies. These
studies suggest ways for federal agencies to efficiently and
effectively minimize the square footage usage per person and
achieve savings significantly below the 220 square foot per
person assumed in the NNSA's analysis of its space needs, which
is considerably greater than the prevailing standard workspace
average of 190 square feet per person.
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000, the same as the budget request, to
construct a new facility that will address seismic and safety
deficiencies identified by the DOE Office of Health, Safety and
Security.
12-D-301 TRU Waste Facilities, LANL.--The Committee
recommends no funding, $6,938,000 below the budget request. The
budget request is to provide additional contingency funds for
the project, which the NNSA estimates at 25 percent of the
total construction costs. The Committee will consider a request
for additional contingency funds for the project in future
years if performance on the project indicates that the
estimated contingency amount is actually needed.
06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12.--The Committee
recommends $335,000,000, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request. No funding shall be available
for site preparation or facility construction until the NNSA
achieves 90 percent design completion for the entire project.
The Committee supports the Department's decision to move
forward with a more affordable alternative for the project that
would expedite the NNSA's plans to move out of Building 9212.
04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR)
Replacement Project, LANL.--The Committee recommends
$35,700,000, instead of providing funds for these activities
under Program Readiness as in the budget request. This approach
is consistent with the Committee's previous direction to the
NNSA to carry out all CMR replacement activities in accordance
with DOE Order 413.3B, rather than within operations funding
where there is little transparency or accountability for
delivering these activities on time and within budget. While
the capacity and amount of process equipment needed may be
evolving due to changing programmatic requirements for
plutonium, the scope of the additional work being requested is
consistent with the original mission need to provide analytic
chemistry and material characterization space in a different
facility than the legacy CMR building. Similarly, PF-4
reconfiguration activities are also appropriate to be conducted
as part of the original CMR Replacement project so long as they
are limited to re-equipping lab space for capabilities that
were previously housed in the legacy CMR building. Construction
of new modular facilities and installation of equipment within
PF-4 to establish enhanced pit production capabilities are not
sufficiently related to the original mission need of the
existing project, and the Committee does not support the
inclusion of these activities as subprojects within the
existing CMR replacement project.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Office of Secure Transportation Asset provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommends $219,000,000 for Secure
Transportation Asset, $9,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$14,813,000 below the budget request.
The reduction below the budget request is due to excessive
prior-year balances in program direction. In addition, the NNSA
has not provided sufficiently detailed acquisition plans for
the Mobile Guardian Transporter and its vehicle and tractor
fleet. The NNSA is directed to provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act an
acquisition plan that details the number of transporters,
replacement vehicles, and tractors to be procured, according to
a five-year cost and schedule baseline.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE
The NNSA Office of Emergency Operations responds to and
mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide in order
to defend the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The
Committee recommends $202,940,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism
Incident Response (NCTIR), $25,303,000 below fiscal year 2014
and $29,500,000 above the budget request. Within this amount,
the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for Render Safe,
disablement, and other emergency response-related research and
development activities that traditionally have been funded
within Weapons Activities, $25,000,000 above the budget
request; $142,577,000 for emergency response activities,
$3,500,000 above the budget request, to fully support the NNSA
costs of the ninth stabilization city as part of its joint
program with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
$14,850,000 for Operations Support, $3,000,000 above the
request, to address improvements needed to ensure the
functionality of the Department of Energy's Operations Center.
The Committee is concerned that the nation's emergency
response capabilities necessary to respond to domestic nuclear
incidents are not being appropriately funded because the NNSA
has prioritized expansion of counterproliferation-related
activities that are driven by international cooperative nuclear
security and other nonproliferation goals. To address gaps in
the NNSA's support of counterproliferation and other
cooperative nuclear security missions, the NNSA created the
Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation and
requested separate funding for this office within Weapons
Activities, instead of integrating these activities under the
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a
Senate-confirmed position whose existing statutory
responsibilities for preventing the spread of nuclear
materials, technology, and expertise, providing for
international nuclear safety, and detecting the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction worldwide are clearly
established under the NNSA Act. While the recommendation does
not provide constraints on which NNSA organizations should
execute funds provided for NCTIR, the recommendation provides
no funding requested specifically for Counterterrorism and
Counterproliferation Programs within Weapons Activities. The
Committee recommends consolidating research and development
activities related to countering nuclear device proliferation
within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, as part of broader
direction to reinvigorate the NNSA's nonproliferation research
and development base.
The recommendation includes $4,595,000 for international
emergency management and cooperation, $2,000,000 below the
request. The Committee has funded international emergency
management and cooperation activities within NCTIR since fiscal
year 2009, when the NNSA requested to transfer these activities
from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to Weapons Activities.
The NNSA should reconsider transferring these activities back
to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, where they may be better
integrated with other international cooperative nuclear
security activities.
SITE STEWARDSHIP
Site Stewardship provides funding for Long-Term
Stewardship, Nuclear Materials Integration, and Minority
Serving Institution Partnerships. Funding for Corporate Project
Management has been shifted to the Office of the Administrator
to consolidate funding for support services contracts. The
Committee recommends $79,531,000 for Site Stewardship,
$7,795,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,918,000 below the
budget request.
Minority Serving Institution Partnerships.--The Committee
recommends $14,531,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and
$1,300,000 above the budget request. The Committee is
disappointed the budget request reduced funding for this
important program and provides additional funding above the
budget request to sustain the current level of funding for the
program. The Committee supports the educational and research
partnerships of the Department and encourages additional
partnerships to be developed with minority serving
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), to ensure diversity within the next
generation of scientists and researchers addressing nuclear
security and environmental management issues.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY
Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and
implementing security programs for the protection, control, and
accountability of materials and for the physical security of
all facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. The
Committee recommends $650,123,000 for Defense Nuclear Security,
$14,858,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $32,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA
proposed a seven percent reduction in funding for Defense
Nuclear Security and no construction funds to address the
backlog of maintenance and upgrades needed at NNSA sites. In
addition, the NNSA has overestimated the savings it expects to
realize from organizational and contract reforms and has not
assured the Committee it can provide adequate protective force
levels at a lower level of funding. The Committee expects the
NNSA to request a more appropriate level of funding in future
years to ensure protection of special nuclear materials at the
NNSA sites.
14-D-710 Device Assembly Facility (DAF) Argus Installation
Project, NNSS.--The Committee recommends $14,000,000,
$14,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. This
project was deferred in the fiscal year 2014 Act while the NNSA
implemented organizational reforms. The recommendation allows
the NNSA to proceed with its plans to upgrade aging security
systems at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY
Information Technology and Cyber Security provides funding
for the NNSA's cyber infrastructure, cyber development
activities, and information technology needs. The Committee
recommends $179,646,000 for Information Technology and Cyber
Security, $34,578,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as
the budget request.
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS
The Committee provides $307,058,000 for payments into the
legacy University of California contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans, $27,461,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request.
DOMESTIC URANIUM ENRICHMENT
Domestic Uranium Enrichment provides research, development,
operations, and maintenance funding to sustain the availability
of low enriched uranium to support stockpile stewardship and
other national security needs. The Committee recommends
$96,000,000 for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, $34,000,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $96,000,000 above the budget request.
The NNSA has concluded its project to demonstrate the
technical viability of centrifuges with the United States
Enrichment Corporation. Funding for Domestic Uranium Enrichment
is provided to maintain those centrifuges in warm standby while
the Department conducts further analysis of its tritium and
enriched uranium requirements. No funds shall be used to
construct additional centrifuges in fiscal year 2015. The
Committee will consider further investments in domestic
enriched uranium capabilities only after the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of Defense conduct a bottoms-up
interagency reevaluation of the active and reserve tritium
stockpile requirements, and the Nuclear Weapons Council
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representative and the Senate that the revalidated tritium
stockpile amounts to be maintained by the Department of Energy
represent the minimum active and reserve national security
requirements. To ensure that the results of such analysis are
available for consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget
request, the Nuclear Weapons Council should provide this
certification to the Committees not later than March 1, 2015.
The NNSA is further directed to conduct an analysis of the
process technologies available for providing enriched uranium,
produce a conceptualized plant size for the options evaluated,
and estimate the costs and time necessary for build-out of such
plants. As part of this analysis, the NNSA shall include an
option that represents the minimum train needed to produce LEU
for anticipated tritium production needs, and compare the
return on investment of additional acquisition costs needed to
operate a full national security train at optimal efficiency.
The NNSA shall provide the results of its analysis to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and
the Senate not later than June 1, 2015.
United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.--The Committee
notes that despite the Government Accountability Office's May
2014 decision that the authorized uses of the United States
Enrichment Corporation Fund (Fund) have been fulfilled, the
Department is considering using approximately $40,000,000 of
the Fund to support domestic uranium enrichment capabilities
through the end of fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes that
the fiscal year 2014 Act made available transfer authority,
which the Department has not utilized, to support these
activities. The Committee recognizes that funding for domestic
enrichment for defense purposes must be balanced against all
other priorities and includes discretionary appropriations for
such activities. The recommendation includes a general
provision that rescinds the remaining balances of the Fund.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,954,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,555,156,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,555,156,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -398,844,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes funding for
Research and Development; Nonproliferation and International
Security; International Material Protection and Cooperation;
Fissile Materials Disposition; and the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative. The Committee recommendation for new budget
authority for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is
$1,592,156,000, $361,844,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$37,000,000 above the budget request. After accounting for the
rescission of $37,000,000 in prior-year unobligated balances in
this bill, the recommendation is $1,555,156,000, $398,844,000
below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
Continuing Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.--In
consideration of recent Russian aggression in Ukraine and the
resultant changes in the geopolitical environment, the NNSA
must reexamine existing strategies for securing nuclear
materials in Russia to confirm the United States government is
not inappropriately subsidizing the cost of the Russian
government or other Russian interests. Furthermore, it is
essential that the NNSA demonstrate that its activities with
Russia are effectively addressing U.S. national security
interests according to measurable national security goals. The
recommendation includes a provision that requires the Secretary
of Energy to reassess the Department of Energy's engagement
with Russia and to certify to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate that any ongoing
and new contracts or agreements made with Russia are in the
national security interest of the United States. While the
Secretary of Energy undertakes this strategic reassessment, the
Committee provides no funds to enter into new contracts or
agreements in the Russian Federation in fiscal year 2015. In
addition, the Committee directs the use of funds provided in
previous years for nonproliferation projects in Russia, but
which have not yet been expended, to fund additional
nonproliferation-related work in fiscal year 2015. The NNSA is
directed to request new budget authority for any new work or
agreements with Russia in future years. While eliminating all
funding requested for new projects in Russia in fiscal year
2015, the recommendation nevertheless sustains overall funding
for the NNSA's nonproliferation activities at the level of the
budget request to reflect the importance of these activities.
Reinvesting in the Nonproliferation Capabilities of the DOE
National Laboratories.--The Department of Energy's national
laboratories are world-class institutions that provide a
national capability for developing innovative and advanced
technical solutions to difficult nuclear security problems.
However, the NNSA has failed to fully access those capabilities
and continues to reduce funding in its budget request for
nonproliferation-related research and development, among other
nonproliferation programs. Considering the large reductions in
the budget request, it appears that the Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) has not sufficiently adapted its
programs to meet evolving nuclear security challenges. Rather,
the NNSA continues to operate in a fragmented manner where DNN
is limited to carrying out only traditional nonproliferation
programs, many of which are in their sunset years. While DNN
has supported several Nuclear Security Summits, it has assigned
responsibility for many follow up initiatives to other
organizations. Further, the NNSA has adopted a dispersed
approach to address strategic gaps in NNSA's support of
counterproliferation missions. Specifically, the NNSA created
the Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation,
instead of integrating these activities under the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a Senate-
confirmed position whose existing statutory responsibilities
for preventing the spread of nuclear materials, technology, and
expertise, providing for international nuclear safety, and
detecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
worldwide are clearly established under the NNSA Act. Given the
concerns regarding the spread of nuclear technologies and the
continued reluctance of DNN to evolve its programs to meet the
latest threats, the Committee recommendation reprioritizes
funding to reinvigorate the nonproliferation research and
development base of the Department's national laboratories,
provide focus to nuclear forensics and attribution activities,
and integrate new counterproliferation-related research and
development into the NNSA's ongoing nonproliferation
activities.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and
Development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation of science and technology to respond to
threats to national security posed by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. The Committee
recommends $452,709,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Research and Development, $53,871,000 above fiscal year 2014
and $91,901,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Forensics and Attribution.--The NNSA has failed to
respond to Committee direction to name a lead office within the
NNSA that is responsible for coordinating development of a
national nuclear forensics capability. Therefore, the
recommendation provides $25,000,000 for nuclear forensics and
attribution to focus NNSA's efforts that support development of
U.S. nuclear forensics capabilities.
Counterproliferation Research and Development.--The
recommendation includes $51,901,000 for counterproliferation-
related research and development activities that were requested
to be funded within Weapons Activities under a new program for
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. The recommendation
for Weapons Activities only includes funding for
counterterrorism activities that have been traditionally funded
within that account and includes funds for the remaining
requested activities within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Research and Development.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The Nonproliferation and International Security program
applies technical and policy expertise to facilitate nuclear
cooperation, safeguard and secure nuclear materials, and
provide solutions for treaty monitoring and compliance. The
Committee recommends $144,246,000 for Nonproliferation and
International Security, $15,571,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$2,887,000 above the budget request. Funding above the request
is provided to accelerate technical review of export licenses
for dual-use commodities to better support U.S. industry and to
provide enhanced capabilities to determine proliferation trends
and impacts.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The International Materials Protection and Cooperation
(IMPC) program works cooperatively with partner countries to
secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to
improve the physical security at facilities that possess or
process significant quantities of materials that are of
proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $233,367,000
for IMPC activities, $186,258,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$72,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee
recommendation does not include $72,100,000 that was requested
for Second Line of Defense activities downblending operations,
physical security upgrades, and sustainability of facilities in
the Russian Federation. No IMPC or other NNSA funds may be used
for the purchase of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement
System (MILES) for Russia.
While Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction and other
successful cooperative nuclear security initiatives have
concluded, follow-on proposals to continue related work must be
reassessed from a U.S. national security standpoint. For
example, the recently completed Megatons to Megawatts program
represented a programmatic model that exemplified how a
cooperative nuclear security agreement could provide high
national security value as well as other national benefits.
Under Megatons to Megawatts, Russian weapons-origin highly
enriched uranium (HEU) was downblended to low enriched uranium
(LEU) so that it could never again be used for nuclear weapons,
and the resulting LEU was made available to U.S. nuclear
utilities in what was effectively a mutually advantageous
commercial deal. The NNSA is requesting to continue to pay for
Russian HEU downblending operations for nuclear material that
is not verified to be Russian weapons-origin and that is not
made available to U.S. utilities. Russia has extremely large
stockpiles of HEU and the relatively small quantity of HEU that
is reduced by the NNSA's IMPC program has little impact on the
overall size of Russian HEU stockpiles. Rather, continuing the
program appears to primarily benefit Russian interests by
providing access in Russia to a source of LEU fuel whose
production is effectively subsidized by the United States. As
the NNSA reanalyzes its cooperative nonproliferation activities
with Russia, the NNSA must ensure that only those activities
which are effectively and measurably contributing to U.S.
nuclear security objectives are continued.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is
responsible for meeting commitments under the U.S.-Russia
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The Committee
recommendation provides $430,000,000 for fissile materials
disposition, $96,057,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$118,875,000 above the budget request.
U.S. Plutonium Disposition.--The Committee recommends
$60,000,000, $97,557,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $25,000,000
below the budget request. Funding below the budget request is a
result of the transfer of MOX Other Project Costs (OPCs) to the
MOX project as described below.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River,
SC.--The Committee recommends $345,000,000, $1,500,000 above
fiscal year 2014 and $149,000,000 above the budget request. The
recommended amount includes $25,000,000 requested for MOX OPCs
within U.S. plutonium disposition, consistent with the
Committee's recommendation for other major DOE projects with a
total project cost greater than $750,000,000. Consolidating
OPCs into one project line improves integration of startup and
commissioning activities, eliminates a common need for
reprogramming, and provides greater transparency into the costs
of major construction projects. After accounting for this
shift, the total amount recommended for the MOX project is
$38,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $124,000,000 above the
budget request.
The Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA)
represents the only active and verifiable agreement that the
United States has with the Russian Federation to permanently
dispose of weapons-grade plutonium. The Department has released
a report that describes five alternatives to meeting U.S.
commitments under the PMDA that suggests downblending the
material and disposing of it at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) may be less expensive than continuing to construct the
MOX plant. However, the Committee is concerned that the
Department has not accurately represented the comparative life
cycle costs of these alternatives. The NNSA has little
capability to accurately estimate programmatic and project
costs and did not seek outside assistance to independently
verify its lifecycle cost estimates.
The omissions in the lifecycle cost estimates are numerous.
While the NNSA explains that feedstock production capabilities
are needed for each option, the cost of providing feedstock is
not estimated consistently across the options. There is no
attempt to quantify project risks, and the Department's
analysis does not properly account for risk reduction
strategies that are already mature, such as contract
modifications that could cap construction costs. Considering
the very long timeline for the downblending option, estimated
to take 43 years or nearly twice as long as the MOX option,
quantifying those risks could have a significant impact on the
life-cycle costs of downblending. In addition, the NNSA has
made little progress working with nuclear utilities to identify
potential sources of income that might offset MOX operating
costs and has not attempted to quantify the economic benefit to
ratepayers of providing access to a relatively inexpensive
source of nuclear fuel. Furthermore, and perhaps most
significantly, the NNSA has identified some issues but has not
provided critical analysis on the feasibility of downblending
considering the necessity of gaining congressional support for
changing the Land Withdrawal Act for WIPP at a time when the
Department's mismanagement of its cleanup operations has
resulted in the shutdown of that facility.
To address these inadequacies, the NNSA is directed to
prepare an independent lifecycle cost estimate for the MOX
construction and downblending options, and to provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act a report that describes those lifecycle costs and discusses
the relative costs and benefits and feasibility of the two
options. The Department shall discontinue further study of all
other options. The Department's alternatives report did not
suggest that any of the other three alternatives identified
would save costs, which was the Department's primary rationale
for reconsidering potential alternatives. There is no value to
continuing to analyze alternatives that are not feasible and do
not save costs. Rather, establishing a protracted deadline for
making a decision drives up costs, wastes additional taxpayer
funds, and delays resolution of project management issues that
must be addressed no matter which alternative is selected.
The recommendation provides funding above the budget
request to sustain the current pace of construction on the MOX
facility in fiscal year 2015 and includes a provision that
prohibits the use of MOX funding to place the project in cold
standby.
Waste Solidification Building, Savannah River, SC.--The
Committee recommends no funding, the same as fiscal year 2014
and $5,125,000 below the budget request. The Committee will not
allocate additional taxpayer dollars to this project that
continues to fall further behind schedule. The NNSA must first
exhaust all options to pay for further cost increases out of
prior-year funds.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to
identify, secure, remove, and facilitate the disposition of
high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and
equipment around the world. The Committee recommends
$342,888,000 for GTRI activities, $99,214,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $9,400,000 above the budget request.
HEU Reactor Conversions.--The Committee recommends
$118,083,000, $43,917,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $4,300,000
below the budget request. The reduction below the budget
request eliminates funding for conversion costs of the reactor
at the Kurchatov Institute in Russia which has ties to the
Russian military.
International Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal and
Protection.--The Committee recommends $161,173,000, to remove
and secure nuclear and radiological materials around the world,
$38,929,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $28,700,000 above the
budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include
$11,300,000 that was requested to upgrade security systems in
Russian facilities housing radiological materials and does not
include $10,000,000 that was requested to consolidate nuclear
materials within Russia to reduce its financial burden
associated with maintaining those security systems. The
Committee directs those funds be used instead to pay for
storage, management, and processing of spent foreign fuel
removals at the Savannah River Site and Idaho National
Laboratory. The NNSA has not been accounting for the costs of
its material removal program and is placing an increasing
financial burden on the Defense Environmental Cleanup program
to pay for these costs. Funding for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is intended to be used for the cleanup of the legacy of
the U.S. nuclear weapons program, not to meet the costs of
international material consolidation and removal activities in
support of U.S. nonproliferation goals. The cost sharing
arrangement between the NNSA and Office of Environmental
Management (EM) is nearly ten years old and was negotiated
before the President's Four Year Goal brought increased
quantities of foreign spent fuel into the U.S. for management
and disposal by EM. The Department is directed to reanalyze the
costs of the GTRI program and to provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a report
describing an updated cost sharing arrangement for spent fuel
storage, processing, and EM support of other NNSA missions,
such as feedstock production.
Domestic Radiological Material Removal and Protection.--The
Committee recommends $63,632,000, $16,368,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $15,000,000 below the budget request. The fiscal year
2014 Act contained a large increase for these activities that
at the time of the writing of this report is approximately 78
percent unencumbered. The Committee will not support continuing
such high levels of funding if the NNSA cannot demonstrate it
can efficiently execute those funds in a timely manner.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Rescissions.--The Committee rescinds $37,000,000 in
unobligated and unencumbered prior-year balances that were
planned for projects in Russia, but which the NNSA has no plan
to use in fiscal year 2014.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use
of $113,963,000 in prior-year balances to offset fiscal year
2015 needs as described above. Prior-year balances shall be
derived from unencumbered funds that the NNSA planned to use
for projects in Russia in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The NNSA
should request new budget authority to support new agreements
or contracts in Russia that are certified to be in the U.S.
national security interest in future budget requests.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,095,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,377,100,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,215,342,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +120,342,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -161,758,000
The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all
aspects of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. The Committee recommendation for Naval Reactors
is $1,215,342,000, $120,342,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$161,758,000 below the budget request. The Committee
recommendation fully funds development of the Ohio-Replacement
ballistic missile submarine and refueling of the S8G prototype,
which is closely linked to the Ohio-Replacement. The Committee
continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority
activities.
Naval Reactors Budget Review.--The Committee remains
concerned about the high year-to-year increases that NR is
using for its programmatic planning basis in future years. In
order to carry out its plans, NR's out-year budgets would need
to grow dramatically, an unlikely scenario considering the
current fiscal environment. Even if the increases planned were
attainable, NR's five-year budget figures in the budget request
appear to artificially limit funding in order to fit within the
Administration's projected budget caps. In light of these
fiscal realities, NR is directed to conduct a multi-year review
of its programmatic requirements to better understand how
funding levels below its five-year projections might impact its
long-term strategies. As part of its review, NR should consider
how its projects and activities may need to be reprioritized or
re-sequenced in order to stay on track with the highest
priority goals. NR is directed to submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a report
that describes the results of its review and includes an
integrated priority list of its budgetary requirements.
Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.--The
Committee recommends $156,100,000, $29,700,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The Committee's
recommendation prioritizes increases for new development work
associated with the Ohio-replacement above base development
activities funded under NR Development that are not associated
with a major development effort.
S8G Prototype Refueling.--The Committee recommends
$126,400,000, $18,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same
as the budget request.
NR Development.--The Committee recommends $410,351,000,
$3,947,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,349,000 below the
budget request. Within this amount, $68,000,000 is provided for
the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory to
resolve fuel supply shortages that have occurred due to funding
cuts over the past few years.
NR Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$368,071,000, $11,771,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$44,309,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, not
less than $119,279,000 is provided for Research Reactor
Facility Operations and Maintenance to ensure sufficient
funding is available for a maintenance shutdown of the
prototype reactor at the Kesselring Site. Funding for Spent
Fuel Handling Facility Other Project Costs (OPCs) is
transferred to the line-item construction project as described
below.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $112,920,000,
$88,547,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $97,000,000 below the
budget request. The Committee supports increased investment in
NR infrastructure, but prioritizes continued funding for
ongoing projects and those that address outstanding safety and
security issues. As a result, the recommendation defers
commencement of an overpack storage expansion project that is
not needed until 2022. In addition, the Committee provides no
funding to construct a simulation training facility that is
primarily intended to meet Navy training needs because the
training of Navy nuclear operators is a Navy rather than DOE
responsibility.
The Committee is concerned about the affordability of NR's
construction plans. The fiscal year 2015 budget request
proposes to commence five new construction projects, despite
failing to identify all the funds needed to complete these
projects within its projected five-year budget plan. In
addition, estimated project costs are continuing to rise due to
what appears to be a failure to control project scope. The
total project cost of the Kesselring Central Office Building
project has grown to $24,850,000, an increase of $9,600,000 or
63 percent above its previously reported cost of $15,250,000.
The total project cost of the Materials Characterization
Laboratory Expansion project has grown to $38,200,000, an
increase of $16,400,000 or 75 percent above its previously
reported cost of $21,800,000. The Committee defers additional
funding and directs NR to resolve the expansion of scope before
requesting additional funds for these two projects.
The budget request fails to provide the minimum required
information regarding square footage of each new facility and
associated demolition work. The Committee provides
clarification that this reporting requirement is applicable to
NR projects and should be clearly reported in each project data
sheet in future budget requests.
Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project, NRF.--The
Committee recommends $70,000,000, $70,000,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $71,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee
provides funding for Other Project Costs (OPCs) within project
funds, consistent with the recommendation for accounting for
OPCs for other DOE major projects with a total project cost
greater than $750,000,000. Consolidating OPCs into one project
line improves integration of startup and commissioning
activities, eliminates a common need for reprogramming, and
provides greater transparency into the costs of major
construction projects. The recommended level permits work on
the project to move forward, but maintains a slight delay that
will stagger peak funding requirements with NR's other major
multi-year activities in order to provide a more reliable
planning basis. The Committee expects NR to conduct an
independent cost review and to establish a clear path for
completing its National Environmental Policy Act requirements
prior to the award of Critical Decision-1.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, 2014................................... $377,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 410,842,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 386,863,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +9,863,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -23,979,000
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee
recommendation is $386,863,000, $9,863,000 above fiscal year
2014 and $23,979,000 below the budget request. The Committee
does not approve the NNSA's request to change the name of this
appropriation to Federal Salaries and Expenses.
Corporate Project Management.--The Committee recommends
$9,863,000, $1,946,000 below the budget request. After
accounting for the transfer of these activities from Weapons
Activities as directed in the fiscal year 2014 Act, the
recommended amount for Corporate Project Management is $745,000
below fiscal year 2014. The NNSA should expedite establishing
permanent federal capabilities for cost estimating and project
management instead of relying on large support service
contracts to conduct its oversight.
Albuquerque Complex.--The recommendation provides no
funding to build out or lease commercial office space in
Albuquerque, $19,900,000 below the budget request. The NNSA's
proposal does not provide the best value to the government and
will cost the taxpayer more over time than refurbishing
existing space and constructing new facilities. In addition,
the NNSA's proposal to build out secure space for handling
highly sensitive national security information creates a
security vulnerability that is not acceptable considering the
availability of existing onsite facilities that are not yet
beyond their useful life. The recommendation includes funding
and additional direction within Weapons Activities to address
facility conditions at the Albuquerque Complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2014................................... $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 4,864,538,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 4,801,280,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -198,720,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -63,258,000
The Defense Environmental Cleanup program is responsible
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research
and production activities that resulted in radioactive,
hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation,
stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee's
recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is
$4,801,280,000, $198,720,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$63,258,000 below the budget request. The recommendation does
not include a federal contribution of $463,000,000 into the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
Within the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund
hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000.
The recommendation reflects the fiscal constraints that are
impacting resources available to accelerate work at cleanup
sites and to respond to new challenges that might arise. While
the recommended funding level for Defense Environmental Cleanup
is reduced from the request, additional funds have been
provided
to non-defense cleanup activities to provide an overall level
of funding for the Office of Environmental Management (EM) of
$5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$6,742,000 above the budget request.
Special Transfer Authority.--The Department has identified
no funds in its budget request to address the recent incidents
that have led to the shutdown of the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP). Investigative reports have found that at least
some of the problems that the Department must now address were
entirely preventable. The Committee anticipates that funding
available for environmental cleanup will continue to be highly
constrained for the next several years. The Department's
ability to safely and efficiently execute its program of work
will directly impact its ability to meet other cleanup
commitments, and events at WIPP increase the likelihood that
the Department will have to use its limited cleanup funds to
pay penalties to the states rather than to make progress on
cleanup goals.
To meet the immediate needs for expediting the return of
WIPP to full operations, the Committee has identified funds in
the budget request for payments in excess of requirements into
the NNSA's contractor defined benefit pension plans. Pension
payments are highly dependent on market conditions and the
Department's ability to accurately predict payments several
years in advance is inherently limited. The Committee notes
that the intent of contributing funds above requirements is to
avoid future programmatic risk if changes in market conditions
require large variations in future required payments. However,
the actual needs today at WIPP outweigh the hypothetical future
benefits of overpaying into plans. The bill contains a
provision that allows the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to
$120,000,000 of NNSA funds that were requested for overpayments
to pay for the costs of WIPP recovery.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $2,085,071,000,
$66,145,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the
budget request. In recognition of the responsiveness of the
Department to better account for its smaller construction
activities, the Committee has provided greater flexibility by
combining control points for Richland. While funding for
Hanford is consolidated to enhance transparency into the
overall funding provided to the site, the Committee maintains
separate funding for DOE's two distinct site offices at
Hanford.
For the Richland Office, the recommendation funds the
request of $26,290,000 for Richland construction activities,
funds the request of $14,701,000 for community and regulatory
support, and provides $832,080,000, $25,000,000 above the
budget request, for Richland cleanup and disposition
operations. Within that amount, at least $235,000,000 shall be
used for the River Corridor Closure project.
For the Office of River Protection, the recommendation
provides $522,000,000 for Tank Farm Activities, $1,784,000
above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the request. For Office
of River Protection construction activities, the recommendation
provides $690,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and
$25,000,000 below the request. Within this amount, $12,000,000
is provided to commence detailed design activities on the Low
Activity Waste Pretreatment System project. The Committee does
not support further acceleration of construction for the new
framework agreement until DOE can resolve the cost and schedule
uncertainties of its proposal. While the recommendation
continues to provide control point flexibility between
subprojects of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
(WTP) in fiscal year 2015, the Committee expects the rebaseline
effort currently underway to result in a proposal that will
better account for the various costs of the project. The
Department needs to provide considerably greater detail on the
use of its funding, including its anticipated costs and
schedule requirements for resolving the outstanding technical
issues of the WTP. The Committee is also concerned that DOE has
been shifting the allocation of funding for WTP-related work
between Tank Farms and WTP subprojects by adjusting accounting
codes for ``Shared Services'' in an effort to artificially show
that a nominal $690,000,000 per year is being spent on the
project. It is essential that the Department establish formal
methods of accounting for its project costs so that overall
progress can be tracked, contractor performance can be
monitored, and taxpayer dollars are not wasted.
Hanford's Tank Farms.--The Committee is concerned about the
continued deterioration of aging tanks at Hanford and directs
the Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than
February 1, 2015, a comprehensive report on tank maintenance
and upgrade requirements, including projected costs of needed
safety and maintenance upgrades. The report shall include an
estimate of the costs and timeline for constructing new tanks
with a description of the impacts on the timeline for
constructing the Waste Treatment Plant if new tanks were
required.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$380,203,000, $6,797,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $13,000,000
above the budget request. The Committee is concerned about the
impact that the closure of WIPP is having on DOE's ability to
meet its cleanup milestones. The recommendation includes an
additional $10,000,000 to support work plan adjustments needed
to meet 2018 milestones now that TRU waste shipments have been
temporarily suspended. The recommendation also includes
$3,000,000 to accelerate shipments of mixed low level waste to
maximize inventory disposals.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $249,018,000,
$65,658,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $44,617,000 below the
budget request. Within this amount, the Committee recommends
$180,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
recommendation funds the request of $4,600,000 for project
engineering and design of the Hexavalent Chromium Pump and
Treatment Facility but does not provide the $24,000,000
requested for construction because DOE cannot initiate the
project until it is approved by the State of New Mexico. The
fiscal year 2014 Act provided a one-time increase to support an
agreement to expedite the removal of above ground legacy TRU
waste. Now that TRU waste shipments to WIPP are suspended, the
recommendation maintains overall funding for Los Alamos above
the fiscal year 2013 level and urges the Department to obtain
resolution of its long-term cleanup plans for the site.
Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU).--The Committee
recognizes that the Department of Energy and the private
contractor are continuing cleanup at the site. The Committee
notes that $12,500,000 is available from prior-year
appropriations and an additional $20,500,000 is obligated but
uncosted. The Committee directs the Department to preserve the
$33,000,000 until a plan has been determined for the site. If,
at that time, the Department is found to have a liability, the
Committee expects the Department to apply the $32,500,000
toward that outstanding obligation. If additional funding is
needed once final agreement between the parties is achieved,
the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming
request to fully support the agreed plan.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$212,818,000, $2,182,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,935,000
above the budget request. The recommendation provides funding
above the request for Oak Ridge Cleanup and Disposition to
address work plan revisions for contact- and remote-handled TRU
waste that are necessary due to the closure of WIPP. The
recommendation also provides additional control point
flexibility by including funding requested for OR Nuclear
Facility D&D within OR cleanup and waste disposition.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,104,904,000, $29,330,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$45,202,000 below the budget request. The recommendation
reduces funding for site risk management, but includes
additional funding within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to
better account for the costs of the NNSA's spent fuel removal
initiatives. The recommendation also includes direction for the
Department to conduct a review of the cost sharing arrangement
between EM and the NNSA to better account for the costs of NNSA
programmatic needs. The recommendation does not provide the
amount requested for radioactive liquid tank waste
stabilization and disposition because the Department has not
updated the performance baseline for the full scope of the Salt
Waste Processing Facility project and cannot justify its
timeline for conducting supporting startup and commissioning
work.
Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).--The Committee
recommends $135,000,000, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
the same as the budget request. This amount includes ``Other
Project Costs'' consistent with funding for OPCs for other
Department of Energy projects with a total project cost greater
than $750,000,000. Completion of the SWPF represents the
critical path for meeting the Department's cleanup commitments
at the site and therefore remains the Committee's highest
priority at Savannah River.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee
recommends $236,020,000, $19,827,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$20,000,000 above the budget request. Funds above the request
are provided to initiate two new construction projects, a
safety-significant ventilation system and a new exhaust shaft,
which are needed to ensure WIPP can be safely operated.
The Secretary of Energy is directed to designate an
official to be responsible for developing a formal WIPP
Recovery Plan that will return the facility to full operations.
The recovery plan shall detail the Department's strategy to
implement corrective actions to address the root causes of the
fire and radiological incidents. The recovery plan shall
continue to be updated with findings of ongoing accident and
root cause investigations. While the Committee does not require
outside independent review, the Department should seriously
consider this action in light of the importance of WIPP to
other Department sites as well as the uniqueness of the event
and the facility. Before use of its special transfer authority,
the Department shall provide its WIPP Recovery Plan to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. The Department shall further provide the
Committees a monthly update on its progress in implementing its
recovery plan and addressing the root causes of the fire and
radiological event.
Program Support.--The Committee recommends $16,979,000,
$1,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the
budget request. Additional funding above the request is
provided to expedite WIPP recovery efforts, including funding
for mine safety expertise, review of documented safety analyses
and engineered changes, and study of decontamination
alternatives.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000, $8,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and
$3,007,000 below the budget request. Within this amount,
$2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at
Idaho National Laboratory in order to maintain and update the
database regarding the current inventory and characteristics of
EM-managed spent fuel. In addition, the Department is directed
to assess the current status of its spent fuel storage and
processing infrastructure and to provide an assessment of the
current risks and status of deferred maintenance to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than September 30, 2015.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use
of $13,367,000 in prior-year balances that are greater than
five years old.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2014................................... $755,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 753,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 754,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +1,000,000
This account provides funding for the Office of
Environment, Health, Safety and Security; Office of Independent
Enterprise Assessments; Office of Legacy Management; Defense
Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and
Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense
Activities (ODA) is $754,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year
2014 and $1,000,000 above the budget request.
Environment, Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee
supports the Department of Energy's request to provide separate
funding for the newly reorganized Health, Safety and Security
activities. The Committee recommends $180,998,000 for the
Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security and
$73,534,000 for the Office of Independent Enterprise
Assessments, the same as the budget request. Overall funding
for these two organizations is $2,615,000 above fiscal year
2014.
The Committee believes it is critical to preserve the
ability of the Department to conduct independent assessments of
compliance and performance and that access to and cooperation
from all Departmental programs is provided to the Office of
Independent Enterprise Assessments. The Office of Independent
Enterprise Assessments is directed to provide to the Committee
an annual report that provides an overview of its oversight
activities, findings, and recommendations for the fiscal year.
The Committee notes that the Department still has not
approved a revision to its Graded Security Posture (GSP) that
will update security standards at DOE sites to meet the latest
threats. While the Department has implemented organizational
reforms, it has not yet demonstrated those reorganized offices
can effectively reform security practices or impose
accountability. The Department is directed to move
expeditiously in updating its analysis with the latest known
threats and approving a GSP that can be used to set and enforce
consistent and appropriate standards of protection at each DOE
site.
Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends
$203,152,000 for Specialized Security Activities, $910,000
above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 above the budget request.
Office of Legacy Management.--The Office of Legacy
Management provides long-term stewardship following site
closure. The Committee recommends $171,980,000 for Legacy
Management, $5,003,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as
the budget request. The Committee commends the Office of Legacy
Management's efforts to undertake creative reforms to limit the
volatility of its liabilities for contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans while preserving the commitments made to
legacy employees. The Committee supports additional reforms
that might further reduce risks to ongoing programmatic
activities at the Department of Energy.
Defense Related Administrative Support.--The Committee
recommends $118,836,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the
budget request, to provide administrative support for programs
funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts.
Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Office of Hearings and
Appeals is responsible for all of the Department's adjudicatory
processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,500,000,
$478,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget
request.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Management of the federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Energy in the Department of Energy Organization
Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power
marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville
Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration,
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
All four power marketing administrations give preference in
the sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-
owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power
Administration are financed principally under the authority of
the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-
454). Under this Act, the Bonneville Power Administration is
authorized to use its revenues to finance the costs of its
operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell
bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional
capital program requirements.
Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power
Administrations, which were previously classified as mandatory
offsetting receipts, were reclassified as discretionary
offsetting collections to directly offset annual expenses. The
capital expenses of Southwestern and Western Area Power
Administrations are appropriated annually.
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-federal generating
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus
power with Canada and California. Language is included to allow
expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for
the Black Canyon Trout Hatchery.
The Committee recognizes extraordinary measures were taken
recently by the Department of Energy in an effort to correct
hiring irregularities that negatively impacted veterans
applying for employment at the Bonneville Power Administration.
Both the Department and Bonneville need to ensure that all job
applicants are treated fairly, all appropriate federal hiring
laws are followed, and whistleblowers are protected. At the
same time, the Committee reiterates its longstanding
recognition of Bonneville's autonomy within the Department of
Energy as a separate and distinct self-funding agency under the
Bonneville Project Act, DOE Organization Act, and the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act. Accordingly, the
Committee expects the Department intervention in Bonneville
management provoked by this matter to be both temporary and
limited.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Budget estimate, 2015................................. $- - -
Appropriation, 2014................................... - - -
Recommended, 2015..................................... - - -
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers
Projects in 11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not
own or operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities
of area utilities.
The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2015 is
$96,930,000, with $89,710,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $7,220,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $73,579,000,
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $2,220,000
provided in this Act and the use of prior-year balances of
$5,000,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $16,131,000 in
alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net
appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the
budget request.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2014................................... $11,892,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 11,400,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 11,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -492,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of
transmission lines, along with supporting substations and
communications sites.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $11,400,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Southwestern
in fiscal year 2015 is $122,666,000, including $15,174,000 for
operation and maintenance expenses, $63,000,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, $31,089,000 for program direction, and
$13,403,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total
$87,840,000, including $5,438,000 for operation and
maintenance, $53,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and
$29,402,000 for program direction. Southwestern estimates it
will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount
of $23,426,000.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2014................................... $95,930,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 93,372,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 93,372,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -2,558,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a
service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $93,372,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2015 is recommended at $837,731,000, which includes
$86,645,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $81,958,000
for system operation and maintenance, $441,223,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, and $227,905,000 for program direction.
Offsetting collections include $471,540,000 for purchase power
and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $7,161,000 of
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as
authorized in P.L. 98-381). Western Area estimates it will
secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of
$265,658,000.
The Committee is concerned that Western has not been as
responsive as it could be in its efforts to work with its
customers. Accordingly, the Committee encourages Western to
improve its approach to addressing customer concerns, and the
Committee will continue to monitor further developments.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2014................................... $420,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 228,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 228,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -192,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission.
The budget request includes a proposal for authority to
accept contributed funds in fiscal year 2015 for use in
fulfilling duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams.
This authority would be equivalent to the authority used
throughout the Western Area Power Administration to secure
alternative financing. The Committee includes this proposal.
The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of
$228,000, the same as the budget request. The total program
level is $5,529,000, with $4,499,000 of offsetting collections
applied toward annual expenses and $802,000 of alternative
financing.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 327,277,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 304,389,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -211,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -22,888,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $-304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. -327,277,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -304,389,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +211,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +22,888,000
The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,389,000, $211,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and $22,888,000 below the budget request.
Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget
authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. As described
below, the Committee is concerned about the Commission's lack
of responsiveness to ratepayers, state and local leaders, and
the Committee, and has rejected the proposed one percent
increase in salaries and benefits and delimited the
Commissioners' use of funding.
In addition, the Committee has denied the request for
$20,277,000 to partially fund a $44,000,000 building
consolidation project. The Commission has approximately
$22,000,000 in carryover balances that it intends to use on
this project, which is not scheduled to be completed until
fiscal year 2020. The Committee encourages the Commission to
request funding for this multi-year project so as not to create
spikes in its requested salaries and expenses, and therefore
revenues, in any one year.
The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the
degree of consideration given by FERC to the rights and
concerns of private property owners during the process for
developing, reviewing, and approving shoreline management
plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious
development and implementation of innovative and mutually
agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes
and private property at specific locations.
The Committee is concerned with recent reports from
localities experiencing dramatic increases in their electricity
costs for January 2014 due to transmission charges, with some
localities reporting increases of more than one hundred percent
over their estimated charges. The Committee appreciates FERC
taking note of these impacts and hosting a technical conference
on Winter 2013-2014 Operations and Market Performance in
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators. The Commission shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a
report on the causes of these increased costs, the impacts on
localities and residents, and any authorities and actions that
have been or potentially could be used to address these issues.
However, the Committee urges the Commission to be more
proactive in addressing the concerns of ratepayers. In
particular, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
considers a request for approval of a new capacity zone, the
Committee expects the views of local and state officials,
regulators, and business leaders to be taken into account
during the process. Further, the Committee also expects that
the process will include considerations such as costs to
ratepayers in addition to electrical reliability and
availability.
The Committee remains concerned about the backlog of
liquefied natural gas export applications at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and continues to support a clearly
communicated, timely process to reach an appropriate
determination on each application. The Committee notes that
FERC has yet to comply with the report directive included in
House Report 113-135 and referenced by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014, which required FERC to submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, not later than February 16,
2014, its plan to complete consideration of all applications
filed with the Commission. The Committee reiterates its
previous direction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to initiate requests for
proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs
or activities that have not yet been approved and funded by the
Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding
actions; prohibits funds to be used for certain multi-year
``Energy Programs'' activities without notification; and
prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds provided in
this title through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer
and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with
appropriation accounts established in this bill.
The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence
activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section
504 of the National Security Act of 1947.
The bill modifies a provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is
conducted, to account for a change in the Department of
Energy's organizational structure.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or
critical decision-3 for certain construction projects, unless a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that
critical decision.
The bill modifies a provision regarding uranium transfer
notifications. A new subparagraph (c) has been included to
increase the accuracy of Secretarial determinations required by
the USEC Privatization Act. In implementing this subparagraph
(c), the Department shall seek to minimize impacts on uranium
transfers already planned during the fiscal year in which the
new determination is required and should continue uranium
transfers until the new determination is completed. The
Department shall explore the use of expedited determination
procedures and determinations completed on a timeframe to
accommodate upcoming transfers.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the Office of
Science from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a
value of less than $1,000,000.
The bill modifies a provision requiring cost reporting for
major warhead refurbishment programs.
The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from
specific accounts.
The bill includes a provision transferring funds to
``Defense Environmental Cleanup.''
The bill includes a provision restricting certain
activities in the Russian Federation.
The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from
``United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.''
The bill includes a provision regarding management of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The bill includes a provision clarifying laboratory
directed research and development authorities.
The bill includes a provision regarding a Department of
Energy rule on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2014................................... $80,317,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 68,200,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 80,317,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +12,117,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965 by the
Appalachian Regional Development Act (Public Law 89-4). It is
comprised of the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a
federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC
provides funding for several hundred projects in the
Appalachian Region in areas such as business development,
education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure,
community development, housing, and transportation.
The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $80,317,000,
the same as fiscal year 2014 and $12,117,000 above the budget
request.
To diversify and enhance regional business development,
$10,000,000 is provided to continue the program of high-speed
broadband deployment in distressed counties within the Central
Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by
the downturn in the coal industry. This funding shall be in
addition to the 30 percent directed to distressed counties.
The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed
counties or distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The
Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus
of the ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Appropriation, 2014................................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 30,150,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 29,150,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +1,150,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -1,000,000
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was
created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization
Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the
President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary
of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the
Department's defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and
implementation of the standards relating to the design,
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. The Committee expects
the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in
scrutinizing the Department's safety and security activities,
including the reform initiatives underway in the Department
that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee
recommendation for fiscal year 2015 is $29,150,000, $1,150,000
above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 below the budget request.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2014................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 12,319,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 12,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. -319,000
The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state
partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-554) that serves a 252-county/parish area
in an eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements,
business development, and job training services. Under federal
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the
funds designated for transportation and basic infrastructure
improvements.
For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $12,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2014 and $319,000 below the budget
request.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2014................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 7,396,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 10,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +2,604,000
The Denali Commission is a regional development agency
established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law
105 -277) to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health
services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure
that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded
projects, local cost-share requirements for construction and
equipment have been established for both distressed and non-
distressed communities.
For the cost of the Commission's operations in fiscal year
2015, the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal
year 2014 and $2,604,000 above the budget request.
The Committee supports the Denali Commission's recent
efforts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce
to provide oversight of the Commission's management,
expenditures, and programs.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2014................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 3,000,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 3,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border
Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership
intended to address the economic development needs of
distressed portions of the four-state region of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Committee has continued
legislative language addressing the Commission's administrative
expenses.
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to support the
Commission's activities in fiscal year 2015, $2,000,000 below
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2014................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. - - -
Recommended, 2015..................................... 250,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +250,000
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to
address the economic development needs of distressed portions
of the seven-state region in the southeastern United States not
already served by a regional development agency.
The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the
commission in fiscal year 2015, the same as fiscal year 2014
and $250,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,043,937,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,047,433,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,052,433,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +8,496,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +5,000,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $-920,721,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. -925,155,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -880,155,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +40,566,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +45,000,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $123,216,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 122,278,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 172,278,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +49,062,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. +50,000,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2015 is
$1,052,433,000, $8,496,000 above fiscal year 2014 and
$5,000,000 above the budget request. The total amount of budget
authority is graphic by estimated revenues of $880,155,000,
$40,566,000 less than fiscal year 2014 and $45,000,000 less
than the budget request. Including revenues, the net
appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
$172,278,000.
The recommendation reduces the amount made available for
salaries and expenses by $40,000,000 to account for anticipated
carryover from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015. The
Committee authorizes the NRC to re-allocate its unobligated
carryover to supplement its fiscal year 2015 appropriation and
directs the NRC, not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act, to submit a base table that documents this re-allocation.
The recommendation further reduces salaries and expenses by
$10,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 budget request to
account for lower-than-anticipated staffing levels. Within
available funds, not more than $9,500,000 is included for
salaries, travel, and other support costs for the Office of the
Commission. These salaries and expenses shall include only
salaries and benefits costs and travel costs, and are not to
include general and administrative and infrastructure costs.
The Committee directs that these funds are to be jointly
managed by the Commissioners, and the bill requires that the
use and expenditure of these salaries and expenses shall only
be by a majority vote of the Commission. The NRC shall continue
to include a breakout and explanation of the Commission
salaries and expenses in its annual budget requests. If the
Commission wishes to change the composition of the funds
requested for its salaries and expenses in future years, it
must do so in an annual budget request or through a
reprogramming.
The Committee notes that the NRC continues its
administrative shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license
application, as well as its willful misrepresentation of
congressional intent. The recommendation continues language
prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from terminating any
program, project, or activity without the approval of a
majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation
requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
on the use of emergency functions.
The recommendation directs $55,000,000 to continue
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The
Committee does not share the Administration's perspective that
once Nuclear Waste Fund resources are depleted, the NRC's
responsibility to complete the Yucca Mountain license
application is obviated. The NRC is directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than January 1, 2015, on its plan to
complete the license application and its additional funding
needs as necessary.
Integrated University Program.--From within available
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide
financial support for the university education programs
relevant to the NRC mission, as the Commission continues to be
reliant on a pipeline of highly trained nuclear engineers and
scientists and benefits substantially from this university
program. Not less than $5,000,000 of this amount is to be used
for grants to support research projects that do not align with
programmatic missions, but are critical to maintaining the
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.
Reporting Requirements.--The Committee directs the
Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the
status of its licensing and other regulatory activities.
The Committee is aware that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is planning to conduct a comprehensive review of its
business lines, including a five-year plan of the agency's
anticipated workload for licensing and construction of new and
advanced facilities, an assessment of the size of the operating
fleet, and an evaluation of required corporate support
resources. As part of that process, the Committee directs the
Commission to engage an outside entity with expertise on
federal agency management to recommend ways the Commission can
reduce its corporate support requirements and improve the
efficiency of the Commission's internal processes. Not later
than March 1, 2015, the Committee directs the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to submit the review's findings,
budgetary impacts, and a long-term strategic workforce plan to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $11,955,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 12,071,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 12,071,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +116,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2014................................... $-9,994,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. -10,099,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... -10,099,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -105,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,961,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 1,972,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 1,972,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... +11,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Committee recommends $12,071,000, $116,000 above fiscal
year 2014 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula
for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,099,000,
resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Inspector General of $1,972,000.
The Committee has included $850,000 within the
appropriation for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
for the Board to procure Inspector General services from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2014................................... $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 3,400,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 3,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was
established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Committee expects the NWTRB to continue its active engagement
with the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on
issues involving nuclear waste disposal.
The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the NWTRB, the same
as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2014................................... $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. - - -
Recommended, 2015..................................... - - -
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2014............................... -1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................. - - -
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
324). The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating
local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas
transportation project, including facilitating the permitting
process, as well as joint surveillance and monitoring of
construction with the State of Alaska. The recent market shift
in the supply and demand for natural gas, coupled with the
recently announced plans for a pipeline to deliver natural gas
to Pacific Rim markets leads the Committee to conclude that no
active or pending projects fit within the scope of the Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects.
The Committee recommends no funds to support the activities
of this office in fiscal year 2015, and directs that the Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects use remaining balances to implement an
orderly shutdown.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
The bill includes a provision making permanent reporting on
the use of emergency authority.
The bill modifies a provision requiring the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to fully comply with congressional
requests for information to allow changes or modifications to
procedures governing congressional requests. In allowing
procedural changes with the support of the majority of the
commissioners, the Committee continues to expect that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be responsive to
congressional requests in a timely and transparent manner.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or
indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than
to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section
1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan
or loan guarantee to corporations convicted of a felony
criminal violation of Federal law within the preceding 24
months. The Department shall provide an annual report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, due not later than 30 days after the end of
each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this
provision, including a list of affected corporations and a
justification for any cases in which the Department has
determined that the limitation should not apply.
The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan
or loan guarantee to corporations with certain unpaid Federal
tax liabilities. The Department shall provide an annual report
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, due not later than 30 days
after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation
of this provision, including a list of affected corporations
and a justification for any cases in which the Department has
determined that the limitation should not apply.
The bill continues a provision consolidating the transfer
authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No
additional transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this
provision. For the purposes of this provision, the term
``transfer'' shall mean the shifting of all or part of the
budget authority in one account to another. In addition to
transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation Acts, and
existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535),
by which one part of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers
using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2745). The first semiannual report required by subsection (c)
shall be submitted not later than six months after enactment of
this Act.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in
contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11,
1994, regarding environmental justice.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this
Act from being used to close the Yucca Mountain license
application process or for actions that would remove the
possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the
future.
The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that
the proposed new budget authority in this recommendation
exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Under section 104, ``General Provisions, Corps of
Engineers--Civil'', $4,700,000 under the heading ``Operation
and Maintenance'' may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife
Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects.
TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Under ``Water and Related Resources'', $25,000 is available
for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$6,840,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under the heading.
Under ``California Bay Delta Restoration'', such sums as
may be necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be
transferred to appropriate accounts of other participating
federal agencies.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Under section 302, ``General Provisions--Department of
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
Under section 310, ``General Provisions--Department of
Energy'', up to $90,000,000 from ``Weapons Activities'' and up
to $30,000,000 from ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation''
pension plan overpayments are available to transfer to
``Defense Environmental Cleanup'' to support needs at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Under section 504, transfer authorities are clarified for
the purposes of accounts funded by the Act.
Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items
Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and
specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, stating that funds can be used for the
construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects authorized by law, and for detailed studies
and plans and specifications of such projects.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for:
the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; providing
security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps,
including administrative buildings and laboratories;
maintaining authorized harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential
navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing
and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to
navigation.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds
from a special account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal
facilities for which fees have been collected.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs,
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and
appropriate.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural
disaster.
Language has been included to provide for funding for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of
any contract for a program, project or activity which commits
funds in excess of the amount appropriated (to include funds
reprogrammed under section 101) that remain unobligated.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a
continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 104, providing for transfer
authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service for mitigation for
lost fisheries.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 105, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of fill material or discharge of fill
material under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 106, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 107, allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available
for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and
for grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local
governments and Indian tribes.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing
that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado
River Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased
within the overall appropriation.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account
established by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43
U.S.C. 395 by non-federal entities shall be available for
expenditure; and that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are
to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account and
available for expenditure.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used
for high priority projects carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau
of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of
additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by
section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of
the funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or
lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already
committed to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by
consent or decree.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of
funds to appropriate accounts of other participating federal
agencies to carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made
available under this heading to be used for the federal share
of the costs of the CALFED Program management; and requiring
that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the program.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be
derived from the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of
any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as
policy and administration expenses.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account, rescinding
unobligated funds.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor
vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of
the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis
Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development for the acquisition of interest, including
defeasible and equitable interest in any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and
for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 1602 and 1603.
Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances.
Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands
Fund, permitting payment to California for the State Teachers'
Retirement Fund.
Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve rescinding funds that were not designated by the
Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Science providing for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Science restricting the
availability of funds for an international project until
certain conditions are met, or a waiver is issued.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal for
the acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as graphicting
collections to this account and making fees collected under
section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount
unavailable for expenditure until appropriated.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain
interests.
Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology
rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as
emergency funding.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others, as long as such increases are graphic by revenue
increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the
Department of Energy to use revenues to graphic appropriations.
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental
expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation restricting the use of funds provided for a
specific project.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by
the Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment, facilities, and facility expansion.
Language has been included under the Office of the
Administrator providing funding for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor
vehicles.
Language has been included under Other Defense Activities
for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment.
Language has been included under Bonneville Power
Administration Fund providing funding for official reception
and representation expenses; approving funds for certain
programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary graphicting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts
collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall
be credited to the account as graphicting collections and
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary graphicting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southwestern Power Administration; amounts
collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall
be credited to the account as graphicting collections and
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration, providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
16 U.S.C. 825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the Western Area Power Administration;
amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling
expenses shall be credited to the account as graphicting
collections and remain available until expended for the sole
purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding
68 Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of those dams
and associated Western Area Power Administration activities.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area
Power Administration may accept a limited amount of
contributions from the United States power customers of the
Falcon and Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the
United States Section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission for operating and maintenance of hydroelectric
facilities.
Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to
provide official reception and representation expenses, and to
permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the
appropriation as revenues are received.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other
solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet
been fully funded by the Congress; requiring notification and
reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the
use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none
of the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2015 until enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds
for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities
unless certain independent oversight is conducted.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds
to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for
certain construction projects, unless a separate independent
cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 306, regarding uranium
determinations.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 307, requiring the Office of
Science to fund up-front funding arrangements for less than
$1,000,000.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 308, requiring certain reporting on
major warhead refurbishments.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 309, rescinding certain funds that
were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 310, providing transfer authority
to support an environmental cleanup project.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 311, prohibiting nonproliferation
activities in the Russian Federation until certain reporting
requirements are met.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 312, rescinding funds under ``USEC
Privatization Fund''.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 313, prohibiting funds for certain
activities related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without
prior notification to the Congress and limiting the type of
petroleum product that may be purchased with certain funds.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 314, clarifying laboratory directed
research and development authorities.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 315, regarding a Department of
Energy rule on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language has been included under Appalachian Regional
Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV
of title 40, United States Code, without regard to section
14704.
Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2),
382F(d), 382M and 382N of said Act.
Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing
the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the
Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share
requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in
distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by
section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C,
Title III, Public Law 105-277), and an amount not to exceed 50
percent for non-distressed communities.
Language has been included under Northern Border Regional
Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title
40, Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be
controlled by majority vote of the Commission.
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official
representation expenses and permits the use of revenues from
licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for
salaries and expenses to reduce the appropriation as revenues
are received. Funding is provided to support university
research and development, and for a Nuclear Science and
Engineering Grant Program.
Language has been included under Office of Inspector
General that provides for the use of revenues from licensing
fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and
expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, to reduce the appropriation as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 401, permanently improving
transparency for the use of emergency powers at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 402, requiring the NRC to comply
with certain procedures when responding to Congressional
requests for information.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 502, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement
with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except
in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 503, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement
with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability
that has been assessed, except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 504, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this
or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities,
and requiring a report.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 505, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive
Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental
justice.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 506, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
close the Yucca Mountain license application process, or for
actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain
might be an option in the future.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 507, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new
budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee
on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Program Duplication
No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Directed Rule Making
The bill does not direct any rule making.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the
accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute
or part thereof.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized:
[in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Net
Agency/Program Last Year of Authorization in Last Year of Appropriation
Authorization Level Authorization in this Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps FUSRAP.................................. .............. \1\ ............... 100,000
EERE Program Direction........................ 2006 110,500 164,198 150,000
EERE Weatherization Activities................ 2012 1,400,000 68,000 203,000
EERE State Energy Programs.................... 2012 125,000 50,000 50,000
Nuclear Energy................................ 2009 495,000 792,000 899,000
Fossil Energy................................. 2009 641,000 727,320 593,000
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves........ 2014 20,000 20,000 19,950
Office of Science............................. 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 5,071,000
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy..... 2013 312,000 265,000 280,000
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 2012 not specified 6,000 4,000
Program......................................
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup:
West Valley Demonstration................. 1981 5,000 5,000 58,986
Departmental Administration................... 1984 246,963 185,682 136,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:. .............. ............... ...............
Weapons Activities.................... 2014 7,909,252 7,781,000 8,204,209
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...... 2014 2,180,142 1,954,000 1,555,156
Naval Reactors........................ 2014 1,246,134 1,095,000 1,215,342
Office of the Administrator........... 2014 382,000 377,000 386,863
Defense Environmental Cleanup................. 2014 5,015,409 5,000,000 4,801,280
Other Defense Activities...................... 2014 758,658 755,000 754,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southwestern.............................. 1984 40,254 36,229 11,400
Western Area.............................. 1984 259,700 194,630 93,372
Appalachian Regional Commission............... 2013 110,000 68,263 80,317
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board....... 2014 29,915 28,000 29,150
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................. 1985 460,000 448,200 172,278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Department or Activity Amount
Bureau of Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program
Account................................................... $500,000
Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve...... 6,000,000
Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology................... 6,600,000
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..18,111,000
Department of Energy: Science................................. 5,257,000
Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy.......................... 1,046,000
Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development.. 8,243,000
Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability............................................... 4,809,000
Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy.................................................... 619,000
Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........37,000,000
Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation
and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration........ 1,720,000
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares
the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with
the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget
Act.
[In millions of dollars]
302(b) Allocation This Bill
Budget Budget
Authority Outlays Authority Outlays
Mandatory....................................... n.a. n.a. 0 0\1\
Discretionary................................... 34,010 37,831 34,010 37,831
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Five Year Outlay Projections
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains five-year
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of
outlays associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill:
[In millions of dollars]
Projection of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2014.............................................. 20,141\1\
2015.............................................. 9,554
2016.............................................. 2,988
2017.............................................. 643
2018 and future years............................. 600
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State
and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Budget Authority...................................... 94
Outlays............................................... 19\1\
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote
on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the
names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed
below:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR
We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their
efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill
funds critical water resource projects, supports science
activities necessary for American competitiveness, and
contributes to our national defense through vital weapons,
naval reactor research, and nonproliferation funding, all
priorities that unite rather than divide us. Chairman Simpson
has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from
both parties. As a result, the bill is largely a reflection of
priorities from both sides of the aisle.
The subcommittee's allocation is $34,010,000,000, an
increase of $326,862,000 from the Administration's budget
request and $50,499,000 below the 2014 level. While the non-
defense allocation for the bill is the same as 2014, the
defense allocation is $50,000,000 below 2014. Within the
constraints placed on the committee by the overall budget
number, the allocation is a reasonable one; yet, the allocation
still necessitated difficult decisions, particularly within the
defense activities.
We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers
funding by $959,499,000 above the President's woefully
inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will
continue. The bill also provides more than $1,100,000,000 for
projects funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in
excess of $185,000,000 above the budget request. This funding
will allow preventive and proactive investments necessary for
the economy and the safety of American citizens. As we are
reminded often by increasingly common weather events, in every
case, it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to
respond. The funding will also allow investments in the
nation's ports and waterways, which are critical to ensuring
that American made goods can move to market, both domestically
and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment in
infrastructure continues to hamper economic gains and prolongs
the current employment crisis.
The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of
authorized projects in excess of $60,000,000,000, without
including the deauthorization of $18,000,000,000 in the recent
Water Resource Reform and Development Act. Even limiting the
figure to those projects currently budgeted, the balance to
complete these ongoing projects is more than $20,000,000,000.
While this bill ensures increased investment beyond that
included in the budget request, we should be doing more to
build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. Federal support
of water resource projects creates construction jobs and
indirect economic benefits that encourage local businesses and
individuals to embrace risk and make critical investments in
their communities. The bill does not include funding for new
projects. While we understand the Chairman's reasoning, we must
start investing in projects that meet tomorrow's needs, not
yesterday's.
The Science and ARPA-E accounts, critical to the
competitiveness of our nation, are equal to the level of
funding provided in 2014. With a return on investment of 20 to
67 percent, publicly funded research grows our economy and
helps the United States maintain its position as the global
leader in innovation. If we truly wish to achieve energy
independence and tackle the challenges posed by climate change,
the federal government must continue to prioritize investments
in cutting edge research at our national laboratories and
universities along with supporting advancements in high-
potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early
for private-sector investment.
With regard to the applied energy programs at the
Department of Energy, investments in energy technology programs
are skewed too heavily toward fossil fuels, that undermines the
future of a clean energy economy. While we must provide for
critical research and development for the nuclear and fossil
energy sectors that currently provide the bulk of our current
electricity generation, but continued and sustained research
and development programs in renewable energy are necessary and
appropriate. Renewable energy has achieved cost competitiveness
in some areas and this investment can drive down the costs of
existing technology and provide breakthroughs in others. While
current trends show that the nation will meet 97 percent of our
energy needs through domestic production by 2035, investment in
portfolio diversity remain necessary for the long term. The
United States can leverage its strength--innovation--to restore
the United States to a position of global leadership in clean
energy. This effort is a critical national priority, with
implications for our economic competitiveness, national
security, and environmental legacy.
Our nation's chief strategic vulnerability is its
dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy
independence. The United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000
importing foreign petroleum since 2003. This represents
thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hard-working
American spent, not in much-needed American job creation, but
overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their
economies and their energy futures. Our republic will not
compete in the 21st Century and beyond if we further reduce
investments in this area and cede the energy future to other
countries.
Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and
the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of
securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade
material. While the Chairman reprioritizes within the account
to meet the most pressing needs, the defense allocation
prevents the bill from overcoming the disappointing reduction,
some $398,844,000 below 2014 to these activities contained in
the budget request.
Within the weapons account we very much appreciate the
Chairman's decision to restore the funding to the dismantlement
of retired weapons. The Chairman continues the strong oversight
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) which
has been plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule
delays. While we understand the need to modernize a complex
built substantially in the 1950's, we question whether the
organization has the necessary tools and processes to continue
to manage large increases to these activities year after year.
Further, we question whether the NNSA can objectively plan for
its mission requirements. Year after year, the NNSA informs
Congress that certain investments are critical, the minimum
required, and the only option, only to return with a more
affordable alternative once faced with budgetary realities. The
nuclear deterrent is too important and resources too precious
to waste funds pursuing capital investments which are
unnecessary.
We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for
Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to
meet the federal government's legal obligations to clean up its
defense nuclear waste. This program is critical to addressing
the environmental legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan
Project. Given that EM's portfolio is one of the nation's
largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the
responsibility to address the waste and contamination in the
affected communities in a timely and competent manner. This,
again, was driven by a defense allocation which left the
Chairman little choice.
While the funding levels of the bill are fair, the
inclusion of controversial riders is an unnecessary diversion
from our primary responsibility--ensuring that taxpayer funds
are invested wisely in Federal programs which will contribute
to the economic vitality of our Nation.
Most concerning is the inclusion of two water riders which,
taken together, risk environmental gains and protection of the
world's most precious resource: water. The first Clean Water
Act prohibition prevents the Corps of Engineers from taking
steps to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water
Act, and lock in place a widely-acknowledged state of confusion
about the scope of the law's pollution control programs. The
second prevents the Corps of Engineers from using funds to
``develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any
change'' to regulations pertaining to the definitions of the
terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' under
the Clean Water Act. This rider would lock in industry
loopholes, leaving many of our nation's waterways vulnerable to
harmful pollution.
Lastly, the inclusion of the rider allowing guns to be
carried on all Corps of Engineers lands injects into the bill
an unnecessarily partisan topic that is unwarranted. The Second
Amendment provides a right that we do not dispute at its core.
However, we do disagree with the notion that reasonable limits
on where guns can be carried are an infringement upon that
right. In an era when a school shooting seems to engender
collective shrugs, we see no need to contribute to an
environment where guns are commonplace in recreational areas
where families are trying to escape the pressures of everyday
life.
In spite of these concerns, we would like to reiterate our
appreciation for the Chairman's work with us on many issues,
ensuring the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
continues its tradition of bipartisanship--the Subcommittee has
operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and,
within the constraints facing the bill, it largely addresses
the interests we have expressed. We look forward to working
with the Chairman and the Members of the Committee to advance
the process and complete the task before us.
Nita Lowey
Marcy Kaptur