United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives

ADVANCED ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGIES 

Key Challenges to Their 

Development and 

Deployment 

Statement of Jim Wells, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 

 

GAO-07-550T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 28, 2007

ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Key Challenges to Their Development 

Highlights of GAO-07-550T, a testimony to and Deployment 

Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Development, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives

For decades, the nation has 

benefited from relatively 

inexpensive energy, but it has also 

grown reliant on fossil fuels—oil, 

natural gas, and coal. Periodic 

imported oil supply disruptions 

have led to price shocks, yet the 

nation’s dependence on imported

energy is greater than ever. Fossil

fuel emissions of carbon dioxide—

linked to global warming—have 

also raised environmental

concerns. The Department of

Energy (DOE) has funded research

and development (R&D) on

advanced renewable, fossil, and 

nuclear energy technologies. GAO’s 

report entitled DOE: Key 

Challenges Remain for Developing

and Deploying Advanced Energy 

Technologies to Meet Future Needs

examined the (1) R&D funding 

trends and strategies for

developing advanced energy

technologies; (2) key barriers to

developing and deploying advanced 

energy technologies; and (3) efforts 

of the states and six selected 

countries to develop and deploy 

advanced energy technologies. 

GAO reviewed DOE R&D budget

data and strategic plans and 

obtained the views of experts in

DOE, industry, and academia, as 

well as state and foreign

government officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO’s report recommended that 

the Congress consider further

stimulating the development and 

deployment of a diversified energy

portfolio by focusing R&D funding 

on advanced energy technologies. 

DOE’s budget authority for energy R&D, when adjusted for inflation, fell 85 

percent from its peak in fiscal year 1978 to fiscal year 2005. Energy R&D 

funding in the late 1970s was robust in response to constricted oil supplies 

and an ensuing energy crisis, but R&D funding plunged when oil prices 

returned to their historic levels in the mid-1980s. DOE’s R&D efforts have 

resulted in steady incremental progress in reducing costs for renewable 

energy, reducing harmful emissions of coal-fired power plants, and 

improving safety and efficiency for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the 

nation’s dependence on conventional fossil fuels remains virtually the same

as 30 years ago. 

Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, and 

nuclear energy technologies face several key challenges: 

• High Capital Costs. The high capital costs of advanced energy 

technologies worry risk-averse investors. For example, solar cells made 

to convert solar energy into electricity for homeowners and businesses 

have been typically too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. DOE’s 

R&D efforts include developing new materials for solar cells that could 

decrease manufacturing costs. 

• Environmental Concerns. Advanced energy technologies need to address 

harmful environmental effects, including bird and bat fatalities cause by 

wind turbines, carbon dioxide and mercury emissions by coal-fired 

power plants, and spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors. 

• Technology-Specific Challenges. Challenges that are unique to each 

technology also create barriers to development and deployment. 

Ethanol, for example, will need to be manufactured with more costcompetitive technologies using agricultural residues or other cellulosic 

materials in order to expand beyond corn. Other challenges include 

developing new wind technologies to expand into low-wind and offshore 

locations; developing advanced coal gasification technologies to further 

reduce harmful emissions and high capital costs; and working with the 

nuclear power industry to deploy a new generation of reactors and 

develop the next generation to enable reactors to reprocess highly 

radioactive spent nuclear fuel or produce hydrogen. 

Many states and foreign countries have forged ahead of the federal 

government by successfully stimulating the deployment of renewable energy 

technologies. For example, renewable energy accounts for 3 percent of 

Texas’ electricity consumption because Texas enacted legislation in 1999

and 2005 requiring its electric utilities to meet renewable energy capacity 

standards. Similarly, Denmark has used mandates and financial incentives to 

promote wind energy, which provided 19 percent of its electricity in 2005. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-550T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jim Wells, at 

(202) 512-6877 or wellsj@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our nation 

faces in meeting its future energy needs. The United States has primarily 

relied on market forces to determine its energy portfolio. These market 

forces have generally succeeded in providing us with plentiful, reliable,

and generally inexpensive gasoline to power our vehicles and electricity to

run our homes and businesses. However, most of this energy comes from

conventional fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, and coal—the dependence on

which has brought increased economic and national security risks and 

adverse environmental impacts. In 1973, 1979, 1991, and 2005, the nation’s

crude oil supplies were constricted contributing to major energy price

shocks. Despite these price shocks and related energy crises, the United 

States is even more dependent on imported crude oil and natural gas today 

than it was 30 years ago. And, without dramatic change, the nation will 

become ever more reliant on imported oil and natural gas with 

corresponding threats to the U.S. economy and national security. Perhaps 

equally important, the growing recognition that global warming is linked to 

carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal and oil will need to be 

addressed. Given these threats, the nation will almost certainly need to 

make much more tangible progress than has been achieved to date to 

diversify our energy portfolio by reducing conventional fossil fuel usage 

and developing and deploying advanced energy technologies. 

Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had 

leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and 

demonstration (R&D) that enable the nation to deploy advanced energy 

technologies for meeting future demands and diversify its energy 

portfolio.1

 During the past 29 years, the Congress has provided DOE about 

$50 billion for R&D in renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies.2

Regrettably, however, the nation is still not currently positioned to deploy

alternative energy technologies in the next 25 years that will reverse our 

growing dependence on conventional fossil energy. 

 1

DOE is also responsible for energy efficiency programs, which are integral to addressing 

future energy challenges by reducing demand. 

2

All historical DOE R&D budget authority totals are presented in real terms by adjusting

them to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for inflation. 

Page 1 GAO-07-550T 
My testimony today is based on our December 2006 report on key 

challenges to developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.3

Specifically, my testimony will address (1) funding trends for DOE’s 

energy R&D program, (2) key barriers to developing and deploying 

advanced energy technologies, and (3) efforts of the states and six 

selected countries to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies. 

DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D 

declined by over 85 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) from 1978 

through 2005, dropping from about $5.5 billion in fiscal year 1978 to $793 

million in fiscal year 2005. 

Summary 

Figure 1: DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear R&D, Fiscal 

Years 1978-2005 

Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for inflation. 

DOE’s R&D efforts have made renewable technologies more cost 

competitive, reduced harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution 

by coal-fired power plants, and improved the safety and operating 

efficiency for nuclear reactors. However, DOE and the energy industry still 

need to overcome enormous technological and financial challenges before

advanced energy technologies are likely to supplant fossil fuels on a 

 3

GAO, Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying 

Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs, GAO-07-106 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 20, 2006). 

Page 2 GAO-07-550T 
national scale. For example, because many high-wind sites have been 

developed, for the wind industry to expand, it will need to develop lowwind and offshore sites that require new designs, technologies, and 

materials, and will face higher upfront capital costs. Similarly, 

development and use of advanced coal gasification and carbon 

sequestration and storage technologies to control harmful carbon dioxide 

emissions is dependent upon additional technological breakthroughs and 

lowered costs. 

While federal R&D funding has declined and the government has relied on

the market to make advanced energy technology deployment decisions, 

many states have assumed higher profile roles by enacting standards, 

mandates, and financial incentives primarily to stimulate renewable 

energy technologies that address their growing energy needs and 

environmental concerns. For example, in Texas over 1,900 megawatts of 

new renewable capacity was installed and renewable energy now accounts 

for 3 percent of electricity consumption because legislation enacted in

1999 and 2005 requires Texas’ utilities to meet renewable energy capacity

standards. In addition, each of the six countries we reviewed—Brazil, 

Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and France—has used mandates and/or

financial incentives to deploy advanced energy technologies that are 

providing, or are expected in the future to provide, significant amounts of 

energy. For example, Brazil has replaced all of its imported oil with 

ethanol, wind energy provides 19 percent of Denmark’s electricity, and 

Germany’s renewable energy technologies generate 10 percent of its 

electricity. 

For the past several decades, the United States has enjoyed relatively

inexpensive and plentiful energy supplies, relying primarily on market 

forces to determine the energy mix that provides the most reliable and

least expensive sources of energy—primarily oil, natural gas, and coal. In

1973, oil cost about $15 per barrel (in inflation-adjusted terms) and 

accounted for 96 percent of the energy used in the transportation sector 

and 17 percent of the energy used to generate electricity. As shown in 

figure 2, the 2004 U.S. energy portfolio is similar to the 1973 energy 

portfolio. In 2004, oil accounted for 98 percent of energy consumed for 

transportation, and coal and natural gas accounted for about 71 percent of 

the energy used to generate electricity. Renewable energy—primarily 

hydropower—remains at 6 percent of U.S. energy consumption. 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-07-550T 
Figure 2: Comparison of the U.S. Energy Portfolio in 1973 and 2004 

However, since 1973, U.S. crude oil imports have grown from 36 percent of 

consumption to 66 percent of consumption today, and crude oil prices 

have jumped particularly in recent years to today’s $60 per barrel level. 

Despite growing dependence on foreign energy sources, DOE’s budget 

authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D dropped from $5.5 

billion (in real terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in fiscal year 

2005—a decline of over 85 percent. As shown in figure 3, renewable, fossil, 

and nuclear energy R&D budget authority each peaked in the late 1970s 

before falling sharply in the 1980s. Total budget authority for the three 

energy R&D programs has risen after bottoming out in fiscal year 1998. 

DOE’s Budget 

Authority for 

Renewable, Fossil, 

and Nuclear Energy 

R&D Has Declined by 

Over 85 Percent in 

Real Terms Since 1978 

Page 4 GAO-07-550T 
Figure 3: DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear R&D, Fiscal Years 1978 through 2005 

Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for inflation. 

Excludes DOE program management costs and indirect facilities costs of DOE laboratories. 

DOE’s renewable R&D program has focused on ethanol, wind, and solar 

technologies, making steady incremental progress over the past 29 years in 

reducing their costs. DOE’s goal is for biofuels production in 2030 to 

replace 30 percent of current gasoline demand, or about 60 billion gallons 

per year. In 2005, ethanol refiners produced 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol,

primarily from corn, that was used (1) as a substitute for methyl tertiarybutyl ether, known as MTBE, which oil refineries have used to oxygenate 

gasoline and (2) to make E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent 

gasoline for use in flex fuel vehicles. To achieve its production goal, DOE 

is developing additional sources of cellulosic biomass—such as 

agricultural residues, energy crops, and forest wastes—to minimize 

adverse effects on food prices. In recent years, DOE’s wind program 

shifted from high-wind sites to low-wind and offshore sites. Low-wind 

sites are far more plentiful than high-wind sites and are located closer to 

electricity load centers, which can substantially reduce the cost of 

connecting to the electricity transmission grid. Low-wind and offshorePage 5 GAO-07-550T 
wind energy must address design and upfront capital costs to be 

competitive. DOE’s solar R&D program focuses on improving photovoltaic 

systems, heat and light production, and utility-size solar power plants. 

DOE is exploring thin-film technologies to reduce the manufacturing costs 

of photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into electricity. Similarly, 

DOE’s solar heating and lighting R&D program is developing technologies 

that use sunlight for various thermal applications, particularly space 

heating and cooling. DOE is also working with industry and states to 

develop utility-size solar power plants to convert the sun’s energy into high

temperature heat that is used to generate electricity. 

Beginning in the mid-1980s, DOE’s fossil energy R&D provided funding 

through the Clean Coal Technology Program to demonstrate technologies 

for reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. DOE also has 

focused on developing and demonstrating advanced integrated gasification 

combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. More recently, DOE proposed a $1 

billion advanced coal-based power plant R&D project called FutureGen—

cost-shared between DOE (76 percent) and industry (24 percent)—which 

will demonstrate how IGCC technology can both reduce harmful 

emissions and improve efficiency by integrating IGCC with carbon capture 

and sequestration technologies for the long-term storage of carbon 

dioxide. According to DOE, FutureGen is designed to be the first “zeroemissions” coal-based power plant and is expected to be operational by 

2015. 

Beginning in fiscal year 1999, DOE’s nuclear energy R&D program shifted 

from improving safety and efficiency of nuclear power reactors to 

developing advanced reactor technologies by focusing on (1) the Nuclear 

Power 2010 initiative in an effort to stimulate electric power companies to 

construct and operate new reactors; (2) the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership, or GNEP, to develop and demonstrate technologies for 

reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that could recover the fuel for reuse, 

reduce radioactive waste, and minimize proliferation threats; and (3) the 

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, or Gen IV, to develop

new fourth generation advanced reactor technologies intended to reduce 

disposal requirements and manufacture hydrogen by about 2020 to 2030.

Page 6 GAO-07-550T 
Advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies all face key 

challenges to their deployment into the market. The primary renewable 

energy technologies with the potential to substantially expand their 

existing production capacity during the next 25 years are ethanol, a partial 

substitute for gasoline in transportation, and wind and solar energy 

technologies for generating electricity. For advanced fossil technologies, 

the primary challenge is controlling emissions of mercury and carbon 

dioxide generated by conventional coal-fired plants by using coal 

gasification technologies that cost about 20 percent more to construct 

than conventional coal-fired plants and demonstrating the technological

feasibility of the long-term storage of carbon dioxide captured by a largescale coal-fired power plant. For advanced nuclear technologies, investors 

face substantial risk because of nuclear reactors’ high capital costs and 

long construction time frames and uncertainty about the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) review of license applications for new 

reactors. 

Advanced Renewable, 

Fossil, and Nuclear 

Energy Technologies 

Face Key Barriers to 

Market Deployment 

One of ethanol’s biggest challenges is to cost-effectively produce ethanol 

while diversifying the biomass energy sources so it can grow from its 

current 3-percent market share. DOE is exploring technologies to use 

cellulosic biomass from, for example, agricultural residues or fast-growing 

grasses and trees. In addition, ethanol requires an independent 

transportation, storage, and distribution infrastructure because its 

corrosive qualities and water solubility prevent it from using, for example, 

existing oil pipelines to transport the product from the Midwest to the east 

or west coasts. As a result, fewer than 1,000 fueling stations nationwide 

provide E85 compared with 176,000 stations that dispense gasoline. 

Ethanol also needs to become more cost competitive. Even with the recent 

spikes in gasoline prices, ethanol producers rely on federal tax incentives 

to compete. In October 2006, Consumer Reports estimated that drivers 

paying $2.91 per gallon for E85 actually paid about $3.99 for the energy

equivalent amount of a gallon of gasoline because the distance vehicles 

traveled per gallon declined by 27 percent. Finally, congressional earmarks 

of DOE’s biomass R&D funding rose from 14 percent of the fiscal year 

2000 funds to 57 percent ($52 million) of the fiscal year 2006 funds, 

according to a DOE program official. 

Both wind and solar technologies have experienced substantial growth in 

recent years, but both wind and solar technologies face important 

challenges for future growth. In particular, wind investors pay substantial 

upfront capital costs to build a wind farm and connect the farm to the 

power transmission grid, which can cost $100,000 or more per mile on 

average, according to DOE officials. Because both wind energy and solar 

Page 7 GAO-07-550T 
energy are intermittent, utilities have been skeptical about using them, 

relying instead on large baseload power plants that operate full time and 

are more accessible to the transmission grid. In contrast, wind turbines 

operate the equivalent of less than 40 percent of the hours in a year 

because of the intermittency of wind. In addition, the electricity that is 

generated must be immediately used or transmitted to the grid because it 

cannot be cost effectively stored. 

For the wind industry to expand from high-wind sites to low-wind and 

offshore locations, DOE needs to also develop bigger wind turbines with 

longer blades mounted on taller towers, requiring improved designs and 

materials for blade and drive train components. In addition, offshore wind

development faces such technical challenges as understanding the effects 

of wave and ocean current loads on the base of the structures. The wind 

industry also faces concerns about environmental impacts, including bird 

and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Finally, investors interested in 

developing wind energy have relied on the federal production tax credit as 

a financial incentive to construct wind farms. The credit has periodically 

expired, resulting in a boom-and-bust cycle for the wind power industry.

Solar energy also faces a challenge of developing inexpensive photovoltaic 

solar cells. As a result of R&D efforts, photovoltaic cells, consisting mostly 

of crystalline-silicone materials, are becoming increasingly efficient, 

converting nearly 40 percent of sunlight into electricity for some 

applications, but the cells are expensive for the typical homeowner. DOE 

is exploring how to reduce manufacturing costs through thin-film 

technologies, but at a cost of efficiency. DOE’s challenge is to increase 

efficiency and reduce costs in the thin-film technologies. 

Reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants continues to be the 

priority for DOE’s fossil energy R&D. Having significantly reduced sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxide, DOE is now focusing on reducing mercury and 

carbon dioxide emissions. Gasification technologies, such as the IGCC 

configuration, holds the most promise, but at a 20 percent higher cost than 

conventional coal-fired power plants. To address global warming 

concerns, DOE’s challenge is to reduce the cost of gasification 

technologies and demonstrate the large-scale sequestration and long-term 

storage of carbon dioxide. 

A significant obstacle facing nuclear power is the high upfront capital 

costs. No electric power company has applied for a NRC license to 

construct a new nuclear power plants in almost 30 years in large part 

because of a long legacy of cost over-runs, schedule delays, and 

Page 8 GAO-07-550T 
cancellations. Industry officials report that new nuclear power plants can 

cost between $1.5 billion and $4 billion to construct, assuming no 

problems in the licensing and construction process, with additional 

expenses for connecting the plant to transmission lines. In addition, 

investors have grown concerned about the disposal of a legacy of spent 

nuclear fuel. While NRC has revised its licensing process to address past 

concerns over licensing delays and added costs because of requirements 

to retrofit plants, investors are uncertain of the effectiveness of the revised

regulations. Recently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 

and the University of Chicago issued studies comparing nuclear power’s 

costs with other forms of generating electricity.

4

 Both studies concluded 

that, assuming no unexpected costs or delays in licensing and 

construction, nuclear power is only marginally competitive with 

conventional coal and natural gas and, even then, only if the nuclear 

power industry significantly reduces anticipated construction times. MIT 

also reported, however, that if carbon were to be regulated, nuclear energy

would be much more competitive with coal and natural gas.

While federal R&D has declined in recent years, the states have enacted 

legislation or developed initiatives to stimulate the deployment of 

renewable energy technologies, primarily to address their growing energy 

demands, adverse environmental impacts, and their concern for a reliable,

diversified energy portfolio. As of 2006, (1) 39 states have established 

interconnection and net metering rules that require electric power 

companies to connect renewable energy sources to the power 

transmission grid and credit, for example, the monthly electricity bill of 

residents with solar-electric systems when they generate more power than

they use; (2) 22 states have established renewable portfolio standards 

requiring or encouraging that a fixed percentage of the state’s electricity

be generated from renewable energy sources; and (3) 45 states offer 

various tax credits, grants, or loans. For example, renewable energy 

accounts for 3 percent of Texas’ electricity consumption because Texas 

enacted legislation in 1999 and 2005 that created a renewable portfolio 

standard requiring electric utilities to meet renewable energy capacity

standards. 

The States and 

Countries We

Reviewed Have 

Implemented a 

Variety of Initiatives 

to Encourage the 

Development and 

Deployment of 

Advanced Energy 

Technologies 

 4

MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power (Cambridge, MA: July 2003); University of Chicago, The 

Economic Future of Nuclear Power (Chicago, IL: August 2004)

Page 9 GAO-07-550T 
We identified six countries—Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and 

France—that illustrate a range of financial initiatives and mandates to 

stimulate the development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, 

and nuclear energy technologies. Through mandates and incentives, Brazil 

initiated an ethanol program in 1975 that eventually led to an end to 

Brazil’s dependence on imported oil. Denmark focused on wind energy 

and, in 2005, derived 19 percent of its electricity from wind energy. 

Germany began a more diversified renewable energy approach in 2000 and 

has a goal to increase the share of renewable energy consumption to at 

least 50 percent by 2050. Japan subsidized the cost of residential solar 

systems for 10 years, resulting in the installation of solar systems on over 

253,000 homes and the price of residential solar systems falling by more 

than half. Spain hopes to lead the way for European Union investments in 

an IGCC coal power plant, improving efficiency and generating fewer 

emissions than conventional coal-fired plants. Finally, France has led 

Europe in nuclear energy and plans to deploy new nuclear power plants 

within the next decade.

The United States remains the world’s largest oil consumer. In the wake of 

increasing energy costs with the attendant threat to national security and

the growing recognition that fossil fuel consumption is contributing to 

global climate change, the nation is once again assessing how best to 

stimulate the deployment of advanced energy technologies. However, it is 

unlikely that DOE’s current level of R&D funding or the nation’s current 

energy policies will be sufficient to deploy advanced energy technologies 

in the next 25 years. Without sustained high energy prices or concerted,

high-profile federal government leadership, U.S. consumers are unlikely to

change their energy-use patterns, and the United States will continue to 

rely upon its current energy portfolio. Specifically, government leadership 

is needed to overcome technological and market barriers to deploying 

advanced energy technologies that would reduce the nation’s vulnerability 

to oil supply disruptions and adverse environmental effects of burning 

fossil fuels. 

Concluding 

Observations 

To meet the nation’s rising demand for energy, reduce its economic and 

national security vulnerability to crude oil supply disruptions, and 

minimize adverse environmental effects, our December 2006 report 

recommended that the Congress consider further stimulating the 

development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by focusing

R&D funding on advanced energy technologies. 

Page 10 GAO-07-550T 
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Richard Cheston, Robert Sanchez, and Kerry Lipsitz made 

key contributions to this statement. 

Page 11 GAO-07-550T 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(360811) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER