a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2005 NATIONAL ENERGY 

POLICY

Inventory of Major 

Federal Energy 

Programs and Status 

of Policy 

Recommendations

GAO-05-379
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-379.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jim Wells at 

(202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-379, a report to 

congressional requesters 

June 2005

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY 

Inventory of Major Federal Energy 

Programs and Status of Policy 

Recommendations 

Over 150 energy-related program activities and 11 tax preferences address 

eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy’s impact on 

the environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer assistance, (4)

basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6) energy 

conservation, (7) energy assurance and physical security, and (8) energy 

market competition and education. At least 18 federal agencies, from the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to the Department of Health and Human 

Services, have energy-related activities. Based on fiscal year 2003 data (the 

most complete data available), the federal government provided a minimum 

of $9.8 billion in estimated budget authority for the energy-related programs 

we identified. In addition, various federal energy-related income tax 

preferences provided another estimated $4.4 billion in outlay equivalent 

value, primarily for energy supply objectives. On the revenue side, the 

federal government collected about $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2003 through 

various energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-related 

excise taxes. Significant collections involve royalties from the sale of oil and 

gas resources on federal lands, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels 

account for most of the excise taxes. 

While DOE reports that most of the 2001 NEP report recommendations are 

implemented, it is difficult to independently assess the status of efforts made 

to implement these recommendations because of limited information and 

the open-ended nature of some of the recommendations themselves. For 

example, the NEP report recommended the development of energy 

educational programs, including possible legislation to create education 

programs funded by the energy industry. However, DOE’s January 2005 

status report on NEP implementation provided only an overview of federal 

energy education efforts and made no mention of possible legislation to 

create such programs. In addition, some of the recommendations are openended and lack a specific, measurable goal, which makes it difficult to assess 

progress. Without a specific, measurable goal, it can be difficult to 

understand how and to what extent activities are helping to fulfill a 

recommendation. While this report does not make recommendations, it 

provides observations on the lack of information on the status of the NEP 

recommendations, which may hinder policy makers in assessing progress 

and determining future energy policies. 

Resources devoted to energy-related programs have grown since the release 

of the NEP report. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000, just prior 

to the 2001 NEP report, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority for 

energy-related programs grew by about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 

billion. In addition, over the same period, estimated outlay equivalents for 

energy-related income tax preferences grew by over 60 percent, from $2.7 

billion to $4.4 billion. Federal efforts have continued to address the eight 

major energy activities. Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of 

the federal efforts, accounting for a majority of the growth. 

The lives of most Americans are 

affected by energy. Increased 

energy demand and higher energy 

prices has led to concerns about 

dependable, affordable, and 

environmentally sound energy. The 

federal government has adopted 

energy policies and implemented 

programs over the years that have 

focused on the appropriate role of 

the federal government in energy, 

attempting to achieve balance 

between supply and conservation. 

The May 2001 National Energy 

Policy (NEP) report contained over 

100 recommendations that it stated, 

taken together, provide a national 

energy plan that addresses the 

energy challenges facing the nation. 

As Congress considers existing 

federal energy programs and 

proposed energy legislation in 

support of the May 2001 report, 

GAO was asked to (1) identify 

major federal energy-related efforts, 

(2) review the status of efforts to 

implement the recommendations in 

the May 2001 NEP report, and (3) 

determine the extent to which 

resources associated with federal 

energy-related efforts have changed 

since the release of the NEP report. 

What GAO Recommends

This report does not contain any 

recommendations. In commenting 

on this report, DOE stated that the 

NEP report and status report were 

not intended to provide a full 

accounting of federal energyrelated activities. Our report does 

not suggest that they were so 

intended. 
Page i GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Over 150 Different Federal Government Program Activities Address 

Energy 6

It Is Difficult to Assess Progress of Federal Efforts to Implement the 

National Energy Policy Report Recommendations 26

Federal Resources Devoted to Energy-Related Activities Have 

Grown since 2000 30

Observations 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity, Agency, 

and Energy Type 43

Appendix III: Federal Electricity Support 59

PMAs and TVA Market and Deliver Power Generated at Federal 

Facilities 59

Rural Utilities Service Provides Federal Loans and Loan

Guarantees 61

Appendix IV: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO 

Observations 63

Appendix V: Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget Authority for 

Agency Programs, by Energy Activity Area 120

Appendix VI: Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, 

and 2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity 128

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy 133

Tables Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity 

Areas, Fiscal Year 2003 7

Table 2: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, Fiscal Year 2003 8

Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy 

Type, Fiscal Year 2003 10

Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy’s Impact on the 

Environment and Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 12

Table 5: Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated 

Budget Authority 16
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, 

Fiscal Year 2003 17

Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal 

Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority 19

Table 8: Energy Market Competition and Education, Fiscal Year 

2003 Estimated Budget Authority 20

Table 9: Federal Energy-Related Collections, Fiscal Year 2003 24

Table 10: Energy-Related Excise Tax Collections, Fiscal Year 2003 

25

Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, 

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 31

Table 12: Energy-Related Income Tax Preferences as Reported for 

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 32

Table 13: Budget Requests, by Major Energy Activity Area, Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 33

Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and 

Agency Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated 

Budget Authority 43

Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with 

Energy Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated 

Budget Authority 49

Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major 

Energy Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority 56

Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 

1998 (1999 dollars) 61

Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO 

Observations 64

Abbreviations

ASCR Advanced Scientific Computing Research

BES Basic Energy Science

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CFTC Commodity Futures Trading Commission

CHP combined heat and power

CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOT Department of Transportation

EIA Energy Information Administration

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FTC Federal Trade Commission

FY fiscal year

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IEA International Energy Agency

IPHE International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy

LIHEAP Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program

MMS Minerals Management Service

NEP May 2001 National Energy Policy report

NEPDG National Energy Policy Development Group

NHHOR Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Science Foundation

NSR New Source Review

OAR Office of Air and Radiation

OCS outer continental shelf

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSM Office of Surface Mining

PMA Power Marketing Administration

R&D research and development

RUS Rural Utilities Service 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

SPR Strategic Petroleum Reserve

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USTDA U.S. Trade and Development Agency

WIP Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

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.
Page 1 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 10, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Robert Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable James Jeffords

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate 

The daily lives of most Americans—as well as the health of our economy 

and our high standard of living—are directly affected by the availability of 

energy. Most sectors of American society, from the agricultural and 

industrial to the transportation and residential, rely upon a readily available 

supply of energy to function. According to the most recent data from the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA), 

the United States is the largest single consumer of energy, accounting for 

one-fourth of the world’s consumption. Consumption is expected to grow 

here and throughout the world in the near future. Further, energy prices 

have risen significantly in recent years—American consumers now spend 

about three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year on it—and prices are not 

expected to drop significantly in the foreseeable future. The prospect of 

increased demand—and perhaps still higher prices—has led to concerns 

about the adequacy of our energy supply to sustain these consumption 

levels.

Although the federal government has adopted various energy policies and 

implemented related programs over the years, energy policies have 

frequently been the subject of heated debate. Concerns about these 

policies and programs have most often focused on the appropriate role of 

the federal government in energy matters and in how to achieve the 

appropriate balance between increasing supply and encouraging 

conservation. The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report laid out 

the most recent national energy policy proposal: that is, to promote 

dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and 
Page 2 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

distribution of energy for the future. The NEP report contained over 100 

recommendations that it stated, taken together, provide a national energy 

plan that addresses the energy challenges facing the nation. As Congress 

considers existing federal energy programs and proposed energy 

legislation in support of the NEP report, you asked us for a clearer 

understanding of how the federal government is working to meet our 

nation’s energy needs. Specifically, you asked us to (1) identify the federal 

government’s major energy-related efforts, (2) review the status of efforts 

to implement the May 2001 NEP report recommendations, and (3) 

determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 

energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP report. 

To identify the federal government’s major energy-related efforts, we 

focused our review on several key federal agencies that have the most 

responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the NEP report: 

the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Commerce, Transportation, State, 

and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to 

identifying energy-related program activities, we identified energy-related 

income tax preferences1

 from the lists of tax expenditures published 

annually by the Office of Management Budget that accompany the 

President’s budget. We also obtained data on energy-related federal 

collections, including revenue from royalties, fees, and excise taxes. We 

collected and analyzed agency-reported program and tax policy 

descriptions and budget request and funding information at these key 

agencies and at other agencies as time allowed; we developed an inventory 

of the energy-related program activities we identified. Because it was often 

difficult to quantify the resources associated with energy-related aspects of 

various programs, where possible, we relied on agency estimates of budget 

authority2

 for fiscal year 2003—the most recent year for which data were 

available for most of the programs as we conducted the majority of our 

review during fiscal year 2004. For example, some programs received 

budget authority as part of a larger appropriation, and agencies had to 

1

Tax preferences are federal income tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to 

encourage certain behaviors or aid taxpayers in certain circumstances. The revenue losses 

resulting from these provisions—called tax expenditures—may, in effect, be viewed as 

spending channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment 

Control Act of 1974 requires that a tax expenditure list be included in the budget. The 

Department of the Treasury’s list displays tax expenditures under the budget functional 

categories used to classify outlays.

2

Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into financial obligations that will 

result in immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds. 
Page 3 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

estimate the portion associated with the energy-related activity. To 

facilitate comparing the energy-related resources associated with outlay 

and tax programs, we used the Department of the Treasury’s outlay 

equivalent3

 estimates for the income tax preferences. The aggregate value 

for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude 

but does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

We were not able to review every agency within the federal government 

that might have energy-related activities. Principally, we did not review the 

Department of Defense (DOD), which is, among other things, a principal 

federal government energy consumer. In addition, although the federal 

government has a major impact on the energy industry through regulatory 

actions, this review did not include an inventory of federal regulatory 

actions that affect energy, but rather focused on federal energy-related 

programs and tax policies. 

To review the status of federal efforts to implement the recommendations 

contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed publicly reported 

status information on the implementation of the NEP recommendations, 

focusing on DOE’s most recent January 2005 report on the status of the 

1064

 NEP recommendations. We discussed efforts to monitor and report on 

the status of these recommendations with DOE’s Office of National Energy 

Policy and other federal agencies involved in energy-related efforts. We 

also discussed the energy-related programs with the appropriate agency 

personnel and, when possible, determined whether and how the programs 

were related to the NEP report recommendations. 

To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 

energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP report, we 

compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report) federal 

programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003 programs 

and budget authority estimates. In addition, we compared outlay equivalent 

estimates for energy-related income tax preferences between fiscal years 

2000 and 2003. Due to the constraints of developing an inventory of federal 

3

The “outlay equivalent” measure is the amount of budget outlays that would be required to 

provide taxpayers with the same after-tax income as received through the tax preference. 

4

The May 2001 NEP report provided 106 recommendations, including 3 duplicate 

recommendations, resulting in 103 distinct recommendations. DOE’s January 2005 NEP 

status report also provided information on 106 recommendations. For consistency, our 

report provides information and analysis on the 106 recommendations as reported in DOE’s 

January 2005 NEP status report.
Page 4 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

energy-related efforts and associated resources within the review time 

frame, we did not assess the changes within the individual program 

activities within our inventory. We conducted our review between 

December 2003 and May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. A detailed description of our objectives, 

scope, and methodology is contained in appendix I. 

Results in Brief Federal agencies oversee a myriad of energy-related programs and income 

tax preferences that address eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy 

supply, (2) energy’s impact on the environment and health, (3) low-income 

energy consumer assistance, (4) basic energy science research, (5) energy 

delivery infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and 

physical security, and (8) energy market competition and education. At 

least 18 different federal agencies, from the Department of Energy (DOE) 

to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have 

energy-related program activities, with DOE accounting for more than 

one-half the federal government’s energy-related budget authority, based on 

fiscal year 2003 estimates. In fiscal year 2003, the federal government 

provided a minimum of $9.8 billion in estimated budget authority for the 

over 150 energy-related program activities we identified. Energy supply 

programs represent about one-quarter of these federal program resources 

at $2.4 billion, followed by about $2.2 billion for low-income energy 

assistance, about $1.9 billion to address energy’s impact on the 

environment and health, $1.2 billion for basic energy science research, 

about $0.9 billion for energy delivery infrastructure, about $0.8 billion for 

energy conservation, and about $0.2 billion each for energy assurance and 

security and energy market competition and education. In addition, various 

federal energy-related income tax preferences provided another estimated 

$4.4 billion in outlay equivalent value in fiscal year 2003, primarily for 

energy supply objectives. On the revenue side, in fiscal year 2003, the 

federal government collected about $10.1 billion through various 

energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-related excise 

taxes. Collections include offsetting fees that fund energy-related 

programs; however, significant collections are from federal oil and gas 

royalties, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels account for most of the 

excise tax revenue. 

It is difficult to assess the status of efforts made to implement the NEP 

report recommendations because of limited information and the 

open-ended nature of some of the recommendations themselves. Four 

years after the release of the NEP report, implementation of most of its 
Page 5 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

recommendations remains a work in progress since they either address 

ongoing federal activities or require legislation to be enacted. While DOE’s 

January 2005 status report provided more information on the status of 

recommendation implementation than has been previously reported, that 

information is still incomplete. For example, the 2001 NEP report 

recommended the development of energy educational programs, including 

possible legislation to create education programs funded by the energy 

industry. However, DOE’s January 2005 status report provided only an 

overview of federal energy education efforts and made no mention of 

possible legislation to create education programs. Some of the 

recommendations in the 2001 NEP report are open-ended and lack specific, 

measurable goals, which contribute to the difficulty in assessing progress 

made toward implementing the recommendations. For example, a NEP 

report recommendation is that the President make energy security a 

priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on the status of this 

recommendation, DOE states that energy security has been made a priority 

of our trade and foreign policy through various bilateral and multilateral 

activities, such as the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum. Because this 

recommendation lacks a specific, measurable goal, it is difficult to 

understand how and to what extent the activities mentioned are helping to 

fulfill the recommendation. Appendix IV provides a complete list of the 

NEP recommendations, DOE’s January 2005 reported status, and GAO 

observations on the reported status.

Federal resources devoted to energy-related program activities have grown 

since the release of the 2001 NEP report. For example, compared with 

fiscal year 2000, just prior to the release of the NEP report, fiscal year 2003 

estimated budget authority for energy-related programs grew by about 30 

percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion. In addition, over the same time 

period, outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related income tax 

preferences grew by over 60 percent, from $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion. While 

we did not review changes within individual programs and tax policies, 

federal efforts have continued to address the eight major energy activities 

of supply, environment and health, low-income assistance, basic science, 

infrastructure, conservation, assurance and security, and competition and 

education. Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the federal 

efforts, accounting for a majority of both total federal resources and their 

growth since 2000. For example, income tax preferences associated with 

energy supply have represented almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in 

income tax preferences. Within energy supply income tax preferences, 

growth has occurred primarily with efforts targeting fossil and renewable 

energy supplies. While this report does not contain recommendations, we 
Page 6 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

do note a lack of a central source of information on the progress of federal 

energy-related efforts that may hinder policy makers in determining the 

direction of future energy policy initiatives.

Over 150 Different 

Federal Government 

Program Activities 

Address Energy

At least 18 different federal agencies, from DOE to HHS, conduct at least 

158 energy-related program activities. These programs address eight major 

categories of activities, ranging from energy supply to energy conservation. 

In fiscal year 2003, for the energy program activities we identified, the 

federal government provided at least $9.8 billion in estimated budget 

authority. In addition, 11 federal energy-related income tax preferences 

were estimated at $4.4 billion in outlay equivalent value for fiscal year 2003. 

On the revenue side, in fiscal year 2003, the federal government collected 

about $10.1 billion through various energy-related programs that include 

fees and royalties on development of federal energy resources and about 

$34.6 billion in excise taxes on gasoline and other fuels. 

Major Energy Program 

Activities Fall into Eight 

Categories

Federal energy-related programs and income tax preferences address

eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy’s impact on 

the environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer assistance, 

(4) basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, 

(6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and physical security, and 

(8) energy market competition and education. On the basis of our analysis 

of fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority for energy-related programs 

and outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related income tax preferences, 

resources to address energy supply activities accounted for almost one-half 

of the $14.2 billion in federal energy-related resources. Table 1 provides a 

summary of fiscal year 2003 resources for energy-related programs we 

identified and income tax preferences by the eight major energy activity 

areas. Appendix II provides additional details on energy-related programs 

by major activity area, by agency, and by energy type. In addition to 

programs and income tax preferences, other federal policies that are not 

quantified also affect these major energy areas. For example, in the supply 

area, the federal government provides electricity support through federal 

utilities and loan programs. Also, regarding energy’s impact on the 

environment and energy conservation, the federal government, as a major 

energy user, has energy use policies that influence both the type and 

amounts of energy used. 
Page 7 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity Areas, Fiscal Year 

2003 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

Energy Supply On the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 2003 resources, energy supply 

programs and related income tax preferences accounted for about $6.6 

billion, or almost one-half of the federal resources provided to 

energy-related programs. We identified 6 agencies, conducting 65 different 

program activities, addressing supply issues such as access for energy 

development on federal lands, research and development for energy 

sources ranging from clean coal to nuclear fusion, and nuclear energy 

regulation. In addition to these 6 agencies, Treasury reports on 9 different 

income tax preferences that address energy supply. Specifically, several 

provisions of the Internal Revenue Code grant favorable tax treatment to 

activities such as the recovery of the actual capital investment costs of 

discovering, purchasing, and developing energy. These income tax 

preferences accounted for about $4.18 billion in fiscal year 2003 outlay 

equivalent estimates, more than the total estimated budget authority of 

$2.39 billion for energy supply programs. Table 2 shows fiscal year 2003 

outlay equivalent estimates for supply-related income tax preferences and 

fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority for energy supply programs by 

Dollars in billions

Energy activity area

Agency program activities

(estimated budget authority)

Income tax preferences 

(outlay equivalent

estimates)a

Energy supply $2.39 $4.18

Energy’s impact on the 

environment and health 1.87 0.09

Low-income energy 

consumer assistance 2.21 None

Basic energy science 

research 1.17 None

Energy delivery infrastructure 0.88 None

Energy conservation 0.79 0.11

Energy assurance and 

physical security 0.25 None

Energy market competition 

and education 0.24 None

Total $9.80 $4.38
Page 8 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

major federal agency. Appendix II provides details on energy supply 

programs by agency and energy type.

Table 2: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, Fiscal Year 2003 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

Supply programs address four primary types of energy: fossil, renewable, 

nuclear, and alternative. Fossil energy supply includes coal, oil, and natural 

gas production and accounted for $4.7 billion of the almost $6.6 billion in 

fiscal year 2003 resources for energy supply programs. Fossil resources 

included $1.1 billion in estimated budget authority for programs such as 

clean coal technology research and development. Resources addressing 

Dollars in thousands

Income tax preferences Outlay equivalent estimatesa

Alternative (nonconventional) fuel 

production credit (from fossil sources) $1,720,000

Excess of percentage over cost depletion, 

fuels 910,000

Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs 620,000

New technology credit 380,000

Expensing of exploration and development 

costs, fuels 230,000

Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal 140,000

Exclusion of interest on energy facility 

bonds 130,000

Income tax credits for alcohol fuels 30,000

Exception from passive loss limitation for 

working interests in oil and gas properties 20,000

Total $4,180,000

Program activities, by agency Estimated budget authority

Department of Energy $1,259,299

Department of the Interior 513,423

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 392,094

Department of Agriculture 181,313

National Science Foundation 44,237

Environmental Protection Agency 1,200

Total $2,391,566
Page 9 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

fossil supply also included an estimated $3.6 billion in outlay equivalent 

value from 6 different income tax preferences. These income tax 

preferences include the support of fossil fuel production from 

nonconventional sources such as synthetic fuels produced from coal. 

Renewable energy supply includes hydropower, biomass, geothermal, 

wind, and solar energy. Estimated budget authority for renewable 

programs was at $349 million in fiscal year 2003, and these programs 

generally address renewable energy research and development. In addition, 

2 income tax preferences, a new technology credit and exclusion of 

interest on facility bonds, supported renewable energy at an estimated 

outlay equivalent of $510 million in fiscal year 2003. Nuclear energy 

supply-related programs, with estimated budget authority of about $507 

million in fiscal year 2003, address nuclear fission and mainly consist of 

DOE’s nuclear energy research and development programs and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) regulation of nuclear energy. Finally, 

alternative energy programs, with estimated budget authority of $439 

million in fiscal year 2003, include transportation fuels other than gasoline 

or diesel; traditional energy sources used in untraditional ways (distributed 

energy);5

 and energy sources of the future, such as hydrogen and fusion. 

Hydrogen and fusion programs account for most of the programs under 

alternative energy. In addition, 1 tax preference, providing tax credits for 

alcohol fuels, supports alternative energy supply. Table 3 shows the fiscal 

year 2003 level of resources by energy supply type. Appendix II provides 

additional details on the types of energy supply addressed by specific 

agency programs. 

5

Distributed energy provides on-site power systems to customers to improve reliability, 

support existing utility grids, and increase efficiency.
Page 10 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type, Fiscal Year 

2003

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

b

Total energy supply-related programs were $2,391,566 (in thousands); however, 1 program was not 

focused on a specific type of energy and, thus, was not included in this table—representing the 

difference of $23 million.

In addition to resources for programs and income tax preferences directed 

at the energy sector, the federal government provides other forms of 

support, largely to users of electricity. While this support is not captured in 

the programs or income tax preferences, it does provide benefits that 

represent implicit federal support for certain users of electricity. 

Specifically, there are five federal utilities, four Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMA) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), that 

provide electricity and transmission services to customers in their regions. 

The PMAs market power produced primarily at federal hydroelectric dams 

and projects that are owned and operated by either the Department of the 

Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

or the International Boundary and Water Commission. TVA markets 

electricity produced at its own fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy 

facilities. In addition, another federal agency, the Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS), provides federal loan guarantees and other services to rural utilities. 

The federal support provided through these agencies differs from that of 

the other programs and incentives described in this report because it does 

not provide any federal funding to electricity customers. Revenue from 

sales of electricity generated by federally owned facilities and from loan 

repayment (in the case of RUS) is intended to largely pay the costs to the 

federal government of providing the electricity and loans. Therefore, the 

programs undertaken by these agencies are intended to be revenue-neutral 

to the federal government. Nonetheless, the electricity support provided by 

these agencies constitutes a benefit to users—an implicit federal 

Dollars in thousands 

Energy type

Agency program activities

(estimated budget authority)

Income tax preferences

(outlay equivalent estimates)a

Fossil $1,074,021 $3,640,000

Renewable 348,962 510,000

Nuclear 506,535 0

Alternative 439,048 30,000

Total $2,368,566b $4,180,000
Page 11 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

subsidy—because the revenues collected by the agencies have generally 

been below what would have been collected for the same services by 

private entities. Appendix III provides additional details on these support 

programs.

Energy’s Impact on the 

Environment and Health

We identified 29 program activities, implemented by 11 different agencies,6

that address the impact of energy development and use on the environment 

and health. In fiscal year 2003, these programs represented estimated 

budget authority of $1.87 billion. In addition, an income tax preference for 

clean-fuel burning vehicles amounted to an estimated $90 million outlay 

equivalent in fiscal year 2003.7

 Major program focuses include nuclear 

waste cleanup and environmental science research. The largest portion of 

the funding in this energy policy area goes to DOE, which received an 

estimated $1.6 billion for energy-related programs in fiscal year 2003. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a primary mission of 

protecting the nation’s environment, is also a major agency involved in 

addressing energy’s impact on the environment and health. EPA is a major 

regulator of energy development and use through its implementation of 

environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act. We were able to quantify an 

estimated $24.2 million in fiscal year 2003 that supported EPA programs 

addressing energy’s impact on the environment. However, EPA regulatory 

activities affect more than the energy sector, and, because EPA does not 

track costs by industry sector, the agency was not able to determine with 

complete certainty how much of its $8 billion annual budget is 

energy-related. Thus, we believe the estimate for EPA programs related to 

energy’s impact on the environment is understated. Finally, because energy 

development and use can have a significant impact on the environment and 

health,8

 other programs that primarily address other areas, such as 

renewable supply and energy conservation, also address the environmental 

6

Our inventory did not include the Department of Labor. Labor has several programs that 

relate to energy’s impact on health, including the Mine Safety and Health Administration and 

the Occupational and Safety Health Administration oversight of the energy industry, 

including the electric power generation transmission and distribution industry. 

7

A tax credit of 10 percent (not to exceed $4,000) is provided for purchasers of electric 

vehicles. Purchasers of other clean-fuel burning vehicles and owners of clean-fuel refueling 

property may deduct part of their expenditures. 

8

For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, energy consumption is the 

dominant source of carbon dioxide emissions in this country, and a substantial source of 

overall greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global climate change. 

Energy-related activities are responsible for about 85 percent of the country’s greenhouse 

gas emissions and 96 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. 
Page 12 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

impacts of energy. However, within this inventory, those programs are 

accounted for under their primary area of energy supply and conservation 

and are not also included here. Table 4 summarizes fiscal year 2003 

resources for energy’s impact on the environment and health, by major 

agency; appendix II provides more details on the agencies’ individual 

programs. 

Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy’s Impact on the Environment and Health, by 

Agency, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

In addition to these programs, the federal government addresses energy’s 

impact on the environment through policies that are difficult to quantify. 

For example, the federal government has set standards and offered 

incentives to the private sector and citizens to reduce the effects of fossil 

fuel use and to reduce reliance on fossil fuel for energy. These include 

standards for smokestack and motor vehicle emissions, home appliances, 

and building materials and practices. In addition, the federal government is 

a significant consumer of energy and, through its consumption decisions, 

can choose to consume energy that is less harmful to the environment. In 

the late 1990s, the federal government embarked on its “greening of the 

Dollars in thousands

Agency Estimated budget authority

Department of Energy $1,599,566

U.S. Agency for International Development 91,900

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 83,671

Environmental Protection Agency 24,200

Department of the Interior 19,148

Department of Agriculture 18,778

Department of Commerce 16,632

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9,697

Department of State 1,440

Department of Transportation 650

National Science Foundation 111

Total $1,865,793

Tax preference for clean-fuel burning 

vehicles (outlay equivalent estimate) a $90,000
Page 13 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

government” initiative and sought to reduce reliance on the use of fuels in 

its buildings and vehicles that contribute the most to pollution. Executive 

Order 13123, Greening of the Government Through Efficient Energy 

Management, signed June 3, 1999, addresses greenhouse gas emissions 

from federal facilities and makes energy-efficiency targets more stringent. 

This order requires that each agency reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 

by 30 percent by 2010 when compared with 1990 emissions levels. 

Low-income Energy Consumer 

Assistance

The federal government provides funding to assist low-income consumers 

through two block grant programs: (1) the Low-Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (LIHEAP), managed by HHS, provides grants to states 

to fund fuel payment assistance and home energy efficiency improvements 

for low-income households and (2) DOE’s Weatherization Assistance 

Program provides funds to make dwellings more fuel efficient in the long 

term for low-income housholds. The total estimated budget authority for 

these two programs in fiscal year 2003 was $2.212 billion, with the majority 

of the budget authority ($1.988 billion) being for LIHEAP.

LIHEAP seeks to increase the health and prosperity of communities and 

tribes by assisting low-income households, particularly those with the 

lowest income that pay a high proportion of household income for home 

energy, in meeting their immediate home energy needs. LIHEAP operates in 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, 

and U.S. territories. LIHEAP offers three types of assistance: 

heating/cooling bill payment, energy crisis, and weatherization and 

energy-related home repairs. Each state operates its own program, which 

includes taking applications, establishing eligibility, and making decisions 

on the kinds of assistance it will offer. In fiscal year 2003, LIHEAP received 

$1.988 billion in budget authority. During that fiscal year, approximately 4.4 

million households received heating assistance; 494,000 households 

received cooling aid; 1.1 million received winter/year-round crisis aid; 

71,000 received summer crisis aid; and 113,000 received weatherization 

assistance. Households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP 

assistance. Thus, even though the precise number of households assisted is 

not known, 4.8 million households are estimated to have received 

assistance in fiscal year 2003. 

DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program is part of the department’s 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP). The overall goal of 

WIP is to develop, promote, and accelerate the adoption of energy 

efficiency, renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies and 

practices by a wide range of customers—including state and local 
Page 14 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

governments, weatherization agencies, communities, companies, fleet 

managers, building code officials, technology developers, tribal 

governments, and international agencies. In fiscal year 2003, DOE received 

about $224 million in budget authority for the Weatherization Assistance 

Program to provide weatherization assistance for low-income residences. 

The weatherization program also provides technical assistance and 

formula grants to state and local weatherization agencies to help 

low-income residents with weatherization services. Also, the 

weatherization program, as part of WIP, addresses energy conservation 

areas as it helps to reduce demand for fuels and peak loads on constrained 

electricity systems and modernizes conservation technologies and 

practices.9

Basic Energy Science Research Basic energy sciences consist of general energy-related research within 

DOE’s Office of Science. The Office of Science’s Basic Energy Science 

(BES) Program (fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority of $1.0 billion) 

and its Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Program (fiscal 

year 2003 estimated budget authority of $163 million) encompass the basic 

energy science research programs we identified. The BES program is a 

multipurpose, scientific research effort aimed at expanding the foundation 

for new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and 

mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. BES touches virtually 

every aspect of energy resources—that is, production, conversion, 

efficiency, and waste mitigation.10 Energy-related research includes (1) 

advancing hydrogen production, storage, and use and developing new 

concepts and (2) improving existing models for solar energy conversion 

and for other energy sources. BES states that it provided the basic 

knowledge that resulted in an array of energy-related advances, including 

high-energy and high-power lithium batteries, highly efficient photovoltaic 

solar cells, and solutions for nuclear fuel purification/reprocessing and for 

cleanup of radioactive waste. Also, the BES research for the Hydrogen Fuel 

Initiative is based on the BES workshop report entitled Basic Research 

9

WIP’s State Energy Program Grants, along with State Energy Activities, assist states in 

developing emergency energy plans and in fostering clean, reliable, and diverse energy 

supplies. State Energy Program Grants and State Energy Activities received an additional 

$50 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2003. 

10BES activities could also be included in other major activities, such as energy supply and 

conservation. However, a breakdown of BES activities by these various areas was not 

readily available; therefore, the activities were all accounted for under the basic energy 

sciences area.
Page 15 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Needs for the Hydrogen Economy. The ASCR program supports DOE’s 

strategy to ensure the security of the nation and succeed in its science, 

energy, and environmental quality missions. ASCR provides the 

fundamental mathematical and computer science research that enables the 

simulation and prediction of complex physical and biological systems. Its 

energy-related objectives include providing the science base to enable the 

development of bioenergy sources and laying the groundwork for DOE's 

Fusion Simulation Project.

Energy Delivery Infrastructure The primary purpose of energy delivery infrastructure programs is to 

facilitate the development, maintenance, and improvement of the 

comprehensive energy delivery system—for example, electricity 

transmission and distribution systems, oil refining and gas processing, and 

oil and gas pipelines. We identified 13 program activities at 6 federal 

agencies that accounted for estimated budget authority of $882 million in 

fiscal year 2003 that addressed energy delivery infrastructure. The largest 

investment of program dollars in energy infrastructure that we identified in 

fiscal year 2003 involved international infrastructure funded by the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) in its programs in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The total USAID infrastructure effort amounted to about $561 

million—or 64 percent of the total energy infrastructure funding—with the 

great majority of the effort in Iraq ($558 million).11 Domestically, several 

programs involve the regulation of energy infrastructure on federal lands 

by DOI. In addition, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

activities related to energy infrastructure include pipeline certification, 

hydropower licenses, and dam safety inspections, while the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) conducts regulatory work on pipeline safety. Table 5 

provides a listing of infrastructure estimated budget authority for fiscal 

year 2003, by agency, while appendix II offers more details on specific 

programs.

11While USAID energy funding in Afghanistan totaled an estimated $3.1 million in fiscal year 

2003, the funding level increased to an estimated $84.8 million in fiscal year 2004. Also, 

USAID requested an estimated $317 million for fiscal year 2005 energy activities in 

Afghanistan. In addition, USAID energy funding in Iraq increased from an estimated $558 

million in fiscal year 2003 to an estimated $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2004. A USAID official 

told us that USAID shares energy-related responsibilities in Iraq with DOD. In general, DOD 

has responsibility for the oil/gas sector, whereas DOD and USAID both have responsibilities 

for the electric power sector. DOD programs are not included in this inventory.
Page 16 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 5: Energy Delivery Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Energy Conservation Energy conservation programs include those efforts to increase energy 

efficiency and reduce the amount of energy used in all sectors, such as 

buildings and transportation. We identified 27 program activities related to 

energy conservation at 5 federal agencies that accounted for about $788 

million in estimated budget authority for fiscal year 2003. Energy 

conservation programs at DOE represent the bulk of the conservation 

efforts, accounting for about $657 million of the $788 million. In general, 

the program activities at DOE and the other major agencies, particularly 

EPA, DOT, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), involve research 

and development efforts aimed at improving energy conservation. In 

addition, an income tax preference provides $110 million in exclusions 

from income of conservation subsidies provided by public utilities.12 Table 

6 provides a listing of energy conservation resources for fiscal year 2003, by 

agency, while appendix II provides program details.

Dollars in thousands

Agency Estimated budget authority

U.S. Agency for International Development $561,100

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 119,241

Department of Energy 88,384

Department of Transportation 63,261

Department of the Interior 37,400

National Science Foundation 13,030

Total $882,416

12This income tax preference allows individuals to exclude the value of a subsidy from gross 

income that is provided by a public utility for the purchase or installation of any 

conservation measures.
Page 17 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 6: Federal Resources for Energy Conservation, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

In addition to these programs, the federal government has addressed 

energy conservation through policies that seek to minimize the federal 

government’s own energy use. The federal government is the largest 

institutional user of energy in the world and can influence the amount of 

energy used in the marketplace. The National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to achieve reductions in energy 

use. The legislation also contains provisions concerning energy 

management requirements and incentives, life-cycle cost methods for 

energy management decisions, and new technology requirements. In 

addition, Executive Order 13123, June 3, 1999, is one of a series of 

executive orders over recent years directing federal agencies to 

demonstrate leadership in energy and environmental management, 

including energy efficient building design, construction and operation, and 

the reduction of petroleum use through improvements in fleet fuel 

efficiency. Chartered in 1973, the Federal Energy Management Program, 

administered by DOE, is charged with coordinating federal government 

energy management efforts. DOE’s most recent Annual Report to the 

Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation 

Programs for Fiscal Year 2002, dated September 29, 2004, provides 

information on federal energy consumption and costs submitted to DOE by 

29 federal agencies. Specifically, the report provides information on (1) 

consumption and costs of energy by fuel type for buildings, vehicles, and 

equipment and (2) agency appropriations for energy conservation retrofits 

and capital equipment. In summary, the report noted that fiscal year 2002 

federal consumption costs were $9.7 billion, with 92 percent spent on two 

Dollars in thousands

Agency Estimated budget authority

Department of Energy $656,639

Environmental Protection Agency 78,200

Department of Transportation 34,340

National Science Foundation 17,963

Department of Agriculture 793

Total $787,935

Tax preference-conservation subsidies

(outlay equivalent estimate)a $110,000
Page 18 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

categories—62 percent on vehicles and equipment and 30 percent on 

standard buildings. DOD, through such energy uses as jet fuel and diesel, 

was by far the largest federal energy consumer—DOD spent $7.1 billion of 

the $9.7 billion and accounted for 73 percent of the total federal 

government energy use. In addition, the report provides information on 

progress toward energy conservation goals. For example, Executive Order 

13123 requires a 30 percent reduction by 2005 in energy consumption per 

square foot for buildings and a 35 percent reduction by 2010 from the base 

year of 1985. The report indicates that energy consumption per square foot 

for buildings in fiscal year 2002 was about 24 percent less than the fiscal 

year 1985 base year. 

Energy Assurance and Physical 

Security 

Energy assurance and physical security activities incorporate federal 

programs designed to respond to or prevent energy emergencies and major 

reliability and supply disruptions. This includes energy supply reserves, 

such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and protection of energy 

production and delivery infrastructure from natural events, accidents, 

equipment failures, or deliberate sabotage. DOE has two programs to 

provide oil reserves to offset supply disruptions: the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. In addition, DOE’s Energy 

Security and Assurance Program supports the national security of the 

United States by working in close collaboration with state and local 

governments and the private sector to protect the nation against severe 

energy supply disruptions. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 

responsible for coordinating the national effort to enhance critical 

infrastructure protection, including energy-related infrastructure.13

However, DOE is the sector-specific agency for the energy sector. DOE’s 

Office of Energy Assurance is responsible for fulfilling the roles of critical 

infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection for the energy 

sector, which includes the production, refining, and distribution of oil and 

gas and electric power—except for commercial nuclear power facilities. 

NRC has programs that address security for commercial nuclear power 

facilities. Table 7 lists all of the energy assurance and physical 

security-related programs that we identified and provides estimated 

program funding for fiscal year 2003. 

13We did not include DHS in our inventory, but we did include DOE, which is the 

sector-specific agency for energy.
Page 19 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 7: Energy Assurance and Physical Security Programs, Fiscal Year 2003 

Estimated Budget Authority

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Energy Market Competition and 

Education

The issue of energy market competition and education includes efforts to 

ensure that competitive domestic and international energy markets are 

functioning, as well as efforts in energy education and consumer protection 

and awareness. We identified 14 program activities implemented by 11 

different agencies that play some role in facilitating competitive and 

informed energy markets. For those programs for which we could obtain 

estimates, these programs’ estimated budget authority was at least $238 

million in fiscal year 2003. Major program focuses include providing federal 

oversight of the domestic natural gas, petroleum, and propane markets; 

providing energy information and education; and facilitating secure, stable, 

and competitive international energy markets that support investment in 

developing countries. DOE’s EIA represented the largest program in this 

area with estimated budget authority of $80 million. While most of EIA’s 

budget goes for domestic data collection and analysis activities, these 

activities serve to enhance competitive domestic and, to a lesser extent, 

international energy markets. EIA is responsible for providing energy 

information that promotes sound policy making, efficient markets, and 

public understanding.14 In addition, FERC, through its competitive market 

and market oversight programs, was the next significant program, with 

estimated budget authority of about $73 million. FERC has responsibility 

Agency/Program activity Estimated budget authority

DOE/Strategic Petroleum Reserve $171,732

DOE/Northeast Heating Oil Reserve 5,961

DOE/Energy Security and Assurance 25,990

NRC/Homeland Security 44,316

Total $247,999

14This inventory does not capture federal policy that supports industry funding of energy 

programs related to this issue. For example, the Propane Education and Research Act of 

1996 established a “check-off” program where a portion of the wholesale cost of the product 

is set aside in a common fund to the benefit of producers and consumers. Funding 

generated can be significant. In fiscal year 2003 alone, a $38 million budget was projected to 

support various propane-related programs, including consumer and employee safety and 

training, research and development, and education about safety and other issues associated 

with the use of propane. In comparison, EIA’s total estimated budget authority was $80 

million in fiscal year 2003.
Page 20 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

for ensuring “just and reasonable rates” for the interstate transportation of 

natural gas and the wholesale price of electricity sold in interstate 

commerce. Internationally, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

(USTDA), Commerce, State, and USAID promote economic development 

and/or U.S. commercial interests in the energy sector. It was difficult to 

quantify the funding specifically associated with energy-related aspects of 

various programs in this energy activity area, and some agencies were not 

able to provide us with funding information for their energy-related 

programs or activities.15 Significant among these programs were those 

agencies—Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Department 

of Justice (DOJ), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC)—that can play a role in market oversight, 

including energy markets. Table 8 provides a summary of major federal 

agencies that play a role in energy market competition and education and 

the available estimates of budget authority for fiscal year 2003. Appendix II 

provides additional details on individual programs.

Table 8: Energy Market Competition and Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated 

Budget Authority

15In other cases agencies were able to provide us with overall budget information for energy 

activities but were not able to separate the resources associated with this issue from other 

energy issues addressed.

Dollars in thousands

Agency Estimated budget authority

Department of Energy $80,087

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 72,759

U.S. Agency for International Development 39,300

Department of Commerce 31,202

U.S. Trade and Development Agency 14,509

Department of State 865

Department of Agriculture 140

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Estimate not available

Department of Justice Estimate not available

Securities and Exchange Commission Estimate not available

Federal Trade Commission Estimate not available

Total $238,862
Page 21 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

While the federal government has a limited role in setting energy prices or 

dictating buyer purchasing strategies, the federal government has an 

interest in promoting a competitive and informed energy marketplace that 

protects the public from unnecessary price volatility. Recent investigations 

of market manipulation, by companies such as Enron, have heightened the 

relevancy of the federal government’s role in ensuring that a lack of 

competition or reliable market information do not exacerbate energy 

prices. Tools available to federal agencies to promote a competitive energy 

marketplace and protect the public from price volatility include monitoring 

for anticompetitive behavior; taking appropriate enforcement actions when 

necessary; and providing decision makers with sound, up-to-date, energy 

marketplace information, such as short-term price movements and 

long-term demand and supply trends.

In addressing this area of market oversight, we attempted to quantify 4 

relevant agencies’ level of effort in energy-related activities—CFTC, FTC, 

SEC, and DOJ. However, these 4 agencies, with overall budgets of $85 

million for CFTC in fiscal year 2003; $177 million for FTC; $717 million for 

SEC; and $22 billion for DOJ, were not able to develop reliable estimates of 

the amount of effort devoted to energy-related activities. CFTC officials 

roughly estimated that about 20 percent of CFTC’s annual budget of $85 

million, or $17 million, could be associated with energy-related activities. 

They noted that their work has increased in recent years because of 

concerns about energy markets, but they were not able to quantify the 

increase. DOJ officials told us that the majority of DOJ’s energy-related 

work falls within their Antitrust Division and their Environment and 

Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The Antitrust Division was able to 

provide us with an estimate for energy-related work, which totaled almost 

$4 million in fiscal year 2003, but ENRD was not able to provide us with a 

similar estimate of their energy-related work.16 Although we were not able 

to quantify energy-related funding for these 4 agencies, we were able to 

gather some basic information on major energy-related activities. For 

example:

• CFTC resolved its natural gas manipulation case against Enron in fiscal 

year 2004. CFTC also undertook a broader energy investigation that 

focused on energy trading firms that allegedly engaged in (1) the 

16A DOJ ENRD official estimated that ENRD’s overall annual budget was about $100 million.
Page 22 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

reporting of false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate market 

information, including price and volume information; (2) manipulation 

or attempted manipulation; and/or (3) “round tripping,” which is a 

risk-free trading practice that produces “wash” results and the reporting 

of non-bona fide prices, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. As 

a result of its efforts in this area, as of February 1, 2005, enforcement 

actions commenced by the commission have resulted in civil monetary 

penalties totaling over $297 million, among other sanctions, imposed 

against approximately 27 entities and individuals. 

• FTC, from 1981 to 2004, alleged that 15 proposed petroleum mergers 

would have resulted in significant reductions in competition and 

harmed consumers in one or more relevant markets. Four of the 

mergers were abandoned or blocked as a result of FTC or court action. 

In the other 11 cases, FTC required the merging companies to divest 

substantial assets in the markets where competitive harm was likely to 

occur. FTC has, since 2000, brought seven energy-related law 

enforcement actions to prevent consumer injury from unsubstantiated, 

false, or deceptive claims concerning energy or energy-related products.

• SEC officials reported that in 2003, there were 23 energy-related cases 

or enforcement actions brought by SEC. In addition; SEC issued about 

100 orders under the Public Utility Holding Company Act in fiscal year 

2003. Also, SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance performed 4,088 full 

reviews and full financial reviews of filings from all types of companies; 

of these, 619 were for energy-related companies. The division also 

performed 190 targeted reviews related to those energy-related 

companies. 

• DOJ’s Antitrust Division has energy-related responsibilities that include 

promoting competition and enforcing antitrust laws in the energy 

industries. DOJ energy-related activities within ENRD include (1) 

defending EPA’s more stringent clean air standards for heavy-duty 

trucks and diesel fuel; (2) safety standards for the Yucca Mountain 

nuclear waste repository in Nevada; and (3) administrative enforcement 

actions, such as a major clean air enforcement action against coal-fired 

power plants.
Page 23 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Federal Government 

Collects Revenues through 

Energy-Related Programs 

and Excise Taxes

The federal government collects about $10.1 billion a year through various 

energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-related excise 

taxes. Most of the collections are royalties, rents, and bonuses from oil and 

gas on federal lands or offshore areas; while taxes on gasoline and other 

fuels account for most of the excise tax revenue. 

Energy Program Collections A number of energy-related programs, especially those dealing with the use 

of federal energy resources, radioactive waste, and regulation of the energy 

industry, involve the collection of federal revenues that are deposited into 

the Treasury. In fiscal year 2003, these collections amounted to about $10.1 

billion. The majority of these collections come from collections associated 

with the production of energy resources on federal lands and in offshore 

areas. DOI’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) collected about $8.0 

billion in royalties, rents, and bonuses in fiscal year 2003 for the 

development of energy resources in federal lands and offshore areas.17 The 

remainders of these collections are generally fees to pay for energy-related 

programs. In some cases, federal agencies are authorized to use these 

collections to offset program costs. For example, the Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management in DOE collected over $1 billion from 

generators of nuclear waste in fiscal year 2003 to manage and dispose of 

high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. FERC collected fees 

from the entities it regulates that funded all of the cost of its regulatory 

activities related to energy, while NRC collected fees from the entities it 

regulates, including nuclear power plants, that cover about 90 percent of its 

costs. Table 9 provides a breakdown of federal energy-related collections 

for fiscal year 2003.

17In addition, the MMS collects mineral leasing receipts from Indian lands that amounted to 

$267.1 million in fiscal year 2003. These funds are deposited in Treasury accounts controlled 

by the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians and are later paid to tribal and 

Indian allottee accounts.
Page 24 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 9: Federal Energy-Related Collections, Fiscal Year 2003 

Source: GAO analysis and estimates based on agency data.

Excise Taxes The Internal Revenue Code, which is administered by the Department of 

the Treasury, provides for federal excise taxes on energy fuels that are used 

in many sectors across the United States. Revenue from these 

energy-related taxes totaled over $34 billion in fiscal year 2003. The excise 

taxes, some applied at the retail and some at the manufacturers’ level, were 

typically applied on a unit basis, typically by the gallon, and rates varied 

according to the content of the fuel. In general, these excise taxes fund 

certain trust funds. The largest of these, the excise tax on gasoline and 

gasohol, resulted in $24.2 billion in collections in fiscal year 2003 that 

support the Highway Trust Fund. The next largest revenue raiser was the 

excise tax on diesel fuel, which amounted to $8.6 billion in the same fiscal 

year. Most of the excise taxes on liquid fuels include 0.1 cent per gallon to 

Dollars in thousands

Agency Program

Energy-related

collections

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing 

Receipts/Outer Continental Shelf (royalties, rents and 

bonuses)

$5,933,900

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing 

Receipts/Onshore (royalties, rents and bonuses)

2,066,276

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service-Royalty and Offshore Minerals 

Management (offsetting collections)

90,000

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management-Service Charges, Deposits, and 

Forfeitures

7,900

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service-Indian Trust Responsibility 

(offsetting collections)

7,000

Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining-Regulation and Technology 1,039

Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste 1,038,948

Department of Energy Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund

189,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Energy Related Collections estimate 473,966

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC)

FERC Competitive Markets, Energy Infrastructure, Market 

Oversight

192,000

Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

57,326

Department of Commerce National Institute of Science and Technology-Energy use and 

conservation programs

2,000

Total $10,059,355
Page 25 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

finance the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition to 

funding various trust funds, excise taxes can be used as a tool to achieve 

federal energy-related objectives. For example, alcohol fuels and fuels 

containing a portion of alcohol are generally taxed at a lower rate. The 

standard rate for gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. However, a partial 

exemption of 5.4 cents per gallon from the federal excise tax is provided 

for ethanol that is derived from renewable sources and used as fuel. The 

exemption encourages the substitution of alcohol fuels produced from 

renewable sources for gasoline and diesel to reduce reliance on imported 

petroleum and to contribute to energy independence. In addition, dyed 

diesel fuel and kerosene meant for use in trains, school buses, and local 

and mass transit buses are exempt from the 24.3 cents per gallon excise tax 

on the normal varieties of these fuels. Another excise tax, the “gas guzzlers” 

levy on certain vehicles that do not meet standards for fuel economy per 

gallon, raised $127 million in fiscal year 2003. Table 10 provides a listing of 

fiscal year 2003 energy-related excise tax collections and the associated 

trust funds.

Table 10: Energy-Related Excise Tax Collections, Fiscal Year 2003 

Dollars in thousands

Excise tax Excise tax collections

Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise 

tax collected

Alcohol fuelsa $(9,986)b Highway Trust Fundc

Aviation fuel (except gasoline) 739,920 Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Aviation gasoline 57,953 Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Coal 517,531 Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

Compressed natural gas 1,735 Highway Trust Fund

Diesel fuel, except for trains and intracity 

buses

8,581,467 Highway Trust Fund and the

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 

Dyed diesel fuel used in trains and regularly 

scheduled buses

163,920 Highway Trust Fund and the 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Fuels used commercially on inland 

waterways

111,058 Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 

Gas guzzlers 126,685 Not applicable

Gasoline and gasohol 24,232,426 Highway Trust Fund and the 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Kerosene 72,128 Highway Trust Fund and the

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
Page 26 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates.

a

This entry is for a retail sales excise tax on diesel fuel, special motor fuel, or nongasoline aviation fuel 

containing at least 10 percent alcohol. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-357) 

has restructured the excise tax provisions for these fuels.

b

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury, the number for alcohol fuels 

collections in fiscal year 2003 is reported as negative because adjustments are being made for earlier 

amounts allocated to the account incorrectly.

c

The Highway Trust Fund includes a separate Mass Transit Account for certain funds appropriated to 

the fund.

It Is Difficult to Assess 

Progress of Federal 

Efforts to Implement 

the National Energy 

Policy Report 

Recommendations

It is difficult to fully assess the status of progress made in implementation 

of the NEP recommendations because the information DOE has reported 

has been limited. Moreover, some of the recommendations are open-ended 

and lack measurable goals, which contribute to the difficulty in assessing 

implementation progress. Finally, because the NEP recommendations do 

not reflect all federal energy-related efforts, understanding the overall 

status of federal efforts to address energy issues is challenging. 

Since the May 2001 NEP report, publicly reported information on the status 

of the recommendations has been limited. For example, on the first 

anniversary of the NEP report, in May 2002, DOE issued a press release 

highlighting progress made in implementing the NEP recommendations. 

According to DOE, at that time all but 1 of the 22 recommendations, that it 

reported required legislative action, had either been enacted into law or 

were contained in House or Senate energy bills.18 However, DOE provided 

no detail on what the 22 recommendations that required legislation were or 

what the status was of the other 84 recommendations. On the second 

anniversary of the NEP report, in May 2003, DOE again issued a press 

Special motor fuels 14,226 Highway Trust Fund and the 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Total $34,609,063

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Excise tax Excise tax collections

Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise 

tax collected

18We have identified 26, not 22, recommendations that have a legislative 

component—although 2 were duplicates. In addition, we could not identify any 

recommendations that had been implemented by enacted legislation at the time of the May 

2002 press release. As of March 2005, only 5 of the 26 recommendations needing legislation 

had been addressed by enacted legislation, according to DOE’s January 2005 status 

report—1 in December 2002 and 4 in October 2004.
Page 27 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

release that described progress in implementing the NEP 

recommendations. This document provided the first status information on 

each of the 106 recommendations in the form of an NEP scorecard that 

characterized each recommendation as either under way or complete. The 

scorecard reported that 96 of the 106 recommendations were complete, 

although it noted that 16 of the “complete” recommendations involved 

legislation that was then being considered by Congress. However, DOE did 

not provide information on the progress cited specifically related to the 96 

recommendations the scorecard reported as complete or on what actions 

were planned or then under way to complete the remaining 10 

recommendations. DOE’s next report on the NEP recommendations was its 

January 2005 report. In contrast to the May 2003 scorecard that 

characterized most of the recommendations as complete (but had provided 

no specific information pertinent to each), DOE’s January 2005 report (1) 

characterized most recommendations as implemented but involving 

ongoing activities or requiring legislation19 and (2) provided the first 

information on specific actions taken to implement each recommendation.

Although DOE’s January 2005 report represents an improvement in the 

level of information DOE has provided on the status of NEP 

recommendation implementation, the information is still incomplete. For 

example, the NEP report recommended the development of energy 

educational programs, including possible legislation to create education 

programs funded by the energy industry. However, the January 2005 status 

report provided only an overview of federal energy education efforts, and it 

made no mention of creating education programs through legislation. 

Similarly, the 2001 NEP report made a recommendation to the Secretary of 

Transportation to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement 

congestion mitigation strategies. However, while the reported status 

outlined various DOT congestion mitigation efforts, it did not address the 

legislative aspect of the recommendation nor did it reflect DOT efforts to 

propose legislation to address this recommendation. In addition, another 

recommendation was made to DOE and DOI to promote new oil and gas 

well technology, but the status report addressed only DOE’s efforts to 

implement the recommendation. Appendix IV provides a complete list of 

the 106 NEP recommendations, DOE’s reported status of the 

recommendations, and our observations. 

19In contrast, both before and after the January 2005 report, the Administration’s Web site 

stated that approximately 75 percent of the NEP recommendations were administrative in 

nature, and that a majority of them had been completed.
Page 28 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

DOE’s ability to provide consistent and complete information on the status 

of NEP implementation may have been limited by a lack of sustained, 

centralized efforts to monitor and report on the ongoing implementation of 

the NEP recommendations. For example, one of the first recommendations 

in the NEP report was that the National Energy Policy Development Group 

(NEPDG) continue to work and meet on the implementation of the NEP. 

However, the NEPDG was terminated on September 30, 2001, and did not 

meet or work on the implementation of the NEP recommendations after 

that time. Nevertheless, according to DOE, individual agencies have 

continued to coordinate implementation efforts and to measure and track 

implementation progress. Also, according to DOE, an interagency working 

group led by DOE was established to coordinate agencies’ implementation 

of the NEP recommendations. According to DOE officials, the agency’s 

Office of National Energy Policy is responsible for coordinating, and 

providing strategic direction for, the implementation of the NEP report 

recommendations. However, additional information we obtained in our 

review raises questions about the extent to which centralized monitoring of 

recommendation implementation has been sustained. For example, 

according to DOE, its NEP Office did not assume leadership of the 

interagency working group until the fall of 2003. Also, DOE officials told us 

in November 2003 that the NEP Office had not been fully staffed because of 

budget constraints. Finally, at that time, DOE officials also told us that 

implementing the NEP recommendations was the responsibility of 

individual federal agencies, and that there was no centralized, formal 

system to monitor implementation and report on the status of the NEP 

recommendations. 

The nature of some of the NEP recommendations also makes it difficult to 

assess the progress made in implementing them. Specifically, some of the 

recommendations are open-ended and lack measurable goals. For example, 

a NEP report recommendation is that the President make energy security a 

priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on the status of this 

recommendation, DOE states that the recommendation has been 

implemented, with activities ongoing, because energy security has been 

made a priority of our trade and foreign policy through various bilateral 

and multilateral activities, such as the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry 

Forum and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy. 

However, this recommendation is open-ended and does not contain a 

specific, measurable goal, thereby making it difficult to understand how or 

to what extent the activities described have helped to implement the 

recommendation. In contrast, another NEP report recommendation directs 

the Secretary of Energy to authorize the Western Area Power 
Page 29 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Administration to explore relieving an electricity transmission bottleneck 

in the western United States. The DOE status report noted that a new 

transmission line to relieve this bottleneck was completed on December 

14, 2004. This recommendation sets a measurable infrastructure-related 

goal, and the status report demonstrated progress toward that goal. (See 

app. IV.) 

Finally, some federal energy-related programs that address the same issues 

as some of the NEP recommendations are not mentioned in either the NEP 

recommendations or the status report, making it difficult to assess the 

overall status of federal efforts to address energy issues. For example, one 

NEP recommendation calls for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a review 

of current funding and historic performance of energy-efficiency research 

and development programs. In response, the status report noted that DOE 

completed a detailed review of its programs. However, at least one other 

federal agency, NSF, funds energy-efficiency research and development 

activities as part of its overall science program. These activities were not 

specified in the recommendation or recognized in the status report. Other 

federal energy efforts that relate to some of the same issues that the NEP 

recommendations addressed, but were not specifically addressed in the 

recommendations or the status report, include some NRC programs and 

most USTDA and USAID programs. (See app. IV.) These agencies are not 

represented on DOE’s NEP interagency task force. When we spoke with 

representatives from these agencies, they said that even though their 

programs address some of the same issues as the NEP recommendations, 

they were not involved in the development of the NEP, nor were they 

charged with implementation of the recommendations. Additionally, we 

found that the NEP report recommendations omit discussion of some 

federal energy-related efforts and the issues they address. Such omissions 

preclude a full accounting of the results of federal energy efforts in any 

NEP status report. For example, the NEP report recommendations do not 

address all energy-related excise taxes and energy-related income tax 

preferences.20 Regarding programs, our review of the NEP report did not 

find that it addressed basic energy science research; DOE nondefense 

20The NEP report did address extension of the ethanol excise tax exemption and extension 

of the tax credit for electricity produced using wind and biomass. It also addressed the 

creation of new tax credits for combined heat and power projects, hybrid and fuel cell 

vehicles, new landfill methane projects, and residential solar energy property. Finally, the 

NEP report addresses the permanent extension of the general research and development 

tax credit in support of clean coal technology. However, because this tax credit is not 

specifically energy-related, it was not included in our inventory of income tax preferences.
Page 30 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

nuclear waste cleanup; federal electricity support; FERC energy market 

oversight; and the overall market oversight roles of agencies such as CFTC, 

FTC, DOJ, and SEC. 

Federal Resources 

Devoted to 

Energy-Related 

Activities Have Grown 

since 2000 

Federal energy-related program resources have grown since the release of 

the NEP report as programs continue to address the major energy activity 

areas. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000 estimated budget 

authority, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority funding grew by 

about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion for those programs where 

we could identify estimated budget authority for both years. In addition, 

over the same time period, outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related 

income tax preferences grew by over 60 percent, from $2.7 billion to about 

$4.4 billion. While we did not review changes within individual programs 

and tax policies, federal efforts have continued to address the eight major 

energy activities of supply, environment and health, low-income assistance, 

basic science, infrastructure, conservation, assurance and security, and 

competition and education. Energy supply continues to be a major 

emphasis of the federal efforts, accounting for a majority of the growth. For 

example, income tax preferences associated with energy supply have 

represented almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in income tax preferences. 

Within energy supply income tax preferences, growth has occurred 

primarily with efforts targeting fossil and renewable energy supplies. Table 

11 shows changes in program estimated budget authority, by major energy 

issue, in fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Appendix V provides a breakdown of 

the change in estimated budget authority for each program addressing the 

major energy issues. 
Page 31 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal Years 2000 

and 2003

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

Note: This table does not include a comparison of estimated budget authority for the three programs 

under FERC, totaling $192 million in fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority, because FERC did 

not allocate its $175 million in fiscal year 2000 estimated budget authority among the same three 

programs of Energy Infrastructure, Market Oversight and Investigations, and Competitive Markets. 

a

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Income tax preferences do not compete in the budget process and do not 

have to seek budget authority—they are already “fully funded” as long as 

they remain in effect. However, as has been demonstrated, they can 

represent significant resources. Current fiscal year 2005 projected 

estimates indicate energy-related income tax preferences have continued 

to grow—to $5.15 billion in outlay equivalent estimates. Table 12 provides a 

profile of changes in energy-related income tax preferences in outlay 

equivalent estimates between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. 

Dollars in thousands

Estimated budget authority

Energy activity area Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Energy supply $1,591,377 $2,391,566

Energy’s impact on the environment and health 1,658,668 1,865,793

Low-income energy consumer assistance 1,979,350 2,211,837

Basic energy science research 874,369 1,165,126

Energy delivery infrastructure 136,835 763,175

Energy conservation 724,087 787,935

Energy assurance and physical security 160,500 247,999

Energy market competition and education 219,101 166,103

Totala $7,344,287 $9,599,533
Page 32 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 12: Energy-Related Income Tax Preferences as Reported for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates published in the Analytical Perspectives Budget of the United States Government, for 

selected years.

a

The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging general magnitude and 

does not take into account interactions between individual provisions. 

Along with the growth in energy-related federal resources, budget requests 

for federal energy-related programs have also grown since 2000. However, 

budget request information is not available for all of the programs 

identified in our inventory for which we have obtained estimates because 

many energy-related programs are part of larger programs and separate, 

distinct budget requests are not made for them. For those programs that 

had specific, energy-related budget requests, budget requests grew 

between fiscal years 2000 and 2003 by about 27 percent—from $5.9 billion 

Dollars in thousands

Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent 

estimates)a

Tax preference Activity area Supply type Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Alternative (nonconventional) 

fuel production credit

Energy supply Fossil $1,310,000 $1,720,000

Capital gains treatment of 

royalties on coal

Energy supply Fossil 90,000 140,000

Credit for enhanced oil recovery 

costs

Energy supply Fossil 410,000 620,000

Exception from passive loss 

limitation for working interests in 

oil and gas properties

Energy supply Fossil 20,000 20,000

Excess of percentage over cost 

depletion, fuels

Energy supply Fossil 450,000 910,000

Exclusion of interest on energy 

facility bonds

Energy supply Renewable 130,000 130,000

Expensing of exploration and 

development costs, fuels

Energy supply Fossil 30,000 230,000

Income tax credits for alcohol 

fuels

Energy supply Alternatives 20,000 30,000

New technology credit Energy supply Renewable 50,000 380,000

Exclusion from income of 

conservation subsidies provided 

by public utilities

Energy conservation Not applicable 110,000 110,000

Tax credit and deduction for 

clean-fuel burning vehicles

Energy’s impact on 

the environment and 

health

Not applicable 80,000 90,000

Total $2,700,000 $4,380,000
Page 33 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

to $7.5 billion. This growth continued into fiscal year 2005, when requests 

reached $8.4 billion. Table 13 shows budget requests in fiscal years 2000, 

2003, and 2005 by major energy activity area. Appendix VI provides a 

breakdown of requests for each program that has a budget request under 

the major energy areas. 

Table 13: Budget Requests, by Major Energy Activity Area, Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, and 2005

Source: GAO analysis of budget request information.

Observations The nation’s energy problems are not new. In the 1970s, we issued a series 

of reports to Congress on the need for both a focal point for dealing with 

energy problems and a coherent set of energy policies that would stand the 

tests of the future. While the United States does have, and has had, a series 

of energy-related programs and tax policies, calls for a “national energy 

policy” persist. Currently, hundreds of energy-related programs funded by 

the federal government, energy-related income tax preferences, and federal 

regulatory requirements that impact energy encompass the federal 

government’s role in energy policy. At the federal level, development and 

implementation of our national energy policy is a shared responsibility of 

the executive and legislative branches of government. Any progress toward 

understanding the role that the federal government plays in energy policy 

and improving upon it must start with a comprehensive inventory of these 

Dollars in thousands

Budget request

Energy activity area Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005

Energy supply $1,027,280 $1,818,261 $1,754,579

Energy's impact on the environment 

and health 1,398,931 1,781,433 2,400,712

Low-income energy consumer 

assistance 1,400,000 1,700,000 2,001,000

Basic energy science 1,086,959 1,189,225 1,267,870

Energy delivery infrastructure 106,401 169,252 203,353

Energy conservation 579,668 534,248 514,764

Energy assurance and physical 

security 164,000 201,029 187,700

Energy market competition and 

education 100,444 110,211 89,700

Total $5,863,683 $7,503,659 $8,419,678
Page 34 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

federal energy-related programs, tax policies, and regulatory activity. The 

NEP report, as other national energy policies have in the past, offers such a 

start toward the development of this inventory. Furthermore, although we 

are not making recommendations in this report, we have noted a lack of 

information on the results of federal energy-related efforts. DOE’s Office of 

National Energy Policy has an opportunity to serve as a key focal point in 

improving upon the measurement of results made in federal energy-related 

efforts. Establishing clear and measurable goals and having the ability to 

track, measure, and transparently report on results achieved toward those 

goals will give policy makers the information they need to provide 

continually improving direction to the federal government’s energy-related 

efforts. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comment and 

asked DOE to coordinate any formal written comments from the other 

federal agencies included in this report. In addition, we provided a draft of 

this report to the other federal agencies in order to obtain comments on 

specific information about particular agencies’ energy-related activities. In 

summary, DOE responded in its written comments that it did not believe 

our report accurately reflected the goals or intent of the NEP, its 

implementation, or the Administration’s ongoing energy security efforts. 

Overall, we believe DOE’s comments reflect a basic misunderstanding 

about the report’s objectives and the approaches we used to address these 

objectives. Specifically, with respect to our first objective (an inventory of 

major federal energy programs and their cost) DOE commented that our 

presentation of estimated budget authority for programs and outlay 

equivalent estimates for tax preferences represented a quantitative 

approach to evaluating the NEP report that is not consistent with its 

purpose. However, our first objective and the resulting inventory of major 

federal energy programs laid out in our report does not in any way reflect 

an evaluation of the NEP report. We prepared this inventory independent of 

the NEP report and did not intend to suggest that the NEP report was 

intended to reflect an inventory and accounting of resources comparable to 

the one we prepared. 

Our second and third objectives--dealing with the results of NEP report 

recommendation implementation and changes in resources since the NEP 

report’s issuance—do have obvious connections to the NEP report. Here 

too, however, we believe DOE’s comments confuse the issue by suggesting 

that our report is somehow an evaluation of the NEP report rather than 

simply a presentation of observations on actions taken and reported results 
Page 35 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

achieved since the report’s issuance. In this connection, DOE defends the 

NEP report “as an overall blueprint” and that it “is not sufficient to look at 

the President’s energy policies through specific NEP recommendations 

alone.” We agree and note that our report suggests nothing to the contrary. 

However, our report does focus on the reported results achieved in 

implementing these important NEP recommendations that, as the NEP 

report states, “taken together, offer the thorough and responsible energy 

plan our nation has long needed.” Moreover, DOE implies that when we 

point out that many of the NEP recommendations are open-ended in 

nature, we were being critical of the recommendations. This is not our 

intent. We were simply stating as a matter of fact that the open-ended, 

nonspecific nature of many of the NEP recommendations complicated our 

reporting on recommendation implementation status. With respect to NEP 

report recommendation implementation, DOE further commented that 

DOE’s own NEP status report was not intended to be comprehensive and 

that supplementary material could be found in unidentified “budget 

documents and other means.” We recognize that status information may be 

available from a variety of sources, and we explored those sources in 

performing our analysis. However, in reviewing the status of efforts to 

implement the recommendations, we believe it was appropriate to focus on 

DOE’s most recent report on the status of these recommendations. In our 

view, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that Congress and the 

American people could find relatively complete information on NEP 

implementation status in a direct format through one centralized source, 

especially if that source is entitled NEP Status Report.

DOE and other federal agencies provided numerous technical 

clarifications, observations, and editorial comments, and we have made 

changes to this report as appropriate. DOE’s written comments are 

reproduced in appendix VII.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date 

of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Energy 

and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge at GAO’s Web 

site at http:www.gao.gov.

Questions about this report should be directed to me at (202) 512-3841. Key 

contributors to this report are James Cooksey, Nancy Crothers, Doreen 

Feldman, Mark Gaffigan, Michael Gilbert, Erica Haley, Elisabeth Helmer, 
Page 36 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Chir Huang, Arthur James, Alan Kasdan, Frank Rusco, John Scott, Karla 

Springer, Anne Stevens, Jena Whitley, and Monica Wolford.

Jim Wells

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Page 37 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

We were asked to (1) identify the federal government’s major energyrelated efforts, (2) review the status of efforts to implement the May 2001 

National Energy Policy (NEP) report recommendations, and (3) determine 

the extent to which resources associated with federal energy-related 

efforts has changed since the release of the NEP report. 

To identify the federal government’s major energy-related efforts, we 

reviewed the federal agencies that have the most responsibility for 

implementing the recommendations of the NEP report—the Departments 

of Energy (DOE), the Interior (DOI), Commerce, Transportation (DOT), 

State, and Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). We asked these key agencies, and other agencies as time allowed, to 

identify their energy-related work, and we developed an inventory of the 

energy-related programs that we identified. Other agencies we included 

were the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade 

Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, National Science Foundation (NSF), Securities 

and Exchange Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency (USTDA), and U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID). In addition to identifying energy-related programs, 

we relied on the list of energy-related tax expenditures published in the 

President’s annual budget that provided income tax preferences.1

 We also 

obtained data on energy-related federal collections, including revenue from 

royalties and user fees from the agencies. In addition, we also attempted to 

identify collections from energy-related excise taxes. Although the 

Department of the Treasury does not provide a specific listing of energyrelated excise taxes, we used information on the collection of excise taxes 

that was published by Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service to identify these 

taxes. While this information is updated quarterly, the last full fiscal year 

available is 2003. We collected and analyzed agency-reported program and 

tax preference descriptions and budget request and funding information at 

these key agencies. Based on our review of the NEP report and the 

program and tax preference descriptions and our discussions with 

1

Tax preferences are federal income tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to 

encourage certain behaviors or aid taxpayers in certain circumstances. The revenue losses 

resulting from these provisions—called tax expenditures—may, in effect, be viewed as 

spending channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment 

Control Act of 1974 requires that a tax expenditure list be included in the budget. The 

Department of the Treasury’s list displays tax expenditures under the budget functional 

categories used to classify outlays.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

applicable program officials, we identified eight categories of energyrelated activities and grouped the programs and tax preferences by these 

eight areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy’s impact on the environment and 

health, (3) low-income energy consumer assistance, (4) basic energy 

science research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6) energy 

conservation, (7) energy assurance and physical security, and (8) energy 

market competition and education. Because it was often difficult to 

quantify the resources associated with energy-related aspects of various 

programs, where possible, we relied on agency estimates of budget 

authority2

 for fiscal year 2003—the most recent year for which data were 

readily available for most of the programs during our review. Since we 

began our review in late 2003, fiscal year 2003 was the most complete year 

for which data were readily available. 

It was often difficult to quantify the resources associated with energyrelated aspects of various programs because agencies could not provide 

specific estimates. We used the following method to arrive at an estimate of 

the magnitude of federal energy resources for fiscal year 2003—the most 

recently completed fiscal year readily available—and for fiscal year 2000.3

For many programs, we obtained budget request, budget authority, outlay, 

and obligation information for programs from agency officials and 

documents to the extent that these numbers were available. To ensure the 

accuracy of the financial information provided by the agencies, we 

attempted to obtain documentation and agency verification, but we could 

not independently verify the estimates for energy-related programs or 

activities. In obtaining information on resources associated with most 

programs, we were able to obtain actual budget authority or estimated 

budget authority from agency officials. However, some programs do not 

have readily available estimates of budget authority available for their 

energy-related activities because they are part of a larger appropriation that 

addresses both energy-related and nonenergy-related activities. For such 

programs, agencies had to estimate the portion of budget authority 

associated with the energy-related program activity. In these cases, we 

asked knowledgeable agency officials to estimate the amount of resources 

dedicated to the energy-related activities. In some cases, agencies provided 

estimates of energy-related outlays or obligations. For the following 

2

Budget authority is authority provided by law to enter into financial obligations that will 

result in immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds. 

3

Resource information provided throughout this report was not adjusted for inflation.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

agencies, in consultation with agency officials, we used these agency outlay 

or obligation estimates as estimates for budget authority: State, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, NSF, USAID, USTDA, and some USDA, DOT, and EPA 

programs. On the basis of our examination of the supporting information, 

we believe that the estimates of budget authority for federal energy-related 

programs gathered are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, 

which is to provide the best available estimate of federal resources for 

energy-related programs. 

In addition to obtaining budget authority estimates for energy-related 

programs, we also obtained outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related 

income tax preferences—federal income tax provisions that provide 

preferential tax treatment related to energy supply and use. Revenue losses 

resulting from these tax preferences—also called tax expenditures—may, 

in effect, be viewed as spending channeled through the tax system. The 

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 requires that the 

budget include a list of tax expenditures.4

 Each year, revenue loss 

estimates for tax expenditures are prepared by Treasury and the Joint 

Committee on Taxation. Treasury also produces outlay equivalent 

estimates—the amount of budget outlays that would be required to provide 

the taxpayer with the same after-tax income as would be received through 

the tax expenditure. We used the outlay equivalent measure in quantifying 

the energy-related tax preferences because it allows the tax preference 

programs to be compared with federal outlay programs on a more even 

footing. While the aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is 

useful for gauging their general magnitude, summing does not take into 

account interactions between individual provisions. In addition, tax 

preferences below $5 million annually are not reported on Treasury’s list 

and, therefore, are not included in this report.

We focused on federal resources associated with key federal agencies that 

have direct responsibility for issues addressed in and for implementing the 

recommendations of the NEP report. We attempted to address other 

agencies as time allowed, but the inventory did not evaluate the efforts of 

every federal agency. Principally, in this review, we did not attempt to 

inventory DOD spending and activities.5

 However, DOD is a large user of 

4

Tax expenditures are reductions in tax liability that result from preferential provisions in 

the Internal Revenue Code, such as exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, 

credits, deferrals, and preferential tax rates.

5

We did review civilian programs within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

energy and engages in a wide range of activities that may impact the energy 

sector. For example, DOD installations have about 2,600 electric, water, 

wastewater, and natural gas utility systems valued at about $50 billion. 

These systems include the equipment, fixtures, and structures used in the 

distribution of electric power and natural gas; the treatment and 

distribution of water; and the collection and treatment of wastewater. 

Because we did not evaluate DOD spending, or every federal agency that 

may have energy-related activities, this report reflects a significant, but 

minimum amount of resources associated with federal programs that may 

play a role in energy.

In addition, although the federal government has a major impact on the 

energy industry through regulatory actions, this review did not attempt to 

inventory the federal regulatory actions that affect energy, but rather 

focused on federal energy-related programs and tax policies. Federal 

regulatory actions that impact energy have a cost to the industry but are 

offset by benefits accruing to the population at large or targeted groups. 

For example, in its report entitled Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 

Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities 2004, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the annual costs of all major 

federal rules implemented between fiscal years 1994 and 2003 at about

$35 billion to $40 billion and annual benefits of these rules at between $63 

billion to $169 billion. A large fraction of these costs and benefits may be 

related to energy in that (1) they have come about as the result of 

regulations to reduce public exposure to fine particulate matter, such as 

some emissions from burning fuels, or (2) they pertain to regulations 

promulgated by DOE, in part to address energy efficiency and renewable 

energy. In this report, we have primarily focused on direct federal programs 

and tax policies, rather than trying to assess the total economic impact of 

the federal government on the energy sector. However, the magnitude of 

the OMB estimates of the costs and benefits of regulation indicates that the 

federal impact on energy issues may be greater than the sum of resources 

associated with direct programs and tax preferences. 

To review the status of federal efforts to implement the recommendations 

contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed publicly reported 

status information on the implementation of the NEP recommendations, 

focusing on DOE’s most recent January 2005 report on the status of the
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

1066 NEP recommendations. We discussed efforts to monitor and report on 

the status of these recommendations with DOE’s Office of National Energy 

Policy and other federal agencies involved in energy-related efforts. We 

also discussed the energy-related programs with the appropriate agency 

personnel and, when possible, determined whether and how the programs 

were related to the NEP report recommendations. 

To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal energyrelated efforts have changed since the release of the NEP report, we 

compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report) federal 

programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003 programs 

and budget authority estimates. However, we were not able to identify 

estimates of budget authority for every program for both fiscal years 2000 

and 2003. Thus, we compared only those programs for which we could 

identify an estimate for both years. As a result, three FERC programs that 

were included in the inventory of fiscal year 2003 programs and resources 

were not included in the fiscal years 2000 to 2003 comparison. In addition, 

we compared outlay equivalents for energy-related tax preferences 

between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. We were able to obtain outlay 

equivalent estimates for all 11 energy-related tax preferences for both years 

as well as projections for fiscal year 2005. Finally, we compared fiscal years 

2000, 2003, and 2005 Presidential budget requests for those major energyrelated programs that have specific budget requests. However, many of the 

smaller programs we identified in our inventory do not have specific 

budget requests. Thus, those programs are not included in the comparison 

of energy-related budget requests and cannot be compared with the 

estimates of budget authority provided for all energy-related programs we 

identified in our inventory. 

Finally, due to the constraints of developing an inventory of federal energyrelated efforts and associated resources within the review time frame, we 

did not assess the changes within the objectives of the individual program 

activities within our inventory. Instead, we compared the resources and 

budget requests associated with federal energy-related efforts in the eight 

major activity areas. We conducted our review between December 2003 

6

The May 2001 NEP report provided 106 recommendations, including 3 duplicate 

recommendations, resulting in 103 distinct recommendations. DOE’s January 2005 NEP 

status report also provided information on 106 recommendations. For consistency, this 

report provides information and analysis on the 106 recommendations as reported in DOE’s 

NEP status report.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

and May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.
Page 43 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type ApendxiI

Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority

Energy supply

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I

$0

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II

1,656,000

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III

1,373,000

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV

884,000

Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy 

Program

150,000,000

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy 

Efficiency, and Conservation Research

2,400,000

Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses: 3 1,000,000

Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses: 2 1,000,000

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency

23,000,000

Department of Energy Clean Coal Technology (47,000,000)

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems research and 

development (R&D)

84,898,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program 1,445,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure 5,297,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Geothermal technology 28,390,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology 38,113,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydropower 5,016,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities 14,449,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Program direction 12,615,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support 0

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Solar energy 82,330,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Wind energy 41,640,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings 7,572,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences Program Review 497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects 6,954,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research 5,961,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor 0

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems 410,340,000
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 44 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development 8,186,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative 497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization 2,981,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies 47,013,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology 42,025,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support 87,229,000

Department of Energy Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 17,715,000

Department of Energy Nuclear Energy R&D 114,441,000

Department of Energy Science: Fusion energy sciences program 240,695,000

Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs 3,300,000

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management 9,526,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Oil and Gas Management 86,100,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Workforce/Organizational Support 23,000,000

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust Responsibility 22,000,000

Department of the Interior MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management 239,430,000

Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 2,153,000

Department of the Interior OSM: Regulation and Technology 104,209,000

Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program 23,705,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR): New Source Review 1,200,000

National Science Foundation Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research 920,000

National Science Foundation Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research 87,000

National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 

Research

0

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research 200,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research 790,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic Research 930,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research 1,310,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 

Research

30,540,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 

Research

7,330,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and 

Fusion/Basic Research

70,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable 

Energy/Basic Research

2,000,000

National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 

Research

60,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 45 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

International Nuclear Safety Support 8,026,645

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and Inspection 21,420,704

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing 26,464,865

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance 

Assessment

147,123,812

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal 22,870,187

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing 95,316,734

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research 70,870,929

Subtotal $2,391,565,876

Energy’s impact on the environment and health

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Energy Programs, Agency-wide $91,900,000

Department of Agriculture Forest Service R&D: Global Change Research/Climate Change Science 

Program/Climate Change Technology Program

18,778,000

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): National 

Marine Fisheries Habitat

103,000

Department of Commerce NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations 2,539,000

Department of Commerce NOAA: National Weather Service 5,962,000

Department of Commerce NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 341,000

Department of Commerce NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 1,987,000

Department of Commerce NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration 5,700,000

Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste 457,010,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental restoration 9,652,000

Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Services 161,852,000

Department of Energy Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion 156,129,000

Department of Energy Science: Biological and environmental research 494,360,000

Department of Energy Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 320,563,000

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Management 13,148,000

Department of the Interior MMS: Oil Spill Research 6,000,000

Department of State State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development 1,440,000

Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation: National Climate Change 

Technology

650,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Boutique Fuels 400,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 46 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological Advances (Clean Car 

Program)

21,700,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies Legislation 2,100,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: Energy Efficiency/Basic 

Research

41,000

National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic 

Research

60,000

National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other Energy/Basic Research 10,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Low Level Waste 

Management

4,563,957

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation 30,457,514

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of Decommissioning 21,628,121

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Licensing 

and Inspection

27,021,284

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Regulatory Program 9,696,726

Subtotal $1,865,792,602

Low-income energy consumer assistance

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Weatherization $223,537,000

Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 1,988,300,000

Subtotal $2,211,837,000

Basic energy science research

Department of Energy Science: Advanced scientific computing research $163,185,000

Department of Energy Science: Basic energy sciences 1,001,941,000

Subtotal $1,165,126,000

Energy delivery infrastructure

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Energy Activities in Afghanistan $3,100,000

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Energy Activities in Iraq 558,000,000

Department of Energy Electric Transmission and Distribution 88,384,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Lands and Realty Management 27,200,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Oregon and California Grant Lands 2,300,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures 7,900,000

Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: Natural Gas 

Pipeline Safety

63,261,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 47 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC)

FERC: Energy Infrastructure 119,241,000

National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Superconductivity/Basic Research 0

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied Research 110,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic Research 340,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Superconductivity/Basic 

Research

12,130,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Superconductivity/Basic Research

450,000

Subtotal $882,416,000

Energy conservation

Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses: 1 $793,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D 24,050,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Building technologies 58,327,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Distributed energy resources 60,054,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Energy efficiency science initiative 2,440,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Federal energy management program 19,299,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Fuel cell technologies 53,906,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Industrial technologies 96,824,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Intergovernmental Activities 90,618,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Program management 76,950,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation: Vehicle technologies 174,171,000

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Intelligent Traffic Systems 7,541,000

Department of Transportation FHWA: Office of Operations Energy Related Obligations 4,903,000

Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: Fuel Cell-Powered Transit Buses 20,896,397

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy

1,000,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Clean School Bus 5,000,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Industry 26,800,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart Way Transport Partnership 

Initiative

4,400,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Climate Change/Buildings 41,600,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Locomotive Idling 200,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR: Truck Idling 200,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 48 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

National Science Foundation Computer and Information Science and Engineering: Energy 

Efficiency/Basic Research

9,560,000

National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Renewable Energy/Basic Research 33,000

National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Energy Efficiency/Basic Research 400,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Applied Research 830,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic Research 6,970,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic Research 170,000

Subtotal $787,935,397

Energy assurance and physical security

Department of Energy Energy Security and Assurance Program $25,990,000

Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 5,961,000

Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 171,732,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland Security 10,388,139

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland Security 28,884,439

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Security 5,043,223

Subtotal $247,998,801

Energy market competition and education

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission

Energy Related Activities Estimate not available

Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal- State Marketing Improvement 

Programs

$0

Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service: Price Paid by Farmers/Fuel 140,000

Department of Commerce International Trade Administration: Trade Development/Office of Energy 1,101,713

Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology: Energy use and 

conservation programs

30,100,000

Department of Energy Energy Information Administration 80,087,000

Department of Justice Energy Related Activities Estimate not available

Department of State State: Economic and Business Affairs: Energy 865,181

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

FERC: Competitive Markets 36,824,000

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

FERC: Market Oversight 35,935,000

Federal Trade Commission Energy Related Activities Estimate not available

Securities and Exchange 

Commission

Energy Related Activities Estimate not available

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 49 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority

U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency

Energy Related Activities 14,508,784

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Energy Programs: Agency-wide 39,300,000

Subtotal $238,861,678

Total $9,791,533,354

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy activity/Agency Program Estimated budget authority

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority

U.S Agency for International Development

Energy Activities in Afghanistan Energy delivery infrastructure $3,100,000

Energy Activities in Iraq Energy delivery infrastructure 558,000,000

Energy Programs, Agency-wide Energy's impact on the environment and health 91,900,000

Energy Programs, Agency-wide Energy market competition and education 39,300,000

Subtotal $692,300,000

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not available

Subtotal Estimate not available

Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal-State 

Marketing Improvement Programs

Energy market competition and education $0

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy Related 

Programs I

Energy supply 0

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy Related 

Programs II

Energy supply 1,656,000

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy Related 

Programs III

Energy supply 1,373,000

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy Related 

Programs IV

Energy supply 884,000

Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit 

Corporation's Bioenergy Program

Energy supply 150,000,000
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 50 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Forest Service Research and Development (R&D): 

Global Change Research/Climate Change Science 

Program/Climate Change Technology Program

Energy's impact on the environment and health 18,778,000

Forest Service R&D: Bioenergy, Energy Efficiency, 

and Conservation Research

Energy supply 2,400,000

National Agricultural Statistics Service: Price Paid by 

Farmers/Fuel

Energy market competition and education 140,000

Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses: 1

Energy conservation 793,000

Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses: 3

Energy supply 1,000,000

Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses: 2

Energy supply 1,000,000

Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable 

Energy and Energy Efficiency

Energy supply 23,000,000

Subtotal $201,024,000

Department of Commerce

International Trade Administration: Trade 

Development/Office of Energy

Energy market competition and education $1,101,713

National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

Energy use and conservation programs

Energy market competition and education 30,100,000

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA): National Marine Fisheries Habitat

Energy's impact on the environment and health 103,000

NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Consultations

Energy's impact on the environment and health 2,539,000

NOAA: National Weather Service Energy's impact on the environment and health 5,962,000

NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Energy's impact on the environment and health 341,000

NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Energy's impact on the environment and health 1,987,000

NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration Energy's impact on the environment and health 5,700,000

Subtotal $47,833,713

Department of Energy

Civilian Radioactive Waste Energy's impact on the environment and health $457,010,000

Clean Coal Technology Energy supply (47,000,000)

Electric Transmission and Distribution Energy delivery infrastructure 88,384,000

Energy Conservation: Biomass and biorefinery 

systems R&D

Energy conservation 24,050,000

Energy Conservation: Building technologies Energy conservation 58,327,000

Energy Conservation: Distributed energy resources Energy conservation 60,054,000

Energy Conservation: Energy efficiency science 

initiative

Energy conservation 2,440,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 51 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy Conservation: Federal energy management 

program

Energy conservation 19,299,000

Energy Conservation: Fuel cell technologies Energy conservation 53,906,000

Energy Conservation: Industrial technologies Energy conservation 96,824,000

Energy Conservation: Intergovernmental Activities Energy conservation 90,618,000

Energy Conservation: Program management Energy conservation 76,950,000

Energy Conservation: Vehicle technologies Energy conservation 174,171,000

Energy Conservation: Weatherization Low-income energy consumer assistance 223,537,000

Energy Information Administration Energy market competition and education 80,087,000

Energy Security and Assurance Program Energy assurance and physical security 25,990,000

Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems 

R&D

Energy supply 84,898,000

Energy Supply: Departmental energy management 

program

Energy supply 1,445,000

Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure Energy supply 5,297,000

Energy Supply: Geothermal technology Energy supply 28,390,000

Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology Energy supply 38,113,000

Energy Supply: Hydropower Energy supply 5,016,000

Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities Energy supply 14,449,000

Energy Supply: Program direction Energy supply 12,615,000

Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support Energy supply 0

Energy Supply: Solar energy Energy supply 82,330,000

Energy Supply: Wind energy Energy supply 41,640,000

Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings Energy supply 7,572,000

Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences 

Program Review

Energy supply 497,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects Energy supply 6,954,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research Energy supply 5,961,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor Energy supply 0

Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems Energy supply 410,340,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and 

development

Energy supply 8,186,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science 

initiative

Energy supply 497,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental restoration Energy's impact on the environment and health 9,652,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization Energy supply 2,981,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies Energy supply 47,013,000

Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology Energy supply 42,025,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 52 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and 

management support

Energy supply 87,229,000

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Energy supply 17,715,000

Non-Defense Environmental Services Energy's impact on the environment and health 161,852,000

Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion Energy's impact on the environment and health 156,129,000

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Energy assurance and physical security 5,961,000

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Energy supply $114,441,000

Science: Advanced scientific computing research Basic energy science research 163,185,000

Science: Basic energy sciences Basic energy science research 1,001,941,000

Science: Biological and environmental research Energy's impact on the environment and health 494,360,000

Science: Fusion energy sciences program Energy supply 240,695,000

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Energy assurance and physical security 171,732,000

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning Fund

Energy's impact on the environment and health 320,563,000

Subtotal $5,276,321,000

Department of Health and Human Services

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Low-income energy consumer assistance $1,988,300,000

Subtotal $1,988,300,000

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian 

Programs

Energy supply $3,300,000

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal 

Management

Energy supply 9,526,000

BLM: Lands and Realty Management Energy delivery infrastructure 27,200,000

BLM: Oil and Gas Management Energy supply 86,100,000

BLM: Oregon and California Grant Lands Energy delivery infrastructure 2,300,000

BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures Energy delivery infrastructure 7,900,000

BLM: Workforce/Organizational Support Energy supply 23,000,000

Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Management Energy's impact on the environment and health 13,148,000

Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust 

Responsibility

Energy supply 22,000,000

MMS: Oil Spill Research Energy's impact on the environment and health 6,000,000

MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management Energy supply 239,430,000

Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation Fund

Energy supply 2,153,000

OSM: Regulation and Technology Energy supply 104,209,000

U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program Energy supply 23,705,000

Subtotal $569,971,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 53 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Department of Justice

Energy-Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not available

Subtotal Estimate not available

Department of State

State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Energy's impact on the environment and health $1,440,000

State: Economic and Business Affairs: Energy Energy market competition and education 865,181

Subtotal $2,305,181

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Intelligent 

Traffic Systems

Energy conservation $7,541,000

FHWA: Office of Operations Energy Related 

Obligations

Energy conservation 4,903,000

Federal Transit Administration: Fuel Cell-Powered 

Transit Buses

Energy conservation 20,896,397

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy

Energy conservation 1,000,000

Office of the Secretary of Transportation: National 

Climate Change Technology

Energy's impact on the environment and health 650,000

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration: Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

Energy delivery infrastructure 63,261,000

Subtotal $98,251,397

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR): Boutique Fuels

Energy's impact on the environment and health $400,000

OAR: Clean School Bus Energy conservation 5,000,000

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Industry Energy conservation 26,800,000

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Smart Way 

Transport Partnership Initiative

Energy conservation 4,400,000

OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological 

Advances (Clean Car Program)

Energy's impact on the environment and health 21,700,000

OAR: Climate Change/Buildings Energy conservation 41,600,000

OAR: Locomotive Idling Energy conservation 200,000

OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation/Clear Skies 

Legislation

Energy's impact on the environment and health 2,100,000

OAR: New Source Review Energy supply 1,200,000

OAR: Truck Idling Energy conservation 200,000

Subtotal $103,600,000

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

FERC: Competitive Markets Energy market competition and education $36,824,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 54 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

FERC: Energy Infrastructure Energy delivery infrastructure 119,241,000

FERC: Market Oversight Energy market competition and education 35,935,000

Subtotal $192,000,000

Federal Trade Commission

Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not available

Subtotal Estimate not available

National Science Foundation

Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic 

Research

Energy supply $920,000

Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic 

Research

Energy supply 87,000

Computer and Information Science and Engineering: 

Energy Efficiency/Basic Research

Energy conservation 9,560,000

Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and 

Fusion/Basic Research

Energy supply 0

Education and Human Resources: Renewable 

Energy/Basic Research

Energy conservation 33,000

Education and Human Resources: Energy 

Efficiency/Basic Research

Energy conservation 400,000

Education and Human Resources: 

Superconductivity/Basic Research

Energy delivery infrastructure 0

Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Applied 

Research

Energy conservation 830,000

Engineering Directorate: Energy Efficiency/Basic 

Research

Energy conservation 6,970,000

Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 

Research

Energy supply 200,000

Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and 

Fusion/Applied Research

Energy supply 790,000

Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic 

Research

Energy supply 930,000

Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied 

Research

Energy supply 1,310,000

Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied 

Research

Energy delivery infrastructure 110,000

Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic 

Research

Energy delivery infrastructure 340,000

Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Energy 

Efficiency/Basic Research

Energy conservation 170,000

Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable 

Energy/Basic Research

Energy supply 30,540,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 55 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and 

Fusion/Basic Research

Energy supply 7,330,000

Mathematical and Physical Sciences: 

Superconductivity/Basic Research

Energy delivery infrastructure 12,130,000

Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research

Energy supply 70,000

Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Renewable Energy/Basic Research

Energy supply 2,000,000

Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Superconductivity/Basic Research

Energy delivery infrastructure 450,000

Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Energy Efficiency/Basic Research

Energy's impact on the environment and health 41,000

Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable 

Energy/Basic Research

Energy supply 60,000

Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy 

Efficiency/Basic Research

Energy's impact on the environment and health 60,000

Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other 

Energy/Basic Research

Energy's impact on the environment and health 10,000

Subtotal $75,341,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

International Nuclear Safety Support Energy supply $8,026,645

Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing 

and Inspection

Energy supply 21,420,704

Nuclear Materials Safety: Homeland Security Energy assurance and physical security 10,388,139

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Homeland Security Energy assurance and physical security 28,884,439

Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing Energy supply 26,464,865

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and 

Performance Assessment

Energy supply 147,123,812

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal Energy supply 22,870,187

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing Energy supply 95,316,734

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research Energy supply 70,870,929

Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and 

Low Level Waste Management

Energy's impact on the environment and health 4,563,957

Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation Energy's impact on the environment and health 30,457,514

Nuclear Waste Safety: Homeland Security Energy assurance and physical security 5,043,223

Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of 

Decommissioning

Energy's impact on the environment and health 21,628,121

Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation Licensing and Inspection

Energy's impact on the environment and health 27,021,284

Subtotal $520,080,553

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 56 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major Energy Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority

Securities and Exchange Commission

Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education Estimate not available

Subtotal Estimate not available

U.S. Trade and Development Agency

Energy Related Activities Energy market competition and education $14,508,784

Subtotal $14,508,784

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Program Energy's impact on the environment and health $9,696,726

Subtotal $9,696,726

Total $9,791,533,354

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Agency/Program Energy activity Estimated budget authority

Dollars in actual amounts

Energy type/Agency Program Estimated budget authority

Fossil

Department of Energy Clean Coal Technology $(47,000,000)

Department of Energy Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D): National Academy of 

Sciences Program Review

497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects 6,954,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research 5,961,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor 0

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems 410,340,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development 8,186,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative 497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization 2,981,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies 47,013,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology 42,025,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support 87,229,000

Department of Energy Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 17,715,000

Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs 3,300,000

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management 9,526,000

Department of the Interior BLM: Oil and Gas Management 86,100,000
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 57 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy type/Agency Program Estimated budget authority

Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust Responsibility 22,000,000

Department of the Interior MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management 239,430,000

Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 2,153,000

Department of the Interior OSM: Regulation and Technology 104,209,000

Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program 23,705,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of Air and Radiation: New Source Review 1,200,000

Subtotal $1,074,021,000

Renewable

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I

$0

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II

1,656,000

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III

1,373,000

Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV

884,000

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy 

Efficiency, and Conservation Research

2,400,000

Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses: 3 1,000,000

Department of Agriculture Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses: 2 1,000,000

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency

23,000,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems R&D 84,898,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program 1,445,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure 5,297,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Geothermal technology 28,390,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydropower 5,016,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities 14,449,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Program direction 12,615,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support 0

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Solar energy 82,330,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Wind energy 41,640,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings 7,572,000

National Science Foundation Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research 87,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research 1,310,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 

Research

30,540,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable 

Energy/Basic Research

2,000,000

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by 

Activity, Agency, and Energy Type

Page 58 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Energy type/Agency Program Estimated budget authority

National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 

Research

60,000

Subtotal $348,962,000

Nuclear

Department of Energy Nuclear Energy R&D $114,441,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

International Nuclear Safety Support 8,026,645

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and Inspection 21,420,704

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing 26,464,865

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance 

Assessment

147,123,812

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal 22,870,187

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing 95,316,734

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research 70,870,929

Subtotal $506,534,876

Alternative

Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy 

Program

$150,000,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology 38,113,000

Department of Energy Science: Fusion energy sciences program 240,695,000

National Science Foundation Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research 920,000

National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 

Research

0

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research 200,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research 790,000

National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate: Other Energy: Basic Research 930,000

National Science Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 

Research

7,330,000

National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and 

Fusion/Basic Research

70,000

Subtotal $439,048,000

Total $2,368,565,876

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 59 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix III

Federal Electricity Support ApendxiI

PMAs and TVA Market 

and Deliver Power 

Generated at Federal 

Facilities

The four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonneville 

Power Administration, Southeast Power Administration, Southwest Power 

Administration, and Western Power Administration—market power 

produced primarily at federal hydroelectric dams and projects. These 

facilities are owned and operated by either DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. In contrast, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) markets 

electricity produced at its own fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy 

facilities. Most electricity marketed by the PMAs is generated from 

facilities built with federal funding through appropriations or Treasury 

financing. Sales of this electricity are intended to pay back these 

appropriated funds or financing as well as offset any ongoing expenses 

associated with operating or upgrading the facilities, including the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps, or the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. 

The Corps has developed hydroelectric power as part of many of its 

multipurpose water resources projects. The Corps reports that it has an $18 

billion investment in hydropower facilities, which include 75 plants and 350 

generating units. Hydropower represents 13 percent of the electrical power 

generated in the United States, and the Corps reports that its facilities 

generate 24 percent of it. The Corps is the largest owner/operator of 

hydroelectric power plants in the United States. The Corps reports that its 

objective is to keep the plants operating at peak efficiency and reliability by 

replacing aging turbines, generators, and control systems with state-of-theart equipment. In fiscal year 2003, the Corps received budget authority of 

$414 million to fund a portion of these activities. The revenues from the 

power collected were either deposited in the Treasury by the PMAs or, as in 

the case of the Bonneville Power Administration, used directly to fund the 

Corps activities. In fiscal year 2003, Bonneville provided $336 million 

directly for the Corps’ hydroelectric power program in Bonneville’s region. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s central mission is to manage water resources 

for multiple benefits, including the generation of electricity, at its 

multipurpose water projects in the western United States. Electricity 

produced at Reclamation facilities either is used internally at projects or 

sold as surplus power. Surplus power marketed by the PMAs produces 

revenues used to repay project costs. In fiscal year 2003, Reclamation 

received $58.6 million in budget authority for operations of hydroelectric 

facilities in three of its five regions. In the other two regions, PMAs directly 

fund the hydroelectric facilities. Finally, the International Boundary and 
Appendix III

Federal Electricity Support

Page 60 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Water Commission operates the Falcon-Amistad Project. The project 

consists of two dams on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico, 

which share and operate separate power plants on each side of the river. 

By law, the federal utilities are nonprofit and provide selected classes of 

customers with preference in purchasing their power. These “preference 

customers” include municipal utilities; cooperatives; state utilities; 

irrigation districts; and, in some instances, state governments and federal 

agencies. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 

2003, federal utilities sold about 300 million megawatt-hours of wholesale 

and retail electricity, a volume equivalent to about 8 percent of total U.S. 

electricity consumption. In 2000, EIA published a report on federal 

financial interventions and subsidies in energy markets that included an 

assessment of subsidies to PMA and TVA customers.1

 In its 2000 report, 

EIA presented three different methodologies for estimating the value of

the implicit support to these customers measured by the extent to which 

(1) electric power was sold by federal utilities at below-market prices,

(2) federal utilities paid below-market rates on debt they had incurred, or 

(3) federal utilities’ rates of return were below those of their private utility 

counterparts. The estimated value of the implicit support varied 

significantly, depending on which methodology was used. Further, EIA’s 

report noted that there are potential problems with each of the 

methodologies that EIA discussed that make it impossible to choose the 

best methodology or to conclude that any one of the three methodologies is 

likely to give a “most accurate” estimate of the actual value.2

 In table 17, we 

present EIA’s measures of implicit support for 1998 for the PMAs and TVA. 

1

Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in 

Energy Markets 1999: Energy Transformation and End Use (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).

2

For example, EIA noted that with regard to comparing federal utility prices with market 

prices, it requires the assumption that fully competitive electricity prices exist, and this is 

not demonstrably the case because there are really two markets for electricity—competitive 

and rate regulated markets. With regard to the comparison of interest rates between federal 

and nonfederal utilities, substantial differences in borrowing practices exist between 

federal and nonfederal utilities that make a simple comparison of borrowing costs 

potentially misleading. Finally, with regard to measuring different rates of return for federal 

and nonfederal utilities, the federal utilities have generally not acquired their assets under 

competitive conditions, and therefore, would generally not be expected to have the same 

rate of return as private counterparts who invested differently.
Appendix III

Federal Electricity Support

Page 61 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998 (1999 dollars)

Source: Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Energy 

Transformation and End Use (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).

a

Figures presented are total for the Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power 

Administration, and Western Power Administration.

b

Tennessee Valley Authority power prices were higher than the adjacent regions’ prices, so there was 

no implicit subsidy using the price comparison methodology.

Rural Utilities Service 

Provides Federal Loans 

and Loan Guarantees

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an agency of USDA that provides 

support to rural communities, including loans and loan guarantees for the 

development and improvement of electricity services. Under the authority 

of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and amendments,3

 RUS loans and 

loan guarantees are (1) to finance the construction of electric transmission 

and generation facilities, as well as electric system improvements and 

replacements in rural areas, and (2) to be used for energy conservation 

programs and renewable energy systems.

As of September 30, 2003, RUS had approximately $28 billion in 

outstanding loans and about $520 million in outstanding loan guarantees. 

Some RUS loans and loan guarantees provide access to financing at belowmarket rates, which amounts to a subsidy for some rural users of 

electricity. The size of this subsidy depends on the interest rates at which 

RUS loans are made as well as the prevailing market interest rates; 

Dollars in millions

Agency

Support under

the market price

methodology

Support under

the below-market

interest rate

methodology

Support under

the rate of

return

methodology

Bonneville Power 

Administration $732 $24-$116 $190-$466

Southeastern Power 

Administration 152

Southwestern Power 

Administration 106 80-224a 237-530a

Western Power 

Administration 407

Tennessee Valley Authority 0b 77-248 228-557

3

7 U.S.C. 901-950bb.
Appendix III

Federal Electricity Support

Page 62 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

therefore, the amount of support varies from year to year and according to 

which measure of market interest is used.

In its May 2000 report on federal financial interventions in energy markets, 

EIA estimated that the value of the subsidy provided by RUS loans and loan 

guarantees was between $144 million and $1.557 billion in 1998. We asked 

RUS to estimate the value of the subsidy associated with these loans and 

loan guarantees for fiscal year 2003, but RUS does not estimate such 

values. However, RUS did provide us with a figure derived by OMB of about 

$5 million that reflects the net cost to the government of the program, 

which is the amount of direct appropriations to the program that is not 

recaptured by loan repayments. This figure does not reflect the implied 

interest rate support as measured by the EIA report.
Page 63 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations ApendxiIV

This appendix provides a complete list of the 106 recommendations 

contained in the May 2001 National Energy Policy report, DOE’s January 

2005 reported status of these recommendations, and our observations on 

the reported status. For each of the 106 NEP recommendations, table 18 

contains the following information: 

• The first column contains the number and text of the NEP 

recommendation as printed in the May 2001 NEP report. This number is 

used to track the recommendations and refers to the chapter and the 

order within which the recommendations appear in the NEP. Thus, “4-3” 

refers to the fourth chapter of the NEP and the third recommendation 

within that chapter.

• The second column contains DOE’s overall assessment of the 

recommendation, such as “Implemented, Activities Ongoing, or 

Legislation Proposed,” and DOE’s description of the actions taken to 

implement the recommendation. This status information was reported 

by DOE in its January 2005 National Energy Policy Status Report on 

Implementation of NEP Recommendations. 

• The third column contains our observations on the status of the 

recommendation provided by DOE as reported in the second column. 

Our observations may discuss reported status of the recommendations 

and observations about it, such as the lack of specific goals and 

measures that make it difficult to assess the progress of federal energyrelated efforts to implement the recommendations. In some cases, we 

include additional information in this column from (1) DOE’s responses 

to questions we raised about its status report or (2) agency comments 

on a draft of this report. Our observations on the status report should 

not be viewed as either an endorsement or a critique of the NEP 

recommendations.
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 64 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Table 18: NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported Status, and GAO Observations 

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations

1-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

issue an executive order to direct 

all federal agencies to include in 

any regulatory action that could 

significantly and adversely affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or 

use, a detailed statement on (1) 

the energy impact of the 

proposed action, (2) any adverse 

energy effects that cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be 

implemented, and (3) 

alternatives to the proposed 

action. The agencies would be 

directed to include this statement 

in all submissions to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

of proposed regulations covered 

by Executive Order 12866, as 

well as in all notices of proposed 

regulations published in the 

Federal Register. 

Implemented: In May 2001, President Bush 

issued Executive Order 13211 requiring 

federal agencies to include in any regulatory 

action that could significantly and adversely 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, a 

detailed “Statement of Energy Effects” in 

submissions to OMB. 

Executive Order 13211 remains in effect and is being 

implemented. However, the status report does not 

provide information about the regulatory actions for 

which such statements of energy effect have been 

prepared or what impact, if any, these statements 

have had on regulatory actions. According to DOE, 

most regulatory actions do not have impacts sufficient 

to warrant a Statement of Energy Effects because the 

order sets forth a $100 million level of economic effect 

for a statement to be necessary. 

1-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the executive agencies to 

work closely with Congress to 

implement the legislative 

components of a national energy 

policy. 

Implemented; activities ongoing: President 

Bush and his Administration have consistently 

urged Congress to enact comprehensive 

energy legislation as recommended by the 

NEP. Many of the NEP legislative 

recommendations were reflected in the 

comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 6, which was 

adopted by both the House and Senate in 

2003. The House approved the H.R. 6 

conference report in November 2003, but it 

was still pending in the Senate when 

Congress adjourned. Several energy tax 

provisions were contained in H.R. 4520, 

signed into law by the President on October 

22, 2004. The President will continue to work 

with Congress on comprehensive energy 

legislation that will ensure safe, affordable, 

and reliable energy supplies for the growing 

U.S. economy.

Of the 106 recommendations, 26 have a legislative 

element. However, according to DOE, 5 of these 

recommendations have been addressed by enacted 

legislation, 18 have been the subject of proposed 

legislation, and 3 have not been addressed by 

proposed legislation. (Two of the 26 

recommendations that have a legislative element are 

duplicates.) 
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 65 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

1-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends to the President 

that the NEPD Group continue to 

work and meet on the 

implementation of the NEP and 

explore other ways to advance 

dependable, affordable, and 

environmentally responsible 

production and distribution of 

energy. 

Implemented in modified form: Although 

the NEPD Group terminated on September 

30, 2001, by the terms of the memorandum 

that established the group, an interagency 

working group led by DOE was established to 

coordinate agency implementation of the NEP. 

This interagency group meets on a regular 

basis. 

DOE’s Office of National Energy Policy is responsible 

for coordinating and providing strategic direction for 

the implementation of the NEP report 

recommendations. However, although the NEPD 

Group was terminated on September 30, 2001, 

DOE’s NEP Office did not assume leadership of the 

interagency working group until the Fall of 2003. 

2-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

explore potential opportunities to 

develop educational programs 

related to energy development 

and use. This should include 

possible legislation to create 

public education awareness 

programs about energy. Such 

programs should be long term in 

nature, should be funded and 

managed by the respective 

energy industries, and should 

include information on energy’s 

compatibility with a clean 

environment.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Through 

DOE and other agencies, the Bush 

Administration has supported extensive 

energy education programs at all levels, in all 

regions, and in all sectors. Activities include 

development of instructional materials, Web 

sites, field trips, and career education 

materials. DOE, directly and through the 

national labs, sponsors higher education, 

extension programs, and research programs 

for residential, commercial, agricultural, and 

industrial energy users. EPA, USDA, and DOI 

sponsor programs on resource conservation 

and protection. Federal agencies also work 

with the energy industry and trade 

associations to support educational programs 

on energy efficiency, new technologies, 

consumer safety, and environmental 

protection.

The status report does not include information on 

whether possible legislation was considered as 

outlined in this recommendation. In addition, while the 

status report mentions federal agencies working with 

industry, the funding of these programs by energy 

industries was not addressed. There is a precedent 

for industry funding of education programs. For 

example, the Propane Education and Research Act of 

1996 established a “check-off” program where a 

portion of the wholesale cost of the product is set 

aside in a common fund for the benefit of producers 

and consumers. The funding generated can be 

significant—in FY 2003 alone, a $38 million budget 

was projected to support various propane-related 

programs, including education. Recommendations

4-15 and 6-6 also address federal education 

programs.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 66 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

2-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

take steps to mitigate impacts of 

high energy costs on low-income 

consumers. These steps would 

include:

(1) Strengthening the Low 

Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program by making 

$1.7 billion available annually. 

This is an increase of $300 

million over the regular FY 2001 

appropriation;

(2) Directing the Secretaries of 

Interior and Health and Human 

Services to propose legislation to 

bolster LIHEAP funding by using 

a portion of oil and gas royalty 

payments;

(3) Redirecting royalties above a 

set trigger price to LIHEAP, 

whenever crude oil and natural 

gas prices exceed that trigger 

price, as determined by the 

responsible agencies.

Implemented in part; activities ongoing:

The President’s FY 2005 budget provided $2 

billion in total funding for the LIHEAP program, 

including a $100 million increase in 

contingency funds, which allows the 

Administration to respond to both winter and 

summer emergencies. This represents a $600 

million increase over the $1.4 billion 

requested for LIHEAP in the FY 2001 budget 

request.

The FY 2005 budget request was $2.001 billion for 

LIHEAP. Although the budget request increased by 

$600 million, the increase in actual funding varied. FY 

2001 funding was $1.856 billion, while a recent 

estimate of FY 2005 funding is $2.182 billion, which is 

an increase of $326 million in actual funding. 

Regarding legislation, the status report does not 

address the second and third parts of this 

recommendation related to legislation. No legislation 

has been proposed by DOI/Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) to bolster LIHEAP funding by 

using a portion of oil and gas royalty payments, or to 

redirect royalties above a set trigger price to LIHEAP. 

According to an HHS official, there were meetings 

with a group from DOE and DOI regarding this aspect 

of the recommendation, but action was postponed. 

According to DOE, in June 2001, the President 

transmitted to Congress the legislative 

recommendations contained in the NEP, and 

Congress chose not to pursue this particular 

recommendation.

2-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

increase funding for the 

Weatherization Assistance 

Program by $1.2 billion over 10 

years. This will roughly double 

the spending during that period 

on weatherization. Consistent 

with that commitment, the FY 

2002 budget includes a $120 

million increase over 2001. DOE 

will have the option of using a 

portion of those funds to test 

improved implementation 

approaches for the 

weatherization program.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

President’s budget has consistently sought 

increased funding for low-income 

weatherization, from a baseline of $153 

million in FY 2001 to $291 million in the FY 

2005 budget. As a result, about 275,000 lowincome homes have been weatherized in the 

last 4 FYs.

Actual funding was $153 million in FY 2001, $230 

million in FY 2002, $224 million in FY 2003, $227 

million in FY 2004, and $228 million in FY 2005. The 

FY 2006 budget request is $230 million. Compared 

with the FY 2001 baseline, a funding level of about 

$230 million per year represents an increase of about 

$80 million per year, or $800 million over 10 years.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 67 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

2-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

support legislation to allow funds 

dedicated for the Weatherization 

and State Energy Programs to 

be transferred to LIHEAP if DOE 

deems it appropriate.

Implemented: Congress has not considered 

legislation to allow transfer between the 

Weatherization and State Energy Programs 

and LIHEAP. Both programs serve important 

functions to reduce overall energy costs to 

low-income families.

It is not clear why the status report notes that this 

recommendation is implemented when no legislation 

has been considered. According to an internal draft 

document on NEP status from May 2003, an internal 

determination was made that it was not appropriate to 

support transfer of Weatherization and State Energy 

funds to LIHEAP at that time. According to DOE, in 

June 2001, the President transmitted to Congress the 

legislative recommendations contained in the NEP, 

and Congress chose not to pursue this particular 

recommendation. However, the 2001 transmittal to 

Congress did not include a legislative 

recommendation to allow funds to be transferred.

2-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

recognize unique regional 

energy concerns by working with 

the National Governors 

Association and regional 

governor associations to 

determine how to better serve 

the needs of diverse areas of the 

country.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In August 

2001, DOE, DOI, USDA, EPA, and CEQ 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Western Governors’ 

Association (WGA) regarding energy 

development and conservation activities in the 

Western United States. The group 

subsequently developed a “Transmission 

Siting and Permitting Protocol” in June 2002 

that established a systematic, coordinated 

review process for the siting and permitting of 

electric power transmission in the west. Other 

agency programs include cooperative efforts 

with the WGA to address wind energy 

resource development on the public lands 

administered by DOI.

This recommendation is much broader than 

transmission siting, but it is unclear from the status 

report what other ongoing activities have taken place 

subsequent to the June 2002 protocol. In response to 

questions about other activities, DOE noted that the 

described activities are illustrative, not exhaustive, 

and that most NEP agencies have worked to 

implement this recommendation. Also, from the status 

report, it appears that the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), which plays a major role in 

transmission management, was not a party to the 

MOU and did not play a role in the development of the 

subsequent protocol. In addition, the related role of 

the energy project streamlining task force established 

under recommendation 3-3 is not clear.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 68 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

2-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct FEMA to prepare for 

potential energy emergencies. 

• FEMA should work with states’ 

Offices of Emergency 

Management as they expand 

existing emergency operations 

plans to identify potential 

problems and address 

consequences of the power 

shortages. FEMA should use its 

current Regional Incident 

Reporting System to identify any 

situations that might demand 

immediate attention. 

• Using the structure of the 

already existing Federal 

Response Plan, FEMA should 

conduct Regional Interagency 

Steering Committee (RISC) 

meetings for states affected by 

the energy shortfalls. The RISC 

is a FEMA-led interagency 

committee comprised of 

agencies and departments that 

support the Federal Response 

Plan. Either an upcoming, 

scheduled RISC meeting or a 

special-focus RISC meeting can 

be held to identify the short-term 

energy outlook, as well as any 

expected consequences, in each 

of the states during the peak 

summer season.

Implemented; activities ongoing: FEMA is 

working with states to prepare for natural 

disasters and the consequences of power 

system failures using communications tools, 

including the Regional Incident Reporting 

System. DOE has been working with the 

electric power industry, states, FERC, and the 

Canadian government to implement 

recommendations from the report on the 

August 2003 blackout and is establishing an 

energy assurance approach for dealing with 

energy emergencies.

FEMA is now under the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). DOE has an Energy Assurance and 

Security Program that is responsible for fulfilling the 

roles of critical infrastructure identification, 

prioritization, and protection for the energy sector, 

which include the production, refining, and distribution 

of oil and gas, and electric power—except for 

commercial nuclear power facilities. The Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) also has programs 

that address homeland security for commercial 

nuclear power facilities.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 69 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

3-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

propose multipollutant 

legislation. The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

work with Congress to propose 

legislation that would establish a 

flexible, market-based program 

to significantly reduce and cap 

emissions of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and mercury 

from electric power generators. 

Such a program (with 

appropriate measures to address 

local concerns) would provide 

significant public health benefits 

even as we increase electricity 

supplies: (1) establish mandatory 

reduction targets for emissions of 

three main pollutants: sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and 

mercury; (2) phase in reductions 

over a reasonable period of time, 

similar to the successful acid rain 

reduction program established by 

the 1990 amendments to the 

Clean Air Act; (3) provide 

regulatory certainty to allow 

utilities to make modifications to 

their plants without fear of new 

litigation; (4) provide marketbased incentives, such as 

emissions trading credits, to help 

achieve the required reductions.

Implemented; legislation proposed: In 

February 2002, President Bush proposed 

Clear Skies legislation to reduce emissions of 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury 

from electricity generators and improve air 

quality throughout the country. Using a 

proven, market-based approach that can save 

American consumers millions of dollars in 

compliance costs, Clear Skies will cut air 

pollution emissions from electric power plants 

by approximately 70 percent over 15 years. 

This historic proposal will bring cleaner air to 

Americans faster, more reliably, and more 

cost-effectively than under current law, and it 

would also, for the first time, reduce emissions 

of mercury from electric power plants. This 

legislation was not enacted in the 108th 

Congress, but the Administration will continue 

to work with Congress to achieve passage as 

early as possible in the 109th Congress.

Clear Skies legislation was reintroduced earlier this 

year as S. 131. However, in the absence of the 

legislation, EPA has issued two rules with similar 

goals as Clear Skies. In March 2005, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, which addresses sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The reduction goals for 

this rule are similar to those under Clear Skies, but it 

only affects facilities in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia, while Clear Skies would have 

been a national program. The second is the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule, which EPA issued later in March 2005. 

This rule limits mercury emissions to similar levels as 

the Clear Skies legislation. However, it is possible that 

implementation of the mercury rule may be delayed 

by litigation. See related recommendations 5-12 and 

5-13.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 70 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

3-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to work with Congress to 

create the “Royalties 

Conservation Fund.” This fund 

will earmark potentially billions of 

dollars in royalties from new oil 

and gas production in the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 

to fund land conservation efforts. 

This fund will also be used to 

eliminate the maintenance and 

improvements backlog on federal 

lands.

Implemented; legislation proposed: As in 

past years, in his 2005 Budget, President 

Bush proposed to create the Royalty 

Conservation Fund that would use royalties 

from new oil and gas exploration in ANWR to 

fund land conservation efforts and address 

the backlog in maintenance and improvement 

projects on federal lands, including national 

parks. The House of Representatives has 

twice approved legislation that would have 

authorized environmentally sensitive oil and 

gas exploration in ANWR and created the 

Royalty Conservation Fund, consistent with 

the President's request. However, the Senate 

failed to act on similar legislation.

The potentially billions of dollars available (according 

to the recommendation) for the federal fund would be 

affected by the portion of the royalties Alaska would 

receive. In 1999, DOI’s Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) reported that Alaska receives about 

90 percent of all royalties, rents, and bonuses for 

mineral production on public domain leases in Alaska.

3-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

issue an executive order to 

rationalize permitting for energy 

production in an environmentally 

sound manner by directing 

federal agencies to expedite 

permits and other federal actions 

necessary for energy-related 

project approvals on a national 

basis. This order would establish 

an interagency task force chaired 

by the Council on Environmental 

Quality to ensure that federal 

agencies responsible for 

permitting energy-related 

facilities are coordinating their 

efforts. The task force will ensure 

that federal agencies set up 

appropriate mechanisms to 

coordinate federal, state, tribal, 

and local permitting activity in 

particular regions where 

increased activity is expected.

Implemented; activities ongoing: President 

Bush issued Executive Order 13212 on May 

18, 2001, directing federal agencies to take 

appropriate actions, to the extent consistent 

with applicable law, to expedite projects that 

will increase the production, transmission, or 

conservation of energy. The executive order 

established an interagency task force to “work 

with and monitor Federal Agencies’ efforts to 

expedite their review of permits or take other 

actions as necessary to accelerate the 

completion of energy-related permits, while 

maintaining safety, public health, and 

environmental protections.” By acting to foster 

interagency cooperation, the task force has 

helped accelerate completion of permitting on 

specific energy projects, acted to streamline 

redundant processes, and increased 

opportunities for environmental stewardship 

and energy production at the same time. In 

April 2004, the President signed Executive 

Order 13337, which updates the Secretary of 

State’s authority to issue presidential permits 

for cross-border petroleum or natural gas 

pipelines after consultation with DOE, EPA, 

DHS, and other agencies.

The reported status does not provide reference to any 

comprehensive analysis of what the task force has 

accomplished. For example, information on the 

activities of the task force can be found at

www.etf.energy.gov. In addition, the task force charter 

ended in January 2005, and the reported status does 

not make it clear whether the work of the task force 

will continue. In response to our questions, DOE 

notes that the task force will continue to meet as a 

senior-level interagency group. Finally, many NEP 

recommendations relate to the issue of providing 

regulatory certainty and expediting approval of energy 

projects. However, it is not clear what role the task 

force has played or will play in addressing these 

recommendations.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 71 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and the 

President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) to review and make 

recommendations on using the 

nation’s energy resources more 

efficiently.

Implemented: In February 2003, PCAST 

issued a report: Improving Efficiency in the 

Nation's Electrical System. The report 

focused on the nation's electricity generation, 

transmission and distribution, and 

management systems and makes 

recommendations to improve the efficiency of 

each piece of the system. PCAST identified 

four areas where technological progress could 

have a potentially significant impact, including 

(1) efficiency of coal-fired generation plants, 

(2) efficiency of electricity transmission 

systems, (3) distributed energy technologies, 

and (4) demand-side management.

This recommendation refers to the broader issue of 

reviewing and making recommendations on using 

energy resources more efficiently, but DOE’s status 

report refers to a specific PCAST report on Improving 

Efficiency in the Nation's Electrical System. The 

reported status does not indicate whether any further 

study of the use of energy resources beyond electrical 

system efficiency is ongoing or planned. In response 

to our questions, DOE stated that the PCAST report 

completely satisfies this recommendation. Also, the 

reported status does not indicate what the results of 

the February 2003 study have been. For example, the 

study makes six specific recommendations to 

address the four areas where technological progress 

could have a potentially significant impact.

4-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

conduct a review of current 

funding and historic performance 

of energy efficiency research and 

development programs in light of 

the recommendations of this 

report. Based on this review, the 

Secretary of Energy is then 

directed to propose appropriate 

funding of those research and 

development programs that are 

performance-based and 

modeled as public-private 

partnerships.

Implemented: In 2002, DOE completed a full 

review of all energy efficiency research and 

development programs. After a series of 

public meetings and receipt of other public 

comments, a report addressing the strengths 

and weaknesses of these programs was 

released. The findings focused management 

on the need for reorganization. Research that 

was performed in multiple areas was 

consolidated into one office. This led, for 

example, to the establishment of the 

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure 

Technologies program and the transfer of the 

Zero-Energy Buildings design activity from the 

Solar program to the Buildings Technologies 

program. Moreover, layers of management 

were reduced so that all programs would have 

a more direct link to senior management and 

individual program managers would have 

greater accountability.

DOE reports it completed a review with findings that 

focused management on the need for reorganization. 

However, the reported status does not indicate how 

this review addressed the recommendation to "review 

current funding and historic performance of energy 

efficiency research and development programs in 

light of the recommendations of the report.” For 

example, outside of the reorganization, it is not clear 

how research efforts have changed and what 

developments have been made. In addition, DOE 

completed a detailed report on DOE programs. 

However, there are other energy-efficiency research 

and development activities, funded by the federal 

government through agencies such as the National 

Science Foundation, that were not addressed by the 

review. See related recommendation 6-3 on 

renewable energy funding.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 72 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

promote greater energy 

efficiency: (1) expand the Energy 

Star Program beyond office 

buildings to include schools, 

retail buildings, health care 

facilities, and homes; (2) extend 

the Energy Star labeling program 

to additional products; 

appliances, and services; (3) 

strengthen DOE public education 

programs relating to energy 

efficiency.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Under the 

Bush Administration, the DOE/EPA Energy 

Star program has been expanded to include 

home ventilation fans, small commercial 

HVAC units, ceiling fans, reach-in commercial 

refrigerators, portable telephones, home 

insulation and air leak sealing, commercial 

cooking equipment, and vending machines. 

Energy Star specifications have been 

upgraded for residential windows, compact 

fluorescent bulbs, residential light fixtures, 

central air conditioners, televisions, and 

VCRs. The Energy Star program has also 

been extended to new categories of 

commercial buildings, including hospitals, 

supermarkets, hotels, financial centers, bank 

branches, courthouses, warehouses, and 

residence halls. DOE has launched several 

public awareness campaigns to help 

consumers and businesses save energy, 

including the DOE Energy Savers campaign 

to educate consumers and businesses on 

smart energy use. In May 2004, DOE and the 

Alliance to Save Energy initiated a “Powerful 

Savings” campaign to provide consumers with 

the information to make smart energy choices. 

In December 2004, DOE launched a new Web 

site, www.EnergySavingTips.gov, as a 

consumer-friendly portal to detail energysaving information from various federal 

agencies.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 73 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

appliances: 

• Support the appliance 

standards program for covered 

products, setting higher 

standards where 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

• Expand the scope of the 

appliance standards program, 

setting standards for additional 

appliances where 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In April 

2001, DOE approved energy efficiency 

standards for clothes washers and water 

heaters and in 2004 DOE finalized new 

Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio standards 

for central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

Further, DOE has issued advanced notices of 

proposed rulemaking for new energy 

efficiency standards covering (1) residential 

furnaces and boilers, (2) certain classes of 

commercial central air conditioners, and (3) 

electric distribution transformers. Public 

meetings have been held, and DOE is 

assessing comments from those meetings. 

DOE has received public comments and is 

working on its next steps in the standardsetting process.

The energy efficiency standards for clothes washers 

and water heaters was completed in April 2001, 

before the NEP was released in May 2001. Since the 

NEP's release, new standards for residential central 

air conditioners were finalized with an effective date of 

2006. These standards have been in process since at 

least FY 2000. During FY 2006, DOE will focus on 

developing Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for 

energy efficiency standards for three priority products: 

(1) residential furnaces and boilers, (2) certain 

classes of commercial air conditioners, and (3) 

electric distribution transformers. DOE has requested 

$8.3 million in FY 2006 to develop standards. This is a 

19 percent decrease from FY 2005 funding of $10.1 

million (FY 2004 funding was about $10.3 million; FY 

2000 funding was about $10.5 million). National 

appliance standards have been statutorily mandated 

by a series of laws dating back to enactment of the 

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987. 

DOE provided a schedule of the rulemaking status for 

updates to the appliance standards in its FY 2006 

budget request for Interior and Related Agencies (pp. 

430-431). According to DOE, the schedule is 

incomplete, but it lists the majority of the schedule. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 74 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct heads of executive 

departments and agencies to 

take appropriate actions to 

conserve energy use at their 

facilities to the maximum extent 

consistent with the effective 

discharge of public 

responsibilities. Agencies 

located in regions where 

electricity shortages are possible 

should conserve, especially 

during periods of peak demand. 

Agencies should report to the 

President, through the Secretary 

of Energy, within 30 days on the 

conservation actions taken.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In 2001, 

President Bush directed executive branch 

departments and agencies to use energy 

more efficiently. A report, Energy 

Conservation Actions Taken at Federal 

Government Facilities, was subsequently sent 

to the President outlining actions taken by 

federal agencies to reduce energy 

consumption, including updating and 

implementing agency Energy Management 

Plans, implementing immediate measures to 

reduce peak load, and participating in the May 

2001 Load Reduction Test conducted by 

California. DOE’s Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) provides 

technical and financial energy assistance to 

government agencies. FEMP has a formal 

contact list to access all Federal Building 

Managers. With this list and an inventory of 

potential back-up supply and demand-side 

options, federal agencies can be requested to 

adjust consumption in areas of energy 

shortages. Each year, the White House has 

honored energy management teams from 

federal agencies, including the Department of 

Defense, HHS, and the U.S. Postal Service, 

for their dedication and leadership in 

conserving energy.

The reported status does not provide information on 

federal conservation goals, agency-reported actions 

or progress made toward those goals, or the costs 

and benefits of achieving those goals. For example, 

one federal government goal is to reduce energy use 

in buildings by 35 percent in 2010 from a baseline 

year of 1985. According to DOE, the most recent 

report on federal programs is a September 2004 

report entitled Federal Government Energy 

Management and Conservation Programs for Fiscal 

Year 2002. This report indicated that energy 

consumption for buildings in FY 2002 was about 24 

percent less than the FY 1985 base year.

4-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

to encourage increased energy 

efficiency through combined heat 

and power (CHP) projects by 

shortening the depreciation life 

for CHP projects or providing 

investment tax credits.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed an 

investment tax credit for qualified CHP 

projects. Congress considered, but did not 

enact, legislation that would have provided 

such a tax credit.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 75 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-7: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

work with local and state 

governments to promote the use 

of well-designed CHP and other 

clean power generation at 

brownfields sites, consistent with 

the local communities’ interests. 

EPA will also work to clarify 

liability issues if they are raised 

at a particular site.

Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA has 

established a Combined Heat and Power 

partnership that now works with more than 

100 organizations to promote CHP projects 

across the country. Through EPA’s 

CHP/Brownfields Initiative, two brownfields 

communities have been selected to receive 

CHP/clean energy technical assistance, and 

EPA has established a Web site that includes 

a CHP/clean energy screening tool for 

brownfields stakeholders. In addition, in 2002, 

DOE provided assistance to Iowa to co-fund 

feasibility studies and engineering work to 

accelerate installation of CHP facilities at 

brownfields sites.

None.

4-8: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

promote CHP through flexibility 

in environmental permitting.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE and 

EPA have worked together to organize 

regional CHP Initiatives that foster the use of 

CHP, develop tools and services to support 

the development of new projects, and address 

permitting and other barriers within their 

regions. Several states have issued permitting 

rules or are drafting permitting rules that 

address CHP. EPA has developed a 

handbook, Output-based Regulations: A 

Handbook for Regulators, to assist air 

regulators in developing regulations that 

recognize the pollution prevention benefits of 

efficient energy generation, like CHP, and 

renewable energy technologies. EPA 

continues to work with key states to 

investigate output-based approaches, 

providing technical support.

See related recommendation 6-13.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 76 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-9: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of 

Transportation to: 

• Review and provide 

recommendations on 

establishing Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy (CAFE) 

standards with due 

consideration of the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

study to be released in July 

2001. Responsibly crafted 

CAFE standards should 

increase efficiency without 

negatively impacting the U.S. 

automotive industry. The 

determination of future fuel 

economy standards must 

therefore be addressed 

analytically and based on 

sound science. 

• Consider passenger safety, 

economic concerns, and 

disparate impact on the U.S. 

versus foreign fleet of 

automobiles. 

• Look at other market-based 

approaches to increasing the 

national average fuel economy 

of new motor vehicles.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Following 

extensive review of the NAS fuel economy 

report, Transportation Secretary Norman 

Mineta sent a letter to Congress in 2001 

asking Congress to remove restrictions on 

implementing new CAFE standards, and 

calling on Congress to allow reform of the 

CAFE system consistent with the NAS 

recommendations. In 2003, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) finalized regulations increasing 

CAFE standards for light trucks, from the 

current level of 20.7 mpg to 21.0 mpg for 

model year 2005, 21.6 mpg for 2006, and 22.2 

mpg for 2007. The new standards are 

expected to save approximately 3.6 billion 

gallons of gasoline over the lifetime of these 

vehicles. In addition, on December 29, 2003, 

NHTSA issued an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking to consider revisions to 

the CAFE program within the scope of current 

legislation to address some key issues 

identified by the NAS.

The status report does not provide information on 

what has happened since December 29, 2003, when 

NHSTA issued an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking to consider revisions to the CAFE 

program within the scope of current legislation to 

address some key issues identified by the NAS. The 

Department of Transportation (DOT) commented on a 

draft of this report that NHTSA is currently preparing a 

further light truck rulemaking, covering the years 2008 

and beyond, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

appear in the near future. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 77 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-10: The new NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of 

Transportation to review and 

promote congestion mitigation 

technologies and strategies and 

work with Congress on 

legislation to implement these 

strategies.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

Department of Transportation, through the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has 

offered public and private owners of highways 

a number of tools to reduce growing highway 

congestion. The most important of these is a 

15-state pilot program (which the 

Administration has proposed to expand to all 

states) that permits the imposition of variable 

pricing on all federal-aid highways, including 

the interstate system. By giving drivers a 

choice to pay more for premium “high-speed” 

service, this pilot has received widespread 

public acceptance and has significantly 

reduced congestion on the roads incorporated 

into the program. FHWA is also engaged in 

significant other congestion relief activities, 

including guidance and training products on 

reducing delays caused by traffic incidents 

and in work zones; implementing and 

sustaining congestion partnerships in 

metropolitan areas; implementing traveler 

information services such as 511 telephone 

numbers; anticipating and mitigating the 

transportation impacts of adverse weather; 

reducing delays at traffic signals; and 

developing and using congestion performance 

measures.

The recommendation calls for legislation to implement 

these strategies, but the status report does not 

address whether any related legislation has been 

proposed or enacted. DOE, in response to our 

questions about related legislation, noted that the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2003 proposed an array 

of congestion relief measures.

4-11: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

on legislation to increase energy 

efficiency with a tax credit for 

fuel-efficient vehicles. The NEPD 

Group recommends that a 

temporary, efficiency-based 

income tax credit be available for 

purchase of new hybrid fuel cell 

vehicles between 2002 and 

2007.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget, and every 

subsequent budget request, proposed a tax 

credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. 

Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation that would have provided such a 

tax credit.

See duplicate recommendation 6-12. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 78 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-12: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct all agencies to use 

technological advances to better 

protect our environment. 

(1) The Administration remains 

committed to investing in 

Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) and encourages 

the private sector to invest in ITS 

applications. This DOT program 

funds the development of 

improved transportation 

infrastructure that will reduce 

congestion, such as traveler 

information/navigation systems, 

freeway management, and 

electronic toll collection. ITS 

applications reduce fuel 

associated with travel. 

(2) The Administration remains 

committed to the DOT’s fuel-cellpowered transit bus program, 

authored by the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21). This program 

demonstrates the viability of fuelcell power plants for transit bus 

applications. 

(3) The Administration remains 

committed to the Clean Buses 

Program. TEA-21 establishes a 

new clean fuel formula grant 

program, which provides an 

opportunity to accelerate the 

introduction of advanced bus 

propulsion technologies into the 

mainstream of the nation’s transit 

fleet.

Implemented; activities ongoing: 

(1) DOT continues to lead in deploying 

integrated ITS infrastructure in metropolitan 

areas, with 62 metropolitan areas now at a 

medium to high level of deployment. Recently, 

nine major initiatives that comprise the 

centerpiece of the ITS program were 

announced. 

(2) DOT’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Bus 

Initiative focuses on improving the energy 

efficiency, emissions, performance, and costeffectiveness of 40-foot, heavy-duty transit 

buses. The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) has collaborated with DOE and the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) on the development of a data 

collection and evaluation plan for the fuel cell 

bus demonstration efforts. 

(3) The DOT Clean Buses Program works to 

accelerate introduction of advanced bus 

propulsion technologies into the mainstream 

of the nation’s transit fleet.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 79 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-13: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct EPA and DOT to develop 

ways to reduce demand for 

petroleum transportation fuels by 

working with the trucking industry 

to establish a program to reduce 

emissions and fuel consumption 

from long-haul trucks at truck 

stops by implementing 

alternatives to idling, such as 

electrification and auxiliary 

power units at truck stops along 

interstate highways. EPA and 

DOT will develop partnership 

agreements with trucking fleets, 

truck stops, and manufacturers 

of idle-reducing technologies 

(e.g., portable auxiliary packs, 

electrification) to install and use 

low emission-idling technologies.

Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA, 

DOT, and DOE are working together on “truck 

stop electrification,” a program that will permit 

idling trucks to shut down their engines and 

run lights, heating, and air conditioning from 

on-site electricity. This program promises 

reductions in truck fuel consumption and 

emissions. Through a series of workshops 

and conferences aimed at anti-idling and truck 

stop electrification (TSE), DOT, EPA, and 

DOE are developing TSE codes and 

standards that will pave the way for new 

technologies to reduce truck idling. EPA has 

created the National Idle-Free Corridors 

Program designed to create TSE at truck 

stops and travel centers along major interstate 

highways. EPA has awarded over $1 million in 

grants for the installation of TSE technology at 

nine truck stops around the United States. 

There are currently over 40 idling-control 

projects around the country.

The reported status does not indicate whether there 

are any measures of reductions in truck fuel 

consumption and emissions yet. It is not clear 

whether a baseline measure and goals have been 

established.

4-14: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

establish a national priority for 

improving energy efficiency. The 

priority would be to improve the 

energy intensity of the U.S. 

economy as measured by the 

amount of energy required for 

each dollar of economic 

productivity. This increased 

efficiency should be pursued 

through the combined efforts of 

industry; consumers; and 

federal, state, and local 

governments.

Implemented: DOE has developed a Webbased energy intensity indicator that can be 

used to track the energy intensity of the 

United States, measured by the amount of 

energy required for each dollar of economic 

productivity. DOE’s Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) Web site has a public 

energy efficiency page, which shows energy 

intensity in various sectors of the economy. 

Further, DOE continues to pursue a portfolio 

of efforts to improve energy efficiency in all 

sectors of the economy, ranging from 

research and development activities, such as 

the FreedomCAR Program and the Hydrogen 

Fuel Initiative, to the low-income 

Weatherization program and deployment 

programs such as Energy Star.

The status report does not indicate the actual results 

found when using the indicator on trends in the 

amount of energy required for each dollar of 

economic productivity. In responding to our questions 

about the indicator results, DOE stated that the 

indicator suggests that while Gross Domestic Product 

has increased more than six-fold over the last 50 

years, total energy consumption has increased only 

three-fold. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 80 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

4-15: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

develop and implement a 

strategy to increase public 

awareness of the sizable savings 

that energy efficiency offers to 

homeowners across the country. 

Typical homeowners can save 

about 30 percent (about $400) a 

year on their home energy bill by 

using Energy Star-labeled 

products.

Implemented; activities ongoing: EPA has 

launched several public awareness 

campaigns to help consumers and 

businesses save energy. EPA’s 2003 “Change 

a Light, Change the World” campaign 

challenges Americans to switch to lighting 

products that save energy. For 2004, EPA 

started the “Cool Change Campaign” to 

encourage homeowners to learn how to 

increase their comfort at home during the 

summer months and save energy.

The reported status does not provide any information 

on homeowners’ savings achieved through this 

program. See related energy education 

recommendations 2-1 and 6-6. 

5-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of Energy 

and the Interior to promote 

enhanced oil and gas recovery 

from existing wells through new 

technology.

Implemented; activities ongoing: New drillpipe system technology, developed with 

DOE’s support, will allow operators to produce 

oil and gas more efficiently by being able to 

steer the drill bit more precisely toward oiland gas-bearing sweet spots and away from 

less productive areas. DOE’s programs have 

also helped develop new technology to map 

flow of groundwater, find previously 

overlooked oil deposits, reduce the cost of 

high angle wells, provide a high-speed data 

link for better real time drilling decisions, 

improve high temperature electronic 

components for use in deep gas drilling, 

improve measurement-while-drilling tools to 

improve drilling decisions, improve sealing of 

drill pipe annuli at high temperatures and 

pressures, minimize the impact of the 

conventional drilling process on the reservoir 

rock, and improve fundamental understanding 

of physical mechanisms during drilling of 

deeper hard-rock.

The reported status does not address DOI programs. 

For example, DOI’s MMS Technology Assessment 

and Research Program is participating in several 

projects aimed at improving oil and gas recovery.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 81 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

improve oil and gas exploration 

technology through continued 

partnership with public and 

private entities.

Implemented; activities ongoing: To gain 

access to the estimated 125 trillion cubic feet 

of domestic natural gas in formations deeper 

than 15,000 feet below the surface, DOE has 

sponsored “Deep Trek” drilling technology 

programs with the goal of developing a 

"smart" drilling system tough enough to 

withstand the extreme temperatures, 

pressures, and corrosive conditions of deep 

reservoirs, yet economical enough to make 

the gas affordable to produce. In 2003, DOE 

announced the successful deployment of the 

environmentally sensitive prototype “Arctic 

Platform,” a lightweight, 100-by-100-foot 

aluminum drilling platform elevated 12 feet 

above the frozen tundra on specially designed 

steel legs. This compact and modular concept 

could one day eliminate the need for gravel 

pads and the temporary ice roads and ice 

pads that oil companies now must use on the 

North Slope. It could also be used in the lower 

48 states in ecologically fragile areas, such as 

wetlands. DOE’s Ocean Drilling Program 

recovered almost 2 miles of methane hydrate 

core off the coast of Oregon, including 

significant amounts of gas hydrates in 

sediments collected in DOE-developed 

pressurized containers.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 82 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to examine land status 

and lease stipulation 

impediments to federal oil and 

gas leasing, and review and 

modify those where opportunities 

exist (consistent with the law, 

good environmental practice, 

and balanced use of other 

resources):

• Expedite the ongoing Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act 

study of impediments to federal 

oil and gas exploration and 

development. 

• Review public lands 

withdrawals and lease 

stipulations, with full public 

consultation, especially with the 

people in the region, to 

consider modifications where 

appropriate.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

Secretary of the Interior reported on land 

status and lease stipulation impediments to 

federal oil and gas leasing for five initial oil 

and gas basins in a study completed in 

January 2003. The “EPCA inventory” grouped 

approximately 1,000 different lease 

stipulations used by federal land management 

agencies into three broad levels of constraint: 

lands where leasing is permitted under 

standard stipulations; lands where leasing is 

permitted with increasing limitations on 

access, principally seasonal occupancy 

restrictions; and lands where oil and gas 

leasing is prohibited. The analysis also 

included consideration of exceptions to 

stipulations granted after a review of on-theground conditions and the use of modern 

technologies such as directional drilling. The 

inventory results are being integrated into the 

land use planning and use authorization 

programs. Also completed was the Powder 

River Basin Study on coal bed methane 

development and the economics of produced 

water management. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) field managers have 

been directed to look beyond the boundaries 

of their units to ensure that the restrictions 

they impose are reasonable in light of the 

study and practices at nearby comparable 

units.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 83 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to consider economic 

incentives for environmentally 

sound offshore oil and gas 

development where warranted by 

specific circumstances: explore 

opportunities for royalty 

reductions, consistent with 

ensuring a fair return to the 

public where warranted for 

enhanced oil and gas recovery; 

for reduction of risk associated 

with production in frontier areas 

or deep gas formations; and for 

development of small fields that 

would otherwise be uneconomic.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Gulf of 

Mexico lease sales offer automatic royalty 

relief for development in deepwater. Similar 

royalty relief incentives for the Beaufort Sea 

and Cook Inlet (Alaska Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS)) were offered for the 2003 and 

2004 lease sales. Final rules have been 

published for supplemental royalty relief for 

deepwater leases and for lease term 

extensions for subsalt exploration. In addition, 

a final rule was published in January 2004 that 

would extend royalty relief to natural gas from 

deep formations in shallow waters of the Gulf 

of Mexico for existing OCS leases issued 

before 2001.

The reported status does not provide information on 

the amount of royalty relief that has been provided or 

how that has changed over time. For example, about 

90 percent of the active leases in the Gulf of Mexico 

as of December 2004 have royalty relief. Gulf of 

Mexico leases could earn royalty relief valued 

between $1 and $2 billion annually through 2013. 

Also, it is not clear if any measures of how royalty 

relief encourages enhanced oil and gas recovery 

have been developed. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, MMS stated that the reference to the $1 to 

$2 billion value of royalty incentives should be 

qualified because of the effects of price threshold 

restrictions on whether production on qualified leases 

will realize the incentive. They noted that due to 

current high prices, the value of annual royalty relief is 

likely to be considerably less. MMS estimated that 

less than one-sixth of total oil and gas production will 

be royalty free because prices exceed the thresholds 

and are expected to exceed thesholds for the 

forseeable future. 

5-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce and the Interior to 

reexamine the current federal 

legal and policy regime (statutes, 

regulations, and executive 

orders) to determine if changes 

are needed regarding energyrelated activities and the siting of 

energy facilities in the coastal 

zone and on the OCS.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior 

issued in December 2000 a final published 

rule for revision of Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) federal consistency regulations, 

and are reviewing CZMA regulations to 

determine if further changes are needed to 

provide greater clarity and predictability. In 

addition, DOI and DOC are working as equal 

partners on the Marine Protected Areas 

executive order. NOAA and DOI have joined in 

the cataloging of Marine Managed Areas 

(MMA) and establishment of the Marine 

Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee.

The status report does not provide information on the 

status of the review of CZMA regulations to determine 

if further changes are needed to provide greater 

clarity and predictability. Also, it is not clear when the 

review started or if there is an end date for the review.

5-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to continue OCS oil and 

gas leasing and approval of 

exploration and development 

plans on predictable schedules.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOI 

completed the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program for 2002-07 in July 2002. 

The program proposed up to 20 lease sales in 

the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska. DOI’s 

MMS continues to process exploration and 

development plans in a timely manner. The 

Northstar Unit produced the first federal oil 

from the Alaska OCS. Several exploration 

plans in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico have been 

approved and implemented, leading to four 

new discoveries in the deepwater Eastern 

Gulf.

The status report does not indicate what the criteria 

or goals are for processing exploration and 

development plans in a timely manner. In commenting 

on a draft of this report, MMS reported that it has 

criteria and goals for processing exploration and 

development plans. The performance measures 

published in the bureau operational plan are to 

process 100 percent of exploration plans in less than 

30 days; and to process 100 percent of development 

plans in less than 120 days.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 84 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-7: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to consider additional 

environmentally responsible oil 

and gas development, based on 

sound science and the best 

available technology, through 

further lease sales in the 

National Petroleum ReserveAlaska (NPR-A). Such 

consideration should include 

areas not currently leased within 

the northeast corner of the 

reserve.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Further 

lease sales in the NPR-A are ahead of 

schedule. BLM held a lease sale in June 2002 

for the Northeast Sector of NPR-A. Winning 

bids totaled $64 million on 579,000 acres. DOI 

also published a final rule for lease utilization, 

allowing operators to utilize leases to provide 

for efficient and environmentally sound 

resource recovery. BLM also finalized an EIS 

for the Northwest Sector of NPR-A in 2004.

None.

5-8: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to work with Congress to 

authorize exploration and, if 

resources are discovered, 

development of the 1002 Area of 

ANWR. Congress should require 

the use of the best available 

technology and should require 

that activities will result in no 

significant adverse impact to the 

surrounding environment.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have proposed to authorize 

environmentally sensitive exploration and, if 

resources are discovered, development of the 

1002 Area of ANWR. Congress considered, 

but did not enact legislation that would have 

provided authorization for development of the 

1002 Area of ANWR.

None.

5-9: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to work with Congress 

and the State of Alaska to put in 

place the most expeditious 

process for renewal of the TransAlaska Pipeline System rights-ofway to ensure that Alaskan oil 

continues to flow uninterrupted to 

the west coast of the United 

States.

Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale Norton 

approved a 30-year renewal of the federal 

right-of-way lease for the Trans-Alaska oil 

pipeline, effective January 23, 2004.

See duplicate recommendation 7-5.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 85 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-10: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

propose comprehensive 

electricity legislation that 

promotes competition, protects 

consumers, enhances reliability, 

promotes renewable energy, 

improves efficiency, repeals the 

Public Utility Holding Company 

Act, and reforms the Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act.

Implemented in modified form; legislation 

supported: In both the 107th and 108th 

Congresses, the Administration supported 

comprehensive electricity reform legislation 

that promotes competition, protects 

consumers, enhances reliability, promotes 

renewable energy, improves energy efficiency, 

enhances the transmission and distribution 

infrastructure, repeals the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act of 1935, and reforms 

the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 

1978. Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation to address these important needs.

None.

5-11: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

encourage FERC to use its 

existing statutory authority to 

promote competition and 

encourage investment in 

transmission facilities.

Implemented; activities ongoing: FERC 

promotes competition and encourages 

investment through the use of effective market 

rules administered by independent grid and 

market managers. FERC’s April 2003 White 

Paper on the wholesale market emphasized 

the need for independent transmission system 

and market operations, while underscoring an 

increasingly flexible approach to regional 

needs. The White Paper also highlighted 

other key principles to increase the benefits of 

wholesale electric competition for end-use 

customers. FERC encourages the continued 

development of Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent System 

Operators with sound market rules that 

reduce the costs of “seams” and inconsistent 

practices between regions, eliminate 

discriminatory or preferential practices, 

monitor and address the exercise of market 

power, and encourage new investment in the 

grid.

The status report does not provide information on the 

extent to which FERC’s efforts have resulted in 

investment in transmission facilities. FERC has a goal 

to foster nationwide competitive energy markets as a 

substitute for traditional regulation.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 86 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-12: The NEPD Group 

recognizes the importance of 

looking to technology to help us 

meet the goals of increasing 

electricity generation while 

protecting our environment. To 

that end, the NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct DOE to continue to 

develop advanced clean coal 

technology by 

(1) investing $2 billion over 10 

years to fund research in clean 

coal technologies, 

(2) supporting a permanent 

extension of the existing 

research and development tax 

credit, 

(3) directing federal agencies to 

explore regulatory approaches 

that will encourage 

advancements in environmental 

technology.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Including 

the funds proposed for clean coal technology 

programs contained in the President’s FY 

2005 budget request, the Administration is on 

track to exceed the President’s commitment to 

clean coal funding. This includes the 

FutureGen project, a $1 billion cost-shared 

project with the private sector to build and 

operate the world’s first coal-fired power and 

hydrogen producing plant with near-zero 

emissions. The President's FY 2005 budget 

also recommended permanent extension of 

the research and development investment tax 

credit. Finally, the President’s Clear Skies 

legislation largely eliminates the need for 

traditional new source review for power plants, 

an impediment to environmental technology 

investments.

Permanent extension of the research and 

development investment tax credit has been 

proposed, but not enacted. Clear Skies legislation has 

been proposed, but not enacted. EPA is pursuing 

related rulemaking. See related recommendations 

3-1 and 5-13.

5-13: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct federal agencies to provide 

greater regulatory certainty 

relating to coal electricity 

generation through clear policies 

that are easily applied to 

business decisions.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Using a 

proven, market-based approach that can save 

American consumers millions of dollars in 

compliance costs, the Bush Administrations’ 

Clear Skies proposal will cut air pollution 

emissions from electric power plants by 

approximately 70 percent over 15 years. This 

historic proposal will bring cleaner air to 

Americans faster, more reliably, and more 

cost-effectively than under current law, and it 

would also, for the first time, reduce emissions 

of mercury from electric power plants. This 

legislation, if enacted into law, could provide a 

more certain regulatory environment and 

encourage new investments by assuring a 

future for coal electricity generation in our 

Nation’s energy mix.

The reported status does not indicate what activities 

are ongoing at federal agencies to provide greater 

regulatory certainty as mentioned in the 

recommendation.

Clear Skies legislation was reintroduced earlier this 

year as S. 131. However, in the absence of the 

legislation, EPA is implementing two rules with similar 

goals as Clear Skies. In March 2005, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, which addresses sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The reduction goals for 

this rule are similar to those under Clear Skies, but it 

only affects facilities in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia, while Clear Skies would have 

been a national program. The second is the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule, which EPA issued later in March 2005. 

This rule would limit mercury emissions to similar 

levels as the Clear Skies legislation. However, it is 

possible that implementation of a mercury rule may 

be delayed by litigation. See related 

recommendations 3-1 and 5-12. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 87 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-14: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

support the expansion of nuclear 

energy in the United States as a 

major component of our national 

energy policy. Following are 

specific components of the 

recommendation: 

(1) Encourage the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to 

ensure that safety and 

environmental protection are 

high priorities as they prepare to 

evaluate and expedite 

applications for licensing new 

advanced-technology nuclear 

reactors. 

(2) Encourage NRC to facilitate 

efforts by utilities to expand 

nuclear energy generation in the 

United States by uprating 

existing nuclear plants safely. 

(3) Encourage NRC to relicense 

existing nuclear plants that meet 

or exceed safety standards. 

(4) Direct the Secretary of 

Energy and the EPA 

Administrator to assess the 

potential of nuclear energy to 

improve air quality. 

(5) Increase resources as 

necessary for nuclear safety 

enforcement in light of the 

potential increase in generation. 

(6) Use the best science to 

provide a deep geologic 

repository for nuclear waste. 

(7) Support legislation clarifying 

that qualified funds set aside by 

plant owners for eventual 

decommissioning will not be 

taxed as part of the transaction. 

(8) Support legislation to extend 

the Price–Anderson Act.

Implemented; legislation proposed: NRC 

continues to review current regulatory 

requirements and procedures that will be 

applicable to new plant licensing to ensure 

that they are safe, environmentally protective, 

streamlined, and consistent with more recent 

operating history. Through DOE’s Nuclear 

Power 2010 Program, the Administration is 

funding demonstrations using the new NRC 

expedited licensing process for new nuclear 

plants. In the last 15 years, NRC has 

approved almost 90 power uprates, which 

represent an additional 3,700 megawatts 

electric (MWe) on the electrical grid or an 

equivalent of almost four “additional” nuclear 

power plants. Applications for future uprates 

totaling just over 1,000 MWe are pending 

before NRC. NRC has issued renewed 

licenses for 30 units at 14 sites and has 

license renewal applications under review for 

another 16 units at 8 sites. Following 

congressional approval of the Yucca Mountain 

repository, DOE has advanced the process of 

designing, licensing, and developing the site. 

NRC is undertaking an independent site 

review, and DOE plans to file a license 

application with NRC in 2005. The President’s 

FY 2003 budget and subsequent budget 

requests have proposed to clarify the tax-free 

status of funds that are set aside for eventual 

decommissioning of nuclear plants. Congress 

has considered, but has not yet enacted, 

legislation that would have included this 

clarification or provided a long-term extension 

of the Price-Anderson Act.

The status report does not address the part of the 

recommendation that directs the Secretary of Energy 

and the EPA Administrator to assess the potential of 

nuclear energy to improve air quality. We found that 

EPA planned to complete the initial draft of the 

Nuclear Energy and Air Quality report, including EPA 

and DOE management review, by the spring of 2004. 

By the summer of 2004, EPA planned to release the 

final study conclusions. 

Regarding NRC, the commission did not participate in 

the development of this recommendation nor is NRC 

tasked with implementation of this recommendation. 

The NRC programs cited in the status report 

represent some of the NRC programs associated with 

nuclear energy. Other associated programs include 

nuclear materials safety, reactor safety research, and 

other nuclear waste safety. 

Regarding Yucca Mountain, DOE missed a January 

31, 1998, contractual deadline to begin accepting 

nuclear waste from utilities. About 60 lawsuits are 

pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for 

damages for failure of the government to meet that 

obligation. The federal government faces a potential 

liability estimated by industry to be as high as $50 

billion. DOE believes that the government’s potential 

liability is more likely in the range of $2 to $3 billion, if 

the facility were to open in 2010. The government’s 

plan to dispose of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain 

has been the subject of extensive litigation and 

debate over many years. In July 2004, a federal 

appeals court rejected the radiation protection 

standard established by EPA for the site. Most 

recently, after the status report was issued, on March 

16, 2005, the Secretary of Energy announced that 

government employees (U.S. Geological Survey) may 

have falsified documents related to computer 

modeling for water infiltration and climate at the site. 

The Secretary stated that DOE has initiated a 

scientific investigation of these data and 

documentation that was part of this modeling activity. 

He further stated that in addition, he referred the 

matter to DOE’s Office of Inspector General for a full 

investigation. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 88 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-15: The NEPD Group 

recommends that, in the context 

of developing advanced nuclear 

fuel cycles and next generation 

technologies for nuclear energy, 

the United States should 

reexamine its policies to allow for 

research, development, and 

deployment of fuel conditioning 

methods (such as 

pyroprocessing) that reduce 

waste streams and enhance 

proliferation resistance. In doing 

so, the United States will 

continue to discourage the 

accumulation of separated 

plutonium, worldwide.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE’s 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) 

Program develops advanced fuel cycle 

technologies, which include spent fuel 

treatment, advanced fuels, and transmutation 

technologies, for application to current 

operating commercial reactors, advanced light 

water reactors, and Generation IV nuclear 

energy systems.

The status report does not provide information on 

whether the United States has reexamined its policies 

to allow for research, development, and deployment 

of fuel conditioning methods (such as 

pyroprocessing) that reduce waste streams and 

enhance proliferation resistance. It is not clear how 

the programs listed in the status report address this 

recommendation. Also, no program goals or results 

are discussed. In response to our question about the 

status of this recommendation, DOE stated that prior 

to the NEP report in May 2001, U.S. research and 

development of fuel conditioning methods was limited 

by the requirements to not encourage the civil use of 

plutonium and to not engage in plutonium 

reprocessing for either nuclear power or nuclear 

explosive purposes. Following publication of the NEP 

report, United States policy on research and 

development of fuel conditioning technologies was 

changed to permit research in the context of 

developing advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear 

fuel cycle, and nuclear reactor technologies. 

5-16: The United States should 

also consider technologies (in 

collaboration with international 

partners with highly developed 

fuel cycles and a record of close 

cooperation) to develop 

reprocessing and fuel treatment 

technologies that are cleaner, 

more efficient, less waste 

intensive, and more proliferationresistant.

Implemented; activities ongoing: 

Considerable expertise in nuclear fuel-cycle 

technologies has been developed 

internationally, and the potential for significant 

cooperation and collaboration is very high. 

DOE is currently collaborating with France, 

Switzerland, the European Commission, and 

the Republic of Korea in separations, fuels, 

transmutation, and test facilities. Other 

potential international partners include Japan, 

South Africa, Canada, and Brazil.

It is not clear from the status report what DOE 

programs are involved and what results have been 

achieved. In response to our question about the 

status of this recommendation, DOE stated that 

technologies for reprocessing and fuel treatment 

technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less 

waste intensive, and more proliferation-resistant have 

not been developed and research is continuing. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 89 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

5-17: The NEPD Group 

recognizes there is a need to 

reduce the time and cost of the 

hydropower licensing process. 

The NEPD Group recommends 

that the President encourage 

FERC and direct federal 

resource agencies to make the 

licensing process more clear and 

efficient, while preserving 

environmental goals. In addition, 

the NEPD Group recognizes the 

importance of optimizing the 

efficiency and reliability of 

existing hydropower facilities and 

will encourage the Administration 

to adopt efforts toward that end. 

• Support administrative and 

legislative reform of the 

hydropower licensing process. 

• Direct federal resource 

agencies to reach interagency 

agreement on conflicting 

mandatory license conditions 

before they submit their 

conditions to FERC for 

inclusion in a license. 

• Encourage FERC to adopt 

appropriate deadlines for its 

own actions during the 

licensing process.

Implemented; activities ongoing; 

legislation supported: In 2002, following 

consultation with stakeholders and other 

federal agencies, FERC developed a new, 

more efficient, Integrated Licensing Process 

(ILP) for the licensing of hydropower dams. To 

date, seven projects have elected to use the 

ILP process. Through these individual cases, 

the commission has identified ways of further 

reducing the redundancies related to 

commission and state environmental reviews. 

In addition, in September 2004, Commerce 

and DOI proposed to codify their existing 

mandatory condition review process 

consistent with FERC’s ILP, and DOI also 

proposed an administrative appeals process. 

The Administration has generally supported 

legislative initiatives to carry out this NEP 

recommendation.

The reported status does not make it clear if 

legislation has been proposed or what legislation has 

been supported to carry out this recommendation. In 

a previous report, we recommended that FERC 

inform Congress of the extent that time and cost data 

limitations restrict its ability to reach informed 

decisions on whether further administrative reforms or 

legislative changes are needed to shorten the 

hydropower licensing process or make it less costly. 

We also recommended that the commission work with 

other federal and state agencies and licensees to (1) 

collect complete and accurate data on processrelated time and costs by participant, project, and 

process step and (2) link time and costs to projects 

displaying similar characteristics in order to identify 

those project, process, and outcome characteristics 

that can increase the time and costs to obtain a 

license. In addition, we recommended that the 

commission (1) establish a schedule and firm 

deadlines for implementing the necessary 

enhancements to its management information 

systems that are required to track and analyze 

process-related time and costs and (2) share these 

data with other parties involved or interested in the 

process.a

FERC generally agreed with our characterization of 

the licensing process and the primary issues that 

affect time and costs. It also agreed that it does not 

systematically collect complete and accurate data on 

process-related time and costs by participant, project, 

and process step. However, FERC believes that these 

data are not needed to reach informed decisions on 

the effectiveness of recent reforms to the licensing 

process as well as the need for further reforms to the 

process. Rather, it thinks that it can address the 

salient issues by developing “targeted analyses” to 

determine major factors affecting licensing time and 

costs based, in part, on its “years of experience” with 

the licensing process. However, we continue to 

believe that good time and cost data are needed to 

reach good decisions. Without such data, it will not be 

possible for the commission to determine how much 

either can be reduced. Moreover, without these data 

and the ability to link time and costs to projects, 

processes, and outcomes, FERC increases the risk 

that any reforms that it recommends may not only not 

reduce process-related time and costs but also may 

result in unintended consequences to the outcomes 

of the process. FERC did not implement our 

recommendations.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 90 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Energy to reevaluate 

access limitations to federal 

lands in order to increase 

renewable energy production, 

such as biomass, wind, 

geothermal, and solar.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOI and 

DOE hosted two renewable energy 

conferences to provide a public forum to share 

ideas on increasing renewable energy 

development on federal lands. Information 

garnered at these conferences was published 

in August 2002 in an interagency report 

entitled White House Report in Response to 

the National Energy Policy Recommendations 

to Increase Renewable Energy Production on 

Federal Lands. In October 2002, BLM issued 

its Wind Policy to expedite the development of 

wind resources on public lands. In February 

2003, BLM and NREL issued a joint report, 

Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy 

on Public Lands, that will help federal land 

managers make decisions on prioritizing landuse activities that will increase development of 

renewable energy resources on BLM, tribal, 

and Forest Service lands in the West (except 

Alaska). NREL also is preparing an 

assessment of wind and solar energy 

potential on National Forest Service lands that 

should be ready later this year.

It is not clear what has changed because of these 

reports. For example, has renewable energy 

production increased on federal lands and have any 

baseline measures been established and comparison 

made? Also, it is not clear what access limitations 

have been reevaluated.

6-2: The NEPD Group supports 

the increase of $39.2 million in 

the FY 2002 budget amendment 

for DOE’s Energy Supply 

account that would provide 

increased support for research 

and development of renewable 

energy resources.

Implemented: For FY 2002, the total budget 

request for DOE's Energy Supply account, 

including renewable energy and related 

technologies, was $276.6 million. This figure 

included the original budget request of $237.5 

million and the supplemental request of $39.2 

million recommended in the NEP. Comparable 

figures for FYs 2003 and 2004 were $408 

million and $444 million, respectively.

Additional information is available on funding for 

renewable energy under DOE’s Energy Supply 

account. This account included funding for other 

activities outside of renewable programs, namely the 

electric energy systems program that strives to 

enhance electricity delivery. In fact about one-half 

($17.8 million) of the $39.2 million supplemental 

request was for the electric energy systems program. 

Compared with the total budget request of $276.6 

million in FY 2002, actual funding for this account was 

$373.2 million in FY 2001 and $385.6 million in FY 

2002.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 91 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

conduct a review of current 

funding and historic performance 

of renewable energy and 

alternative energy research and 

development programs in light of 

the recommendations of this 

report. Based on this review, the 

Secretary of Energy is then 

directed to propose appropriate 

funding of those research and 

development programs that are 

performance-based and are 

modeled as public-private 

partnerships.

Implemented: Program activities within 

DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) are conducted in 

partnership with the private sector, state and 

local government, DOE national laboratories, 

and universities. In July 2002, after a review of 

past funding and performance, EERE was 

reorganized to strengthen its focus on 

programs and these public-private 

partnerships. This reorganization, “Focused 

on Results: Streamlining and Integrating 

Program and Business Management for 

Better Performance,” is designed to create a 

more responsive performance-based 

research and development effort. The results 

of this reorganization have been reflected in 

recent budget submissions.

DOE reports it completed a review with findings that 

focused management on the need for reorganization. 

However, it is not clear how this review addressed the 

recommendation to conduct a review of renewable 

energy and alternative energy research and 

development programs in light of the 

recommendations of the NEP report. For example, 

outside of the reorganization, how have research 

efforts changed and what developments have been 

made? Also, DOE’s review focused on DOE 

programs, but there are other renewable energy and 

alternative energy research and development 

programs funded by the federal government through 

agencies, such as the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) and USDA, that were not addressed by the 

review. See related recommendation 4-2 on energy 

efficiency.

6-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

on legislation to expand the 

section 29 tax credit to make it 

available for new landfill methane 

projects. The credit could be 

tiered, depending on whether a 

landfill is already required by 

federal law to collect and flare its 

methane emissions due to local 

air pollution concerns.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President's FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed a tax 

credit for new landfill methane projects. 

Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation that would have provided such a 

tax credit. However, landfill methane projects 

were included in the extension of the tax credit 

for renewable electricity contained in the 

corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357) signed 

into law by the President in October 2004.

The status report does not make it clear why the 

status is characterized as “legislation proposed” when 

legislation has been enacted (Pub. L. No. 108-357). 

Also, DOE does not indicate how long the extension is 

for the tax credit for renewable energy. In response to 

our inquiry, DOE noted that Pub. L. No. 108-357 does 

expand the credit to landfill gas for power generation, 

but not for other applications that would be covered by 

legislation called for by this recommendation. 

However, it is still not clear what those other 

applications would be.

6-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to determine ways to 

reduce the delays in geothermal 

lease processing as part of the 

permitting review process.

Implemented: Since 2001, BLM has issued 

more than 200 new geothermal leases, a 

1,000 percent increase over the previous 4 

years. In 2001, BLM-Nevada issued an action 

plan for expediting the processing of 

geothermal leases. To help identify new 

candidate sites for geothermal development, 

BLM and DOE completed a collaborative 

resource assessment and prepared a report, 

Opportunities for Near-Term Geothermal 

Development on Public Lands in the Western 

United States, issued in April 2003. The report 

identifies 35 top-pick BLM sites in 18 planning 

units in 6 states as having high potential for 

near-term geothermal development.

The status report does not indicate how delays have 

been reduced or what actions BLM took to increase 

leases by 1,000 percent. Also, it is not clear whether 

baselines and performance measures for reducing 

delays have been established. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 92 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

develop a new renewable energy 

partnership program to help 

companies more easily buy 

renewable energy, as well as 

receive recognition for the 

environmental benefits of their 

purchase, and help consumers 

by promoting consumer choice 

programs that increase their 

knowledge about the 

environmental benefits of 

purchasing renewable energy.

Implemented: In 2001, EPA launched the 

Green Power Marketing Program with 21 

charter members. The Green Power 

Partnership encourages organizations to use 

renewable energy as a part of best-practice 

environmental management. The program 

now boasts 600 partners—including Fortune 

500 companies, federal agencies, state and 

local governments, nongovernmental 

organizations, and universities—committed to 

purchase some 2 billion kwh of electricity from 

“Green Power” sources. EPA also has 

developed a Green Power Web site, a 

comprehensive procurement guide and an 

online Green Power Locator to help 

consumers find Green Power suppliers.

The status report does not indicate whether a 

baseline and goal for increasing purchases of 

renewable energy has been established. No 

information is provided on how much of the 2 billion 

kwh has been purchased and whether this an annual 

goal or a longer term goal. Also, regarding efforts to 

increase their knowledge about the benefits of 

renewable energy, it is not clear how these efforts are 

related to other education programs outlined under 

recommendations 2-1 and 4-15.

6-7: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

on legislation to extend and 

expand tax credits for electricity 

produced using wind and 

biomass. The President’s budget 

request extends the present 1.7 

cents per kilowatt hour tax credit 

for electricity produced from wind 

and biomass; expands eligible 

biomass sources to include 

forest-related sources, 

agricultural sources, and certain 

urban sources; and allows a 

credit for electricity produced 

from biomass co-fired with coal.

Implemented; legislation enacted: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed 

extending and expanding the current Section 

45 tax credit for electricity produced from 

certain renewable sources, such as wind, 

solar, and biomass. Congress considered, but 

did not enact, legislation that would have 

provided such a tax credit. A 1-year extension 

of the tax credit for renewable electricity was 

contained in the corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No. 

108-357) signed into law by the President in 

October 2004.

The status report notes that tax credits are reported 

to be extended 1 year, but it is not clear from the 

status report whether any expansion of tax credits 

was enacted as called for in this recommendation. 

DOE considers this recommendation implemented by 

legislation enacted because it was extended 1 year. In 

providing techincal comments on a draft of this report, 

the Department of the Treasury noted that the 

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-

357) expanded the wind and biomass credit (code 

section 45) to include electricity produced from openloop biomass and several other energy sources. 

6-8: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

on legislation to provide a new 15 

percent tax credit for residential 

solar energy property, up to a 

maximum credit of $2,000.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed a tax 

credit for residential solar energy investments. 

Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation that would have provided such a 

tax credit.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 93 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-9: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Energy to work with 

Congress on legislation to use an 

estimated $1.2 billion of bid 

bonuses from the 

environmentally responsible 

leasing of ANWR for funding 

research into alternative and 

renewable energy resources, 

including wind, solar, 

geothermal, and biomass.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FYs 2003-05 budgets have each 

proposed using ANWR bid bonuses to fund 

renewable energy research and development 

activities. Congress considered, but did not 

enact, legislation that would have opened 

ANWR to environmentally responsible 

development.

See related recommendation 3-2 on the use of 

ANWR royalties.

6-10: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

to continue the ethanol excise 

tax exemption.

Implemented; legislation enacted: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed to 

continue the ethanol excise tax exemption. 

Extension of this tax exemption was contained 

in the corporate tax bill (Pub. L. No. 108-357) 

signed into law by the President in October 

2004.

Our review of the provisions of The American Jobs 

Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-357) found that 

the excise tax exemption was not continued as DOE 

reported, but rather was repealed and replaced by a 

new ethanol tax exemption that has an economically 

equivalent effect on ethanol producers (but increases 

revenues dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund). Thus 

DOE considered the recommendation to be 

implemented.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 94 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-11: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

develop next-generation 

technology—including hydrogen 

and fusion. 

(1) Develop an education 

campaign that communicates the 

benefits of alternative forms of 

energy, including hydrogen and 

fusion. 

(2) Focus research and 

development efforts on 

integrating current programs 

regarding hydrogen, fuel cells, 

and distributed energy. 

(3) Support legislation 

reauthorizing the Hydrogen 

Energy Act.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In his 

January 2003 State of the Union address, 

President Bush announced a $1.2 billion 

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop the 

technologies and infrastructure to produce, 

store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel 

cell vehicles and distributed electricity 

generation. Combined with the FreedomCAR 

Partnership, President Bush is proposing a 

total of $1.7 billion over 5 years to develop 

hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen 

infrastructure, and advanced automotive 

technologies. To implement internationally the 

goals of President Bush’s FreedomCAR and 

Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives, the United States 

hosted the first Ministerial meeting of the 

International Partnership for the Hydrogen 

Economy (IPHE) in November 2003. The 

IPHE’s 15 nations and the EU are working to 

advance research, development, and 

deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell 

technologies, and to develop common codes 

and standards for hydrogen use. DOE has 

developed extensive Web-based material to 

educate the public on alternative forms of 

energy, including hydrogen and fusion. In 

addition, in October 2003, DOE launched an 

effort to introduce science students across the 

country to the promise of hydrogen and fuel 

cell technology. Through the program, 

students of all ages will be introduced to the 

basic concepts and principles of hydrogenbased energy in fun and creative ways to 

interest them in the vision of a hydrogen 

economy. DOE prepared extensive testimony 

and documentation in support of proposed 

legislation to reauthorize the Hydrogen Future 

Act as a part of any comprehensive national 

energy legislation. Also, in 2003, President 

Bush announced that the United States was 

rejoining negotiations on the International 

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a 

research project to develop nuclear fusion’s 

potential as a future energy source.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 95 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

6-12: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to work with Congress 

to develop legislation to provide 

for a temporary income tax credit 

available for the purchase of new 

hybrid or fuel-cell vehicles 

between 2002 and 2007.

Implemented; legislation proposed: The 

President’s FY 2003 budget and subsequent 

budget requests have each proposed a tax 

credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. 

Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation that would have established this tax 

credit.

See duplicate recommendation 4-11.

6-13: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

issue guidance to encourage the 

development of well-designed 

CHP units that are both highly 

efficient and have low emissions. 

The goal of this guidance would 

be to shorten the time needed to 

obtain each permit; provide 

certainty to industry by ensuring 

consistent implementation 

across the country; and 

encourage the use of these 

cleaner, more efficient 

technologies.

Implemented: In 2001, DOE and EPA issued 

a stakeholder roadmap for CHP and 

established the Distributed Generation 

Emissions Collaborative, composed of DOE, 

EPA, states, and industry, to address state 

emission requirements for CHP facilities. DOE 

and EPA have worked together to organize 

regional CHP initiatives for most regions of the 

country to foster the use of CHP, develop tools 

and services to support the development of 

new projects, and address permitting and 

other barriers within their regions. Several 

states have issued permitting rules or are 

drafting permitting rules that address CHP. 

EPA has developed a handbook, Outputbased Regulations: A Handbook for 

Regulators, to assist air regulators in 

developing emissions regulations that 

recognize the pollution prevention benefits of 

efficient energy generation, like CHP, and 

renewable energy technologies.

See related recommendation 4-8. The reported status 

for recommendation 4-8 lists activities ongoing, while 

the reported status for this recommendation does not. 

DOE confirmed that both recommendations have 

activities ongoing.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 96 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

work with FERC to improve the 

reliability of the interstate 

transmission system and to 

develop legislation providing for 

enforcement by a self-regulatory 

organization subject to FERC 

oversight.

Implemented; activities ongoing, 

legislation supported: The President has 

repeatedly called on Congress to develop 

legislation that would improve the reliability of 

the interstate electric transmission system by 

providing for enforcement by a self-regulatory 

organization subject to FERC oversight. 

FERC and DOE worked together on the U.S. 

Canada Power System Outage Task Force, 

which investigated the August 2003 blackout 

and recommended that Congress make 

reliability standards mandatory and 

enforceable, with penalties for 

noncompliance. DOE’s newly created Office 

of Electric Transmission and Distribution is 

working with reliability experts from the power 

industry, state governments, and their 

Canadian counterparts to improve grid 

reliability and increase investment in our 

electric infrastructure. For example, following 

the August 2003 blackout, DOE’s 

Transmission Reliability Program accelerated 

efforts to install real-time grid early-warning 

equipment and software in the Eastern United 

States.

The reported status does not indicate whether any 

legislation has been developed. In response to our 

question about legislation, DOE stated that Title XII of 

last year’s energy bill conference report included a 

provision for enforcement by a self-regulatory 

organization subject to FERC oversight. In addition, 

the status report does not note that FERC acted on 

the recommendations of the Task Force with a Policy 

Statement (Docket No. PL04-5) identifying specific 

initiatives the commission should undertake to 

promote reliable transmission service. Also, the 

commission formed a new reliability division to 

specifically address the reliability of the transmission 

system.

7-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

expand the department’s 

research and development on 

transmission reliability and 

superconductivity.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Through 

its electricity transmission and distribution 

research and development activities, DOE 

supports superconductivity and breakthrough 

grid reliability technologies. The President’s 

FY 2005 budget sought $45 million for these 

programs, up from a FY 2003 request of $32.3 

million. With DOE funding support, two 

American firms, American Superconductor 

Corp. and IGC Superpower, announced in 

March 2004 world-record performance in its 

second generation high temperature 

superconductor (HTS) wire. The companies 

reported that the electrical current carrying 

capacity of its new wire is now twice that of 

the best industrial HTS wires anywhere in the 

world, and 50 percent higher than previous 

results.

The status report does not provide information on 

what actual funding for these programs has been. In 

addition, other federal programs conduct 

superconductivity research that may be related to this 

recommendation. For example, the National Science 

Foundation funds superconductivity research.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 97 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

authorize the Western Area 

Power Administration to explore 

relieving the “Path 15” bottleneck 

through transmission expansion 

financed by nonfederal 

contributions.

Implemented: A transmission line to relieve 

the California “Path 15” bottleneck was 

energized on December 14, 2004, following 

considerable facilitation from DOE and FERC, 

which approved an incentive rate agreement 

among users providing for the recovery of the 

upgrade costs borne by the private sector.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 98 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the appropriate federal 

agencies to take actions to 

remove constraints on the 

interstate transmission grid and 

allow our nation’s electricity 

supply to meet the growing 

needs of our economy.

(1) Direct the Secretary of 

Energy, by December 31, 2001, 

to examine the benefits of 

establishing a national grid, 

identify transmission bottlenecks, 

and identify measures to remove 

transmission bottlenecks. 

(2) Direct the Secretary of 

Energy to work with FERC to 

relieve transmission constraints 

by encouraging the use of 

incentive rate-making proposals. 

(3) Direct the federal utilities to 

determine whether transmission 

expansions are necessary to 

remove constraints. The 

Administration should review the 

Bonneville Power 

Administration’s (BPA) capital 

and financing requirements in 

the context of its membership in 

a regional transmission 

organization, and, if additional 

Treasury financing appears 

warranted or necessary in the 

future, the Administration should 

seek an increase in BPA’s 

borrowing authority at that time. 

(4) Direct the Secretary of 

Energy, in consultation with 

appropriate federal agencies and 

state and local government 

officials, to develop legislation to 

grant authority to obtain rights-ofway for electricity transmission 

lines, with the goal of creating a 

reliable national transmission 

grid. Similar authority already 

exists for natural gas pipelines in 

recognition of their role in 

interstate commerce.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In May 

2002, DOE provided the President with the 

National Transmission Grid Study, which 

made 51 recommendations to facilitate 

investment in the Nation’s transmission 

infrastructure to improve reliability and reduce 

electricity costs to consumers. Following 

completion of the study, DOE and FERC 

worked to develop incentive rate proposals, 

including higher rates of return for new grid 

investments, for investments in new 

technologies and sophisticated grid operating 

practices, and for grid owners who join a 

regional transmission organization and let that 

organization operate the grid. FERC has 

since issued a Proposed Pricing Policy for 

public comment. DOE also started a process 

to identify and make known “National Interest 

Transmission Bottlenecks” that need to be 

addressed. In July 2003, FERC approved 

standardized procedures and agreements for 

the interconnection of electricity generators 

(larger than 20 megawatts) to the interstate 

transmission grid. In November 2003, FERC 

issued market behavior rules to help prevent 

market abuse, provide a more stable 

marketplace, and create an environment that 

will attract investment capital in the electricity 

and natural gas sectors, and, in April 2004, 

FERC adopted new methods to assess 

“market power” in the electric sector and 

clarified its standards of conduct that govern 

the relationship between transmission 

providers and their energy affiliates. In both 

the 107th and 108th Congresses, the 

Administration supported comprehensive 

electricity reform legislation that would have 

established last-resort federal siting authority 

for high-priority transmission lines. Congress 

considered, but did not enact, legislation to 

address this important need.

The DOE status report does not address whether the 

administration reviewed the BPA’s capital and 

financing requirements in the context of its 

membership in a regional transmission organization 

as called for in this recommendation. Thus, it is not 

known if additional Treasury financing appears 

warranted or necessary in the future, or whether the 

Administration sought an increase in BPA’s borrowing 

authority. According to DOE, the Administration did 

review BPA’s financing requirements, and, for the FY 

2003 budget, requested an additional $700 million in 

BPA borrowing authority.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 99 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to work with Congress 

and the State of Alaska to put in 

place the most expeditious 

process for renewal of the TransAlaskan Pipeline System lease 

to ensure that Alaskan oil 

continues to flow uninterrupted to 

the west coast of the United 

States.

Implemented: Interior Secretary Gale Norton 

approved a 30-year renewal of the federal 

right-of-way lease for the Trans-Alaska oil 

pipeline bringing that oil to Port Valdez, 

effective January 23, 2004.

See duplicate recommendation 5-9.

7-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of Energy 

and State, coordinating with the 

Secretary of the Interior and 

FERC, to work closely with 

Canada, the State of Alaska, and 

all other interested parties to 

expedite the construction of a 

pipeline to deliver natural gas to 

the lower 48 states. This should 

include proposing to Congress 

any changes or waivers of law 

pursuant to the Alaska Natural 

Gas Transportation Act of 1976 

that may be required.

Implemented; activities ongoing; 

legislation enacted: An interagency working 

group, including FERC, DOE, EPA, and DHS, 

was convened in July 2001 and continues to 

meet regularly to facilitate interagency 

coordination. In April 2004, the President 

signed Executive Order 13337, which updated 

the Secretary of State’s authority to issue 

Presidential Permits for cross-border 

petroleum or natural gas pipelines after 

consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other 

agencies. In October 2004, Congress enacted 

and the President approved the Alaska 

Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Pub. L. No. 108-

324) to expedite and streamline federal 

permitting for an Alaska natural gas pipeline 

and authorize $18 billion in federal loan 

guarantees for the project.

While the status information reports that Congress 

enacted Pub. L. No. 108-324, it does not state what 

changes this law made to the Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Act of 1976. The status report also 

does not set out the Secretary of Energy’s role under 

Pub. L. No. 108-324 in issuing loan guarantees. In 

response to our questions, DOE noted that the 2004 

Act included minor modifications to the 1976 Act and 

that DOE is the lead agency concerning loan 

guarantees. DOE also told us that FERC is prepared 

to work with project proponents as soon as an 

application is filed, possibly as early as November 

2005. We observed that Executive Order 13337 does 

not address cross-border gas pipelines. Specifically, 

the executive order states that “except for facilities 

covered by Executive Order 10485” the Secretary of 

State is designated to receive applications for crossborder permits. Executive Order 10485, as amended, 

empowers the Secretary of Energy to issue permits 

for the importation or exportation of natural gas to or 

from a foreign country. Accordingly, it is not clear how 

Executive Order 13337, which by its terms excludes 

cross-border natural gas pipelines, is relevant to this 

recommendation.

See duplicate recommendation 8-9.

7-7: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

support legislation to improve the 

safety of natural gas pipelines, 

protect the environment, 

strengthen emergency 

preparedness and inspections, 

and bolster enforcement.

Implemented; legislation enacted: In 

December 2002, the President signed into law 

the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 

(Pub. L. No. 107-355), which will improve the 

safety of natural gas pipelines, protect the 

environment, strengthen emergency 

preparedness and inspections, and bolster 

enforcement.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 100 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-8: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct agencies to continue their 

interagency efforts to improve 

pipeline safety and expedite 

pipeline permitting in an 

environmentally sound manner 

and encourage FERC to 

consider improvements in the 

regulatory process governing 

approval of interstate natural gas 

pipeline projects.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOT has 

led cooperative action to implement provisions 

of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 

2002, finalizing gas integrity management 

regulations, developing standards to evaluate 

operator qualification, reviewing gas integrity 

management plans, and inspecting operator 

qualification plans. DOT and other agencies 

are cooperating to implement the legislation 

through the development of an interagency 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that 

provides for expedited permit reviews for 

repair instances where best management 

practices are applied. Through use of the 

NEPA pre-filing process, FERC has reduced 

the time for permitting a major pipeline from 

16 months or longer to as few as 9 months.

The status report does not provide information on the 

status of the development of the interagency MOU 

that provides for expedited permit reviews. According 

to DOE, the MOU was signed in the summer of 2004, 

and the agencies are still developing implementation 

protocols. 

7-9: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator to 

study opportunities to maintain 

or improve the environmental 

benefits of state and local 

“boutique” clean fuel programs, 

while exploring ways to increase 

the flexibility of the fuels 

distribution infrastructure, 

improve fungibility, and provide 

added gasoline market liquidity. 

In concluding this study, the 

administrator shall consult with 

DOE, USDA, and other agencies 

as needed.

Implemented: Following extensive 

interagency consultation, EPA completed a 

series of analyses of “boutique fuel” issues in 

October 2001, resulting in a report to the 

President. The report identified several 

regulatory changes that can be made in the 

near term that could help to moderate 

gasoline price spikes during future transition 

periods when fuel producers switch from 

winter to summer grade cleaner-burning 

gasoline. The report also sought public 

comment on longer term changes to EPA’s 

fuels programs. These changes may require 

amendments to the Clean Air Act or widescale changes to current fuel regulations. 

Congress considered, but did not enact, 

legislation that would have addressed this 

issue.

The status report does not indicate what the status is 

of the regulatory changes that can be made in the 

near term. Also, it is not clear what specific legislation 

was proposed to address longer term changes or 

whether activities are ongoing to address these 

changes. In response to our questions, DOE stated 

that a number of short-term provisions were finalized, 

but that longer term actions still require enacted 

legislation.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 101 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-10: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator and 

the Secretary of Energy to take 

steps to ensure America has 

adequate refining capacity to 

meet the needs of consumers. 

(1) Provide more regulatory 

certainty to refinery owners and 

streamline the permitting 

process where possible to 

ensure that regulatory overlap is 

limited. 

(2) Adopt comprehensive 

regulations (covering more than 

one pollutant and requirement) 

and consider the rules’ 

cumulative impacts and benefits.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In 2002, 

EPA released a background paper on impacts 

of the New Source Review (NSR) Program on 

power plants, refineries, and energy 

efficiency; held four public “hearings”; toured 

communities near refineries in Lake Charles, 

Louisiana, and Houston. EPA finalized rules to 

implement several improvements to the NSR 

Program, including “Plant Applicability Limits,” 

that will make it easier for refineries to 

upgrade or expand their facilities while 

maintaining stringent environmental 

standards. The Executive Order 13212 Task 

Force is currently reviewing opportunities to 

simplify and expedite the refinery permitting 

process by working collaboratively with 

federal agencies, states, and local 

communities to eliminate regulatory delay or 

overlap.

The status report does not provide information on the 

status of the task force review of opportunities to 

simplify the refinery permitting process. (See related 

recommendation 3-3 on the work of the task force.) 

Further information is available on EPA’s rules. In 

June 2001, EPA issued a NSR background paper as 

a partial response to recommendation 7-11 that 

sought a report on NSR within 90 days. EPA’s June 

2002 final report found that NSR had not affected 

investments in new power plants and refineries but 

had discouraged some energy-efficiency projects at 

existing facilities, including some that would have 

reduced air emissions. However, EPA noted that the 

report’s conclusions about the effect of NSR on 

energy-efficiency projects are based on anecdotal 

information from industry because the agency lacked 

comprehensive data on the number of projects that 

did not go forward as a result of NSR. Because of a 

lack of data and uncertainties about NSR’s impact, we 

recommended that EPA determine what data are 

available, identify additional data needs, and use the 

monitoring results to determine whether NSR has 

created adverse effects that EPA needs to address. 

While EPA generally agreed with these 

recommendations, EPA is still collecting data on the 

rules’ effects.

EPA’s modifications to the NSR Program are 

contained in rules issued in December 2002 and 

October 2003. However, lawsuits challenging the 

legality of these two rules were filed in court. The 

2002 rule, which is intended to provide incentives for 

facilities to reduce emissions, removes barriers to 

energy-efficiency and pollution control projects and 

offers greater regulatory flexibility. It is currently being 

implemented in 10 states while other rules are 

awaiting EPA approval. The 2002 rule included plant 

applicability limits. However, the 2003 rule, which is 

intended to allow companies to modernize facility 

operations in ways that will maintain and improve 

safety, reliability, and efficiency, has been prevented 

from going into effect by legal challenges. On 

December 24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit stayed this equipment 

replacement rule pending further review of the legal 

challenges brought by a coalition of primarily midAtlantic and northeastern states and environmental 

and public health groups.

See related recommendation 7-11. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 102 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-11: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the EPA Administrator, in 

consultation with the Secretary 

of Energy and other relevant 

agencies, to review NSR 

regulations, including 

administrative interpretation and 

implementation, and report to the 

President within 90 days on the 

impact of the regulations on 

investment in new utility and 

refinery generation capacity, 

energy efficiency, and 

environmental protection.

Implemented: Following several public 

outreach meetings, EPA sent to the President 

in June 2002 a final report on its review of the 

NSR Program. EPA has since issued 

modifications to the NSR Program to facilitate 

power plant and refinery maintenance, 

enabling safety and efficiency improvements 

to move forward without penalizing industry 

and the consumers who need affordable 

electric power and refined fuels, while also 

preserving air quality.

Further information is available on the status of this 

recommendation. For example, in June 2001, EPA 

issued a NSR background paper as a partial 

response to the recommendation that sought a report 

within 90 days. EPA’s June 2002 final report found 

that NSR had not affected investments in new power 

plants and refineries but had discouraged some 

energy-efficiency projects at existing facilities, 

including some that would have reduced air 

emissions. However, EPA notes that the report’s 

conclusions about the effect of NSR on energyefficiency projects are based on anecdotal information from industry because the agency lacked 

comprehensive data on the number of projects that 

did not go forward as a result of NSR. Because of a 

lack of data and uncertainties about NSR’s impact, we 

recommended that EPA determine what data are 

available, identify additional data needs, and use the 

monitoring results to determine whether NSR has 

created adverse effects that EPA needs to address. 

While EPA generally agreed with these recommendations, EPA is still collecting data on the rules’ effects.

EPA’s modifications to the NSR Program are 

contained in rules issued in December 2002 and 

October 2003. However, lawsuits challenging the 

legality of these two rules were filed in court. The 

December 2002 rule, which is intended to provide 

incentives for facilities to reduce emissions, removes 

barriers to energy-efficiency and pollution control 

projects and offers greater regulatory flexibility, is 

currently being implemented in 10 states, while other 

rules are awaiting EPA approval. State and local 

agencies that operate under delegation agreements 

were required to implement this rule by March 2003 or 

return responsibility for implementing the rule to EPA. 

Those agencies operating under state implementation 

plans have until January 2006 to revise their 

regulations accordingly. However, the October 2003 

rule, which is intended to allow companies to 

modernize facility operations in ways that will maintain 

and improve safety, reliability, and efficiency, has been 

prevented from going into effect by legal challenges. 

On December 24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit stayed this equipment 

replacement rule pending further review of the legal 

challenges brought by a coalition of primarily midAtlantic and northeastern states and environmental 

and public health groups. 

See related recommendation 7-10.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 103 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

7-12: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Attorney General to 

review existing enforcement 

actions regarding NSR to ensure 

that the enforcement actions are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act 

and its regulations.

Implemented: In January 2002, the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewed the 

applicable law, agency actions, and 

representative pleadings and concluded that 

the EPA's NSR enforcement actions were 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and its 

regulations. DOJ concluded that EPA’s civil 

actions to enforce the NSR provisions of the 

Clean Air Act were supported by a reasonable 

basis in law and fact.

Further information is available on the status of 

enforcement actions. The January 2002 DOJ report 

focused principally on enforcement actions against 

coal-fired power plants because defendants in other 

industries, such as petroleum refining, generally had 

not alleged that EPA’s actions were inconsistent with 

the Clean Air Act. However, NSR modifications made 

in December 2002 and October 2003 rules could 

affect current enforcement cases. According to DOJ, 

as of March 2005, there were eight pending cases 

brought against coal-fired power plants. Settlements 

have been reached in three of those cases, but the 

settlements are awaiting public comment and court 

approval. In addition, two cases are pending that 

involve petroleum refineries.

7-13: The NEPD Group supports 

the President’s budget proposal 

to provide $8 million to maintain 

the 2-million-barrel Northeast 

Heating Oil Reserve. Operated 

by the private sector, the reserve 

helps ensure adequate supplies 

of heating oil in the event that 

colder-than-normal winters occur 

in the northeast United States.

Implemented; activities ongoing: During its 

first 2 years, the Bush Administration 

requested and received $8 million annually for 

maintenance of the Northeast Home Heating 

Oil Reserve (NHHOR). Since then, DOE has 

cut costs and only requires funding around $5 

million per year to maintain the NHHOR. 

Leases have been signed to ensure continued 

storage of 2 million barrels in New Haven, 

Connecticut; Woodbridge, New Jersey; and 

Providence, Rhode Island, with options to 

extend for up to 4 additional years.

None.

8-1: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

make energy security a priority of 

our trade and foreign policy.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

President has made energy security a priority 

of our trade and foreign policy through various 

bilateral and multilateral dialogues, initiatives, 

and activities. Examples of these activities 

include the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry 

Forum, the International Partnership for the 

Hydrogen Economy, the Carbon 

Sequestration Leadership Forum, the U.S.-

Russia Commercial Energy Dialogue, the 

U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group, and the 

U.S.-African Energy Ministerial process.

It is not clear what the overall energy security goal is 

or how the initiatives outlined in the reported status 

have enhanced energy security.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 104 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-2: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

support initiatives by Saudi 

Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar, 

the UAE, and other suppliers to 

open up areas of their energy 

sectors to foreign investment.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Senior 

officials from the Departments of State, 

Energy, and Commerce have been engaged 

to support initiatives by Saudi Arabia (Gas 

Initiative), Kuwait (Northern Oilfields), Qatar 

(LNG), and Algeria (LNG). The United States 

is active in the International Energy Forum 

(IEF) and uses these and other fora to consult 

with energy ministers on trade and investment 

and to advocate energy sector liberalization. 

Specifically, DOE has reestablished U.S.-

Saudi bilateral consultations and assisted 

Algeria in the creation of New Energy Algeria, 

a renewable energy venture intended to 

attract U.S. and other foreign investment and 

technology with up to 70 percent foreign 

ownership.

The reported status does not indicate what areas of 

these energy sectors have been opened as a result of 

these intiatives.

8-3: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Energy, and Commerce to work 

to improve dialogue among 

energy producing and 

consuming nations.

Implemented; activities ongoing: 

Multilaterally, the United States actively 

participates in ministerial-level meetings of the 

IEF to exchange views on key energy issues. 

Other important dialogues initiated by 

President Bush are the U.S.-U.K. Energy 

Dialogue, U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group, 

and the North American Energy Working 

Group. The United States continues to 

support the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), a 

joint activity launched by the Asia Pacific 

Energy Research Center, the statistics office 

of the European Union, International Energy 

Agency (IEA), the Latin-American Energy 

Organization, the Organization of the 

Petroleum Exporting Countries, and the 

United Nations Statistical Division as an effort 

to improve the quality and transparency of 

international oil statistics.

The reported status does not indicate what the results 

of these dialogues have been. For example, how has 

the quality and transparency of international oil 

statistics been improved?

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 105 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-4: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to

continue supporting American 

energy firms competing in 

markets abroad and use our 

membership in multilateral 

organizations—such as the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) forum, the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), the World 

Trade Organization (WTO) 

Energy Services Negotiations, 

the Free Trade Area of the 

Americas (FTAA)—and our 

bilateral relationships to 

implement a system of clear, 

open, and transparent rules and 

procedures governing foreign 

investment; to level the playing 

field for U.S. companies 

overseas; and to reduce barriers 

to trade and investment.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Through 

bilateral commercial policy fora (U.S.-China 

Oil and Gas Industry Forum, U.S.-Russia 

Commercial Energy Summits, North 

American Energy Working Group, etc.) and 

through leadership and participation in 

multilateral organizations (APEC, WTO, etc.), 

the federal agencies are working to create a 

level and transparent playing field for U.S. 

companies (e.g., promoting best practices for 

LNG trade and financing of cleaner and more 

efficient energy among APEC members).

The reported status does not identify barriers to trade 

and investment that have been reduced. Also, other 

federal agencies may play a role in addressing this 

recommendation. For example, the U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency (USTDA) funds various forms of 

technical assistance, feasibility studies, training, 

orientation visits, and business workshops (in energy 

and other sectors) in developing and middle-income 

countries to support the development of a modern 

infrastructure and a fair and open trading 

environment. USTDA provides grants directly to 

overseas project sponsors who, in turn, select U.S. 

companies to perform USTDA-funded activities. In 

addition, the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) works to support the reform of 

energy sectors in the countries where it works, 

improve the functioning of markets, increase private 

sector participation, expand access to energy 

services, and support regional energy trade and 

integration. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 106 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-5: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce and Energy, and the 

U.S. Trade Representative, to 

support a sectoral trade initiative 

to expand investment and trade 

in energy-related goods and 

services that will enhance 

exploration, production, and 

refining, as well as the 

development of new 

technologies.

Implemented; activities ongoing: 

Commerce’s Office of Energy has led 

missions to support expanded investment and 

trade in energy-related goods and services 

that enhance exploration, production, and 

refining, as well as the commercialization of 

new energy technologies. The Industry Trade 

Advisory Committee on Energy and Energy 

Services (ITAC 6), a federal advisory group 

composed of U.S. private sector energy 

industry representatives and overseen by 

Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR), bolsters Commerce 

and USTR’s work in these areas by providing 

ongoing advice on global energy trade, 

investment, and market access policy matters. 

DOE efforts have focused on regional (e.g., 

Sixth Western Hemisphere Energy Ministers 

Meeting) and energy sector-specific activities 

(e.g., Oil and Gas Services and Equipment 

Trade Mission to Sakhalin Island, Russia), 

such as investment and trade in energyrelated goods and services enhancing 

exploration, production, refining, and new 

technologies with China, Russia, UK, Angola, 

Kazakhstan, and other key energy markets. 

DOE and State participated in a meeting of 

the U.S.-UK Energy Dialogue in February 

2004. The Dialogue’s Commercial Working 

Group, led by Commerce, sponsored a Clean 

Coal Technology Reverse Trade Mission in 

June 2003. Commerce, State, and DOE also 

regularly participate in Free Trade Agreement 

negotiations (e.g., Australia and Morocco).

The reported status does not indicate how expanded 

investment and trade in energy-related goods and 

services that enhances exploration, production, and 

refining, as well as the development of new 

technologies, is being measured. For example, DOE 

reports that Commerce tracks expanded investment 

and trade in energy-related goods and services 

through its commercial service performance 

measures database.

8-6: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Treasury, and Commerce to 

initiate a comprehensive review 

of sanctions. Energy security 

should be one of the factors 

considered in such a review.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

United States has liberalized trade and 

investment sanctions with respect to Libya 

and Iraq, and other sanctions are under 

continuous review. Energy security is 

generally one of the factors considered in 

such a review. While the actions related to 

Iraq and Libya offer the potential to improve 

energy security, these steps were not taken 

on the basis of energy security 

considerations.

The reported status does not indicate whether there 

has been a comprehensive review of sanctions, in 

particular those that impact energy security as called 

for in the recommendation. Also, it is not clear what 

the universe of sanctions is that can impact energy 

security.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 107 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-7: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

engage in a dialogue through the 

North American Energy Working 

Group (NAEWG) to develop 

closer energy integration among 

Canada, Mexico, and the United 

States and identify areas of 

cooperation, fully consistent with 

the countries’ respective 

sovereignties.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

NAEWG was created to increase U.S., 

Canadian, and Mexican energy cooperation 

and enhance the energy and economic 

security of North America. The group has 

worked together to further integrate and 

strengthen North American energy markets by 

overcoming policy and technical obstacles to 

increased energy production and delivery. 

NAEWG technical discussions have occurred 

in working groups covering energy markets, 

electricity, energy efficiency, science and 

technology, and infrastructure security.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, State reported that it participates at each 

principals’ meeting of the NAEWG and works with 

DOE and Commerce to make certain that the expert 

groups’ goals are consistent with the foreign policy 

goals of the Administration. 

8-8: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of Energy 

and State, in consultation with 

FERC, to review their respective 

oil, natural gas, and electricity 

cross-boundary “Presidential 

Permitting” authorities and to 

propose reforms as necessary in 

order to make their own 

regulatory regimes more 

compatible for cross-border 

trade.

Implemented: In April 2004, the President 

signed Executive Order 13337, which updated 

the Secretary of State’s authority to issue 

Presidential Permits for cross-border 

petroleum pipelines in consultation with DOE, 

EPA, DHS, and other appropriate agencies.

It is not clear from the reported status whether a 

complete review of oil, natural gas, and electricity 

cross-boundary “Presidential Permitting” authorities 

was conducted. For example, Executive Order 13337 

updated the Secretary of State’s authority to issue 

Presidential Permits for cross-border petroleum 

pipelines, but it is not clear if electricity authorities 

were reviewed or how FERC was consulted. See 

related recommendations 7-6 and 8-9.

8-9: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of Energy 

and State, coordinating with the 

Secretary of the Interior and 

FERC, to work closely with 

Canada, the State of Alaska, and 

all other interested parties to 

expedite the construction of a 

pipeline to deliver natural gas to 

the lower 48 states. This should 

include proposing to Congress 

any changes or waivers of law 

pursuant to the Alaska Natural 

Gas Transportation Act of 1976 

that may be required.

Implemented; activities ongoing; 

legislation enacted: An interagency working 

group, including FERC, DOE, EPA, and DHS, 

was convened in July 2001 and continues to 

meet regularly to facilitate interagency 

coordination. In April 2004, the President 

signed Executive Order 13337, which updated 

the Secretary of State’s authority to issue 

Presidential Permits for cross-border 

petroleum or natural gas pipelines after 

consultation with DOE, EPA, DHS, and other 

federal agencies. In October 2004, Congress 

enacted and the President approved the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Pub. L. No. 

108-324) to expedite and streamline federal 

permitting for an Alaska natural gas pipeline 

and authorize $18 billion in federal loan 

guarantees for the project.

While the status information reports that Congress 

enacted Pub. L. No. 108-324, it does not state what 

changes this law made to the Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Act of 1976. The status report also 

does not set out the Secretary of Energy’s role under 

Pub. L. No. 108-324 in issuing loan guarantees. In 

response to our questions, DOE noted that the 2004 

Act included minor modifications to the 1976 Act, and 

that DOE is the lead agency concerning loan 

guarantees. DOE also told us that FERC is prepared 

to work with project proponents as soon as an 

application is filed, possibly as early as November 

2005. We observe that Executive Order 13337 does 

not address cross-border gas pipelines. Specifically, 

the executive order states that “except for facilities 

covered by Executive Order 10485” the Secretary of 

State is designated to receive applications for crossborder permits. Executive Order 10485, as amended, 

empowers the Secretary of Energy to issue permits 

for the importation or exportation of natural gas to or 

from a foreign country. Accordingly, it is not clear how 

Executive Order 13337, which by its terms excludes 

cross-border natural gas pipelines, is relevant to this 

recommendation. See duplicate recommendation 7-6. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 108 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-10: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State 

and Commerce to conclude 

negotiations with Venezuela on a 

Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), 

and propose formal energy 

consultations with Brazil, to 

improve the energy investment 

climate for the growing level of 

energy investment flows between 

the United States and each of 

these countries.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In 2001, 

an interagency group from the United States 

met with their Venezuelan counterparts and 

discussed terms for the possible reinitiation of 

BIT negotiations. The interagency group also 

met with private sector and Venezuelan 

government representatives on the Venezuela 

hydrocarbons law and held bilateral energy 

consultations with Venezuelan officials in 

Caracas in 2001, and in Washington in 2001 

and 2003. There have been no further official 

contacts with Venezuela on these issues 

since 2003 because of concerns over the 

political and investment climate in Venezuela. 

In December 2003, a DOE team visited Brazil 

to identify areas of cooperation in the 

permitting of oil and gas exploration and 

production activities. DOE Secretary Abraham 

and Brazilian Energy Minister Rousseff signed 

an MOU on June 20, 2003, to establish a 

mechanism for consultations on energy 

cooperation. In addition to continuing 

collaboration in energy science and 

technology, the MOU established a 

mechanism for consultations on issues of 

mutual interest, such as energy planning, 

analysis, trade, and investment. DOE and 

FERC teams visited Brazil and held 

discussions on energy planning, information 

collection, and regulatory experiences and 

practices. DOE and the Brazilian Ministry of 

Mines and Energy cohosted an Energy 

Investment Symposium on November 21, 

2003, in Washington for U.S. companies 

investing in Brazil.

From the reported status, it is not clear what 

Commerce and State programs are involved in 

implementing this recommendation. DOE appears to 

have taken the lead role since information is provided 

on its program efforts. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, State reported that the interagency group that 

met with Venezuelan counterparts in 2001 included 

staff of the U.S. Trade Representative, DOE, and 

State.

8-11: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of Energy, 

Commerce, and State to work 

through the Summit of the 

Americas Hemispheric Energy 

Initiative to develop effective and 

stable regulatory frameworks 

and foster reliable supply 

sources of all fuels within the 

region.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The sixth 

Western Hemisphere Energy Ministers 

Meeting was held in Trinidad on April 19-21, 

2004. The theme was enhancing hemispheric 

energy security and cooperation through 

agreement on actions to increase oil and gas 

development and trade, including the 

development of stable markets.

This recommendation is to foster reliable supply 

sources of all fuels within the region, yet the theme on 

the reported actions taken to implement this 

recommendation was to increase oil and gas 

development and trade. It is not clear if other reliable 

sources of fuel were addressed. Also, it is not clear 

what other meetings or work through the Summit of 

the Americas Hemispheric Energy Initiative have 

occurred and what the respective programmatic roles 

of State, Commerce, and DOE have been. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, State reported 

that the Western Hemisphere Energy Ministers’ 

Meeting included discussions of alternate energy 

sources, including wind and nuclear. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 109 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-12: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Energy, and Commerce to 

reinvigorate the U.S.-Africa Trade 

and Economic Cooperation 

Forum and the U.S.-African 

Energy Ministerial process; 

deepen bilateral and multilateral 

engagement to promote a more 

receptive environment for U.S. oil 

and gas trade, investment, and 

operations; and promote 

geographic diversification of 

energy supplies, addressing 

such issues as transparency, 

sanctity of contracts, and 

security.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Senior 

Administration officials met with African 

government officials twice in 2003 to 

reinvigorate the U.S.-Africa Trade and 

Economic Cooperation Forum. A similar 

meeting was held for the U.S.-African Energy 

Ministerial process in Casablanca in June 

2002, and another meeting will be held in 

Senegal in 2005. Participating officials include 

those from Angola, Cameroon, Democratic 

Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, 

Morocco, Algeria, South Africa, and Republic 

of Congo-Brazzaville. Ongoing programs 

include cooperation with the following: Nigeria 

on privatization reforms, transparency, 

increased access to energy, and regional 

integration; Angola and Equatorial Guinea on 

policy reforms and oil and gas development; 

South Africa on renewable energy, nuclear 

energy, and electricity and natural gas 

regulatory training; Botswana on clean coal 

technology; Ghana on energy policy; Kenya 

on geothermal; and Uganda on 

commercialization of solar ovens.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. Also, it is not clear how the various 

intiatives reported resulted in increases in diverse 

energy supplies. Furthermore, other federal programs 

may play a role in addressing this recommendation. 

For example, according to USTDA, it has supported 

activities advancing a regional integration approach to 

economic partnership in Africa, with the aim of 

facilitating development and enhancing trade 

capacity. For example, in FY 2003 USTDA supported 

a small oil refinery project in Nigeria and a Forest Oil 

offshore gas project in South Africa. Also, USAID has 

supported relevant efforts in Africa, such as the 

construction of the West Africa Gas Pipeline. 

8-13: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Energy, and Commerce to recast 

the Joint Economic Partnership 

Committee with Nigeria to 

improve the climate for U.S. oil 

and gas trade, investment, and 

operations and to advance our 

shared energy interests.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE has 

established a comprehensive energy reform 

and technical assistance program with 

Nigeria, which included assignment of a 

senior energy advisor in Abuja, 

implementation of price liberalization, and 

development of a draft natural gas strategy in 

2002. Other activities have included advocacy 

support on sanctity of contracts and 

investment issues, assistance for advanced 

power sector reform and natural gas policy 

development, and ongoing programs on 

privatization reforms, increased access to 

energy, and regional integration.

It is not clear what Commerce and State programs 

are involved in implementing this recommendation. 

DOE appears to have taken the lead role as 

information is provided on its program efforts. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, State reported 

that, with interagency assistance, it has organized 

formal bilateral meetings with Nigeria, and agencies 

maintain an active dialogue with Nigeria on issues 

that affect investment by U.S. energy producers. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 110 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-14: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

support more transparent, 

accountable, and responsible 

use of oil resources in African 

producer countries to enhance 

the stability and security of trade 

and investment environments.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

Administration has pursued stronger bilateral 

ties, geographic diversification of energy 

sources, growing oil and gas trade with the 

United States, good governance, free 

markets, rule of law, and stable regulatory 

structures in African producing countries. For 

example, Nigeria, Africa's largest energy 

producer, has publicly committed to the G-8 

Transparency and Anticorruption Compact in 

2004, and to the Extractive Industries 

Transparency Initiative, which aims for 

effective and transparent use of oil revenues 

to fund development.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. See related recommendations 8-23 

and 8-36 on transparency.

8-15: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

support the BTC oil pipeline as it 

demonstrates its commercial 

viability.

Implemented: Construction on the $3.2 

billion BTC pipeline began in April 2003 and 

should be completed on schedule in 2005. 

OPIC has approved up to $125 million in 

political risk insurance for the project, and the 

Export-Import Bank approved financing for up 

to $160 million.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

State, Commerce, or DOE have played in 

construction of the BTC pipeline or what role they will 

play to support it as it demonstrates commercial 

viability. In addition, USAID and USTDA programs 

and activities appear to support this recommendation. 

For example, USAID provided technical assistance 

and training for the establishment of the Georgia 

International Oil Company (GIOC), which was 

involved in the process for establishment of the BTC 

pipeline, and USTDA has also provided support for 

the BTC pipeline.

8-16: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce, State, and Energy to 

continue working with relevant 

companies and countries to 

establish the commercial 

conditions that will allow oil 

companies operating in 

Kazakhstan the option of 

exporting their oil via the BTC 

pipeline.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

United States has signed an Energy 

Partnership Declaration with Kazakhstan that 

will help develop a stable and transparent 

legal and regulatory climate for the 

development of the energy sector. The 

Administration has promoted a market 

environment that will allow Kazakh oil 

companies the option of exporting their oil via 

the BTC pipeline, facilitating discussions 

between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to move 

Kazakh oil through the BTC system.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. In addition, other federal programs 

may play a role in addressing this recommendation. 

For example, USAID’s energy activities in Kazakhstan 

focus on improving transparency and public 

participation in the management of energy resources. 

According to USAID, the work helps reinforce the 

agency’s overall goals for enhancing resource 

management by providing the foundations for public 

disclosure of key sector data and transparency 

operations within the industry, all of which are 

required for Kazakhstan to become recognized as a 

key supplier to the east-west corridor pipelines.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 111 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-17: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

support the efforts of private 

investors and regional 

governments to develop the 

Shah Deniz gas pipeline as a 

way to help Turkey and Georgia 

diversify their natural gas 

supplies and help Azerbaijan 

export its gas via a pipeline that 

will continue diversification of 

secure energy supply routes.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The Bush 

Administration has promoted the Shah Deniz 

gas pipeline (now known as the “South 

Caucasus” gas pipeline) that will run along the 

BTC route. The $1 billion Shah Deniz project 

and the BTC project will provide alternate 

energy supply routes to market for Caspian 

energy resources, providing regional stability 

and much-needed transit revenues for the 

participating countries. With U.S. 

encouragement, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and 

Turkey have ratified an agreement to construct 

the pipeline. Construction has started and 

completion is expected at the end of 2006.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. In addition, other federal programs 

may play a role in addressing this recommendation. 

For example, USTDA has provided support for the 

Shah-Deniz gas pipeline.

8-18: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct appropriate federal 

agencies to complete the current 

cycle of oil spill response 

readiness workshops and to 

consider further appropriate 

steps to ensure the 

implementation of the 

workshops’ recommendations.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

Administration cosponsored an April 2002 oil 

spill response workshop in Kazakhstan, 

cosponsored in June 2001 the newly 

launched Black and Caspian Sea 

Environmental Information Web site, and 

cohosted a meeting of marine scientists from 

the five Caspian nations in August 2001. In 

2003, Secretary Abraham signed a Statement 

of Intent to cooperate with Russia on oil spill 

response, with a first workshop held in 

Moscow in December 2003. Under the U.S.-

Russia Energy Working Group, the United 

States signed a Protocol on Oil Spill 

Response cooperation with Russia. DOE and 

the Navy will hold a desktop exercise to test 

the regional oil spill response plan developed 

by the Black Sea states upon availability of 

funds.

The reported status does not mention other federal 

programs that may play a role in oil spill response. For 

example, MMS, NOAA, and USTDA have oil spill 

response efforts. MMS reports that it is the principal 

U.S. agency funding oil spill response research and 

has been actively involved in international oil spill 

conferences and workshops for more than 20 years. 

MMS helps organize the Biennial International Oil 

Spill Conference. In addition, NOAA’s Office of 

Response and Restoration is responsible for 

preventing, planning for, and responding to oil spills in 

coastal environments and restoring affected 

resources. Also, in May 2005, USTDA planned to 

sponsor an orientation visit to familiarize a delegation 

of Pakistani officials with U.S. policy and practices in 

oil spill response and recovery. The delegation will 

also attend the 2005 International Oil Spill 

Conference in Miami, Florida. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 112 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-19: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of State to 

encourage Greece and Turkey to 

link their gas pipeline systems to 

allow European consumers to 

diversify their gas supplies by 

purchasing Caspian gas.

Implemented: With U.S. encouragement, 

Greece and Turkey signed an agreement in 

December 2003 to build a natural gas pipeline 

connecting the two countries. By 2006, the 

Greek-Turkish interconnector should deliver 

500 million cubic meters of natural gas from 

Azerbaijan to Greece via Turkey.

The reported status does not indicate what role State 

played in implementing this recommendation. In 

addition, other federal programs may play a role in 

addressing this recommendation. For example, 

USAID reported that its Europe and Eurasia Bureau 

programs provide technical assistance to the Energy 

Community in Southeast Europe to create electricity 

and gas markets. According to USAID, the expansion 

of natural gas markets in Southeast Europe from 

Caspian gas resources destined to the rest of Europe 

strengthens the commercial viability of the GreekTurkish gas interconnector and of the proposed 

pipelines that will transport this gas from Greece to 

Europe through the countries of Southeast Europe. In 

FY 2005, USAID is providing analysis related to 

expansion of gas distribution networks in Southeast 

Europe and the Southeast Europe Regulators 

Working Group on the Gas Sector.

8-20: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce, Energy, and State to 

deepen their commercial 

dialogue with Kazakhstan, 

Azerbaijan, and other Caspian 

states to provide a strong, 

transparent, and stable business 

climate for energy and related 

infrastructure projects.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The third 

annual U.S. Kazakhstan Energy Partnership 

meeting will have working groups on Oil and 

Gas, Electric Power, Environmental Protection 

and Alternative Energy Technologies, 

Facilities Security, and Commercial Nuclear 

Technologies. The Energy Partnership’s 

declaration advocates support for marketbased development of the energy sector on 

the basis of a stable and transparent legal and 

regulatory climate and honoring sanctity of 

existing contracts. Other initiatives include 

working on the formation of an Investors 

Council and an Energy Partnership in 

Azerbaijan, and a dialogue with Georgia on 

development of a long-term “National Energy 

Strategy” and possible utilization of distributed 

energy technologies.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE play in implementing this 

recommendation. In addition, other federal programs 

may play a role in addressing this recommendation. 

For example, USTDA supported technical assistance 

in the restructuring of SOCAR (State Oil Company of 

the Azerbaijan Republic), Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil 

company. Also, relevant USAID programs include 

efforts in Kazakhstan that focus on improving 

transparency and public participation in the 

management of energy resources. According to 

USAID, the work helps reinforce the agency’s overall 

goals for enhancing resource management by 

providing the foundations for public disclosure of key 

sector data and transparency operations within the 

industry, all of which are required for Kazakhstan to 

become recognized as a key supplier to the east-west 

corridor pipelines. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 113 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-21: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

deepen the focus of the 

discussions with Russia on 

energy and the investment 

climate.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The Bush 

Administration has devoted much effort to 

strengthening our energy relationship with 

Russia, which is now competing with Saudi 

Arabia to be the world’s largest crude oil 

producer and is a major exporter. In 2002, the 

Administration initiated a cooperative effort to 

help improve commercial cooperation and the 

regulatory and investment conditions required 

to increase energy and infrastructure 

development in Russia. Private sector 

participants at two U.S.-Russia Commercial 

Energy Summits presented recommendations 

on increased energy cooperation to both 

governments in September 2003. Additionally, 

a U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group has 

been formed and has hosted workshops on 

energy efficiency, LNG, oil spill response, oil 

markets, investment, and taxation. However, 

advancement of this relationship has been 

hampered by recent actions that have raised 

concerns with the investment climate in 

Russia.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE programs play in 

implementing this recommendation. In commenting 

on a draft of this report, State reported that it helped 

develop positions for and participated in both 

Commercial Energy Summits, meetings of the U.S.-

Russia Energy Dialogue, and Energy Working 

Groups. 

8-22: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce, State, and Energy to 

assist U.S. companies in their 

dialogue on the investment and 

trade climate with Russian 

officials, to encourage reform of 

the PSA law and other 

regulations and related tax 

provisions, as well as general 

improvements in the overall 

investment climate. This will help 

expand private investment 

opportunities in Russia and will 

increase the international role of 

Russian firms.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Since the 

summer of 2001, there have been several 

ministerial-level meetings with the Russian 

Ministers of Energy and Economic 

Development and Trade, where U.S. officials 

have stressed the importance of the PSA 

framework as well as the importance of a fair 

and transparent legal regime in encouraging 

investment in the energy sector. In 2001, the 

United States agreed to the establishment of 

a bilateral business dialogue. Supporting the 

business dialogue was a key component of 

Secretary Evans’ trip to Russia in October 

2001. The U.S.-Russia Energy Working Group 

between DOE and the Ministry of Energy had 

its first meeting in April 2002, agreeing on a 

program of continued cooperation and 

information sharing. Real progress in reform 

and investment has been limited for many 

reasons, including concerns with the 

investment climate in Russia following recent 

activity; however, follow-up activities will 

continue in the context of the G-8 Energy 

Ministers' Meeting and the Bush-Putin 

Summits in February and May 2005.

The reported status does not indicate what role State 

programs played in implementing this 

recommendation. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, State reported that its officials helped develop 

implementing tactics for this recommendation and 

frequently raised investment climate issues with its 

Russian counterparts and the legislature. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 114 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-23: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State, 

Commerce, and Energy to 

continue to work in the APEC 

forum Energy Working Group to 

examine oil market data 

transparency issues and the 

variety of ways petroleum stocks 

can be used as an option to 

address oil market disruptions.

Implemented; activities ongoing: 

Significant activities over the past year have 

improved the timeliness and coverage of data 

collection among APEC members. An Action 

Plan to enhance energy security endorsed by 

APEC leaders in 2003 includes a mandate to 

identify best practice principles for strategic oil 

stocks. Other actions include efforts on 

building petroleum stocks: China, Thailand, 

and the Philippines have announced 

stockholding plans. IEA has improved 

participation in the Joint Oil Data Initiative by 

nonmembers and has improved data quality 

through consultation with participants.

The reported status does not indicate what roles 

Commerce, State, and DOE programs play in 

implementing this recommendation. Also, the 

reported status is not specific about how data 

transparency has been improved. Also see related 

recommendations 8-31 and 8-32 on oil stocks and 

recommendations 8-14 and 8-36 on transparency.

8-24: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of State 

and Energy to work with India’s 

Ministry of Petroleum and 

Natural Gas to help India 

maximize its domestic oil and 

gas production.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE 

organized a 1-week Coal Bed Methane 

Mission in January 2003 for senior Indian 

officials that included the Secretary of 

Petroleum, the Secretary of Coal, and the 

Secretary of Labor. In June 2003, senior DOE 

officials joined Indian Oil Minister Naih in 

meeting with U.S. oil companies to encourage 

them to invest in India's oil and gas sector. 

This was followed by a visit to the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve (SPR) by the Minister and 

a SPR visit by an Indian technical team in 

September 2003. India passed legislation in 

December 2003 authorizing the establishment 

of the first part of an Indian SPR. Throughout 

this period, negotiations have continued on a 

draft MOU with DOE’s EIA on energy data 

exchange, which among other things, could 

facilitate greater investment in India’s oil and 

gas sector.

The reported status does not indicate what role State 

played in implementing this recommendation. Also, it 

is not clear what the status is of the draft MOU with 

DOE’s EIA on energy data exchange, which among 

other things, could facilitate greater investment in 

India's oil and gas sector. Further, other federal 

programs may play a role in addressing this 

recommendation. For example, in September 2004, 

USTDA awarded a $690,000 grant to GAIL (India) 

Ltd. (Erstwhile Gas Authority of India Ltd.) to partially 

fund a feasibility study for the National Gas Grid 

project in India. GAIL (India) Ltd. is a public sector 

enterprise under India’s Ministry of Petroleum and 

Natural Gas. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 115 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-25: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretaries of 

Commerce, State, and Energy to 

promote market-based solutions 

to environmental concerns; 

support exports of U.S. clean 

energy technologies and 

encourage their overseas 

development; engage bilaterally 

and multilaterally to promote best 

practices; explore collaborative 

international basic research and 

development in energy 

alternatives and energy-efficient 

technologies; and explore 

innovative programs to support 

the global adoption of these 

technologies.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Several 

significant initiatives have been undertaken to 

support exports of U.S. clean energy 

technologies and encourage their overseas 

development both bilaterally and multilaterally. 

The multilateral Carbon Sequestration 

Leadership Forum (CSLF), launched in June 

2003, sets a framework for international 

cooperation on sequestration technologies. 

The forum's 17 partners also are eligible to 

participate in FutureGen, the joint 

DOE/private sector near-zero emission power 

and hydrogen producing plant. The 

Administration led the 2003 formation of the 

International Partnership for the Hydrogen 

Economy (IPHE) to coordinate and leverage 

multinational hydrogen research programs. 

IPHE will address the technological, financial, 

and institutional barriers to the hydrogen 

economy and develop internationally 

recognized technology standards to speed 

market penetration of new technologies. The 

Administration also launched the new 

international “Methane to Markets 

Partnership” in a ministerial conference in 

Washington, D.C., in November 2004. This is 

an innovative partnership of developed and 

developing countries working together to help 

promote energy security, improve 

environmental quality, and reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions by capturing methane that is 

currently wasted from leaky oil and gas 

systems, from underground coal mines, and 

from landfills and using it as a clean energy 

source. The Administration’s Clean Energy 

Technology Exports (CETE) initiative is 

designed to promote the global adoption of 

these and other energy-efficient technologies 

and create international energy markets for 

trade and investment. The United States has 

also supported locally based market solutions 

to address energy and environmental 

concerns in developing and transitional 

economies. In 2002 at the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development in South Africa, the 

United States announced the Clean Energy 

Initiative to reduce poverty and promote 

economic growth by creating access to clean 

efficient energy services.

It is not clear from the reported status what role State 

and Commerce played in implementing this 

recommendation. In contrast, information is provided 

on specific DOE program efforts. In addition, it is not 

clear if any goals and measures of success in the use 

of clean energy technologies have been established. 

For example, is there a measure to compare current 

use of clean energy technologies against future use 

as a progress measurement tool? In response to our 

question, DOE stated that no uniform measure of 

success is in place under CETE, but efforts are being 

designed to promote best practices with measures of 

success being a component. Finally, other federal 

programs may be related to implementation of this 

recommendation. For example, USAID is a cochair 

(with DOE and Commerce) of the interagency Clean 

Energy Technology Export Working Group. Also, 

USTDA supports activities related to clean energy 

technology exports as described in DOE’s April 2001 

Status Report to Congress on Current and Proposed 

Activities under the Clean Energy Technology Exports 

(CETE) Initiative. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, State reported that it was integrally involved in 

the establishment of these initiatives and continues to 

be involved in maintaining them.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 116 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-26: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct federal agencies to 

support continued research into 

global climate change; continue 

efforts to identify environmentally 

and cost-effective ways to use 

market mechanisms and 

incentives; continue development 

of new technologies; and 

cooperate with allies, including 

through international processes, 

to develop technologies, marketbased incentives, and other 

innovative approaches to 

address the issue of global 

climate change.

Implemented; activities ongoing: President 

Bush is committed to addressing the longterm challenge of global climate change while 

ensuring continued economic growth and 

prosperity for America. Domestically, the 

President has committed America to reducing 

the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. 

economy by 18 percent by 2012, preventing 

the emission of more than 500 million tons of 

carbon over this period. To address this issue, 

the Bush Administration is carrying out a 

comprehensive, innovative program of 

domestic and international initiatives to (1) 

improve our understanding of the science of 

climate change; (2) encourage near-term 

voluntary and cost-effective emissions 

reductions; (3) develop transformational 

energy technologies, such as hydrogenpowered vehicles, safer and more 

proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants, 

and zero-emission coal power plants, to 

substantially reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions in the longer term; and (4) build 

international partnerships (such as the Earth 

Observations initiative, the IPHE, the CSLF, 

and the Methane to Markets partnership) with 

developed and developing nations alike in a 

global, long-term effort to mitigate and adapt 

to climate change.

The reported status sets an overall goal, but it is not 

clear what the baseline measure is against which the 

goal of an 18 percent reduction by 2012 is to be 

compared. DOE explained that EIA, taking into 

account current and anticipated factors in energy 

markets, projects a greenhouse gas emissions 

intensity improvement of about 14 percent from a 

2002 baseline to 2012. The President’s goal is to 

increase that improvement to 18 percent.

8-27: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

seek to increase international 

cooperation on finding 

alternatives to oil, especially for 

the transportation sector.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE and 

USAID have provided grants for Clean Cities 

Coalitions and training programs in New 

Delhi, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh; cities in the 

Philippines; Mexico City, Mexico; and Lima, 

Peru, to assist with the conversion of vehicles 

to cleaner fuels. The Administration led the 

2003 formation of the IPHE to coordinate and 

leverage multinational hydrogen research 

programs. The IPHE will address the 

technological, financial, and institutional 

barriers to the hydrogen economy and 

develop internationally recognized technology 

standards to speed market penetration of new 

technologies.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 117 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-28: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of State to 

reinvigorate its dialogue with the 

European Union on energy 

issues, and resume the 

consultative process this year in 

Washington.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In 

November 2001, DOE and State hosted a 

bilateral consultation on energy issues with 

the EU, which was followed by an expert 

discussion on electricity and gas in May 2002. 

The EU has also joined several multilateral 

international energy initiatives launched by the 

United States, including the IPHE and the 

CSLF. The United States and the EU also are 

partners in a climate change bilateral 

agreement that has a strong focus on energy 

technologies.

It is not clear what activities have continued after the 

May 2002 example provided in the status report. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, State reported 

that the international partnerships, CSLF and IPHE, 

were both launched in 2003 and are chartered to 

continue indefinitely, providing an ongoing energy 

dialogue. 

8-29: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

promote a coordinated approach 

to energy security by calling for 

an annual meeting of G-8 Energy 

Ministers or their equivalents.

Implemented; activities ongoing: Secretary 

Abraham co-chaired with Canada a meeting 

of G-8 Energy Ministers in May 2002, resulting 

in the issuance of a Joint Statement 

committing to cooperation in energy security; 

emergency responses; energy dialogue 

among producers and consumers; research, 

development, and deployment; and fostering 

open markets and a favorable/stable 

investment climate. An informal meeting of G8 Energy Ministers, hosted by France in April 

2003, continued the dialogue on oil markets, 

producer/consumer relations, Iraqi production, 

and market transparency. At the G-8 Summit 

in Evian, France, in 2003, a science and 

technology action plan was endorsed which 

included cooperation in the CSLF and the 

IPHE. Many individual G-8 countries and the 

EU are participating in these initiatives. The 

G-8 Summit in June 2004 called for continued 

G-8 action to implement the Evian Action Plan 

and achieve concrete results.

None.

8-30: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

reaffirm that the SPR is designed 

for addressing an imminent or 

actual disruption in oil supplies, 

and not for managing prices.

Implemented: The Administration has 

continually resisted calls to use the SPR for 

manipulating prices. The United States will 

use the SPR only during a severe supply 

disruption, if necessary to protect American 

consumers and our economy. The SPR is vital 

to our national security and filling it to capacity 

is necessary to maximize protection for 

American consumers and our economy 

against severe oil supply disruptions, which 

could result from a variety of events, including 

natural disasters, industrial accidents, and 

terrorist attacks.

None.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 118 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

8-31: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

work within the International 

Energy Agency (IEA) to ensure 

that member states fulfill their 

stockholding.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

United States has worked with the IEA to 

ensure that member states fulfill their 

stockholding requirements. Currently, IEA 

members collectively hold 116 days’ worth of 

imports in oil stocks. The United States 

supported new, tougher measures to address 

certain members’ failure to maintain 

emergency reserves equal to 90 days’ worth 

of national oil imports. IEA held an energy 

emergency response exercise to evaluate 

readiness for an international emergency.

The reported status does not indicate what the 

stockholding requirements are and whether those 

requirements are met by the 116 days’ worth of 

imports. Also, it is not clear who is party to this 

agreement, what members are failing to meet 

requirements, and the status of U.S. stockholding 

requirements.

8-32: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

encourage major oil-consuming 

countries that are not IEA 

members to consider strategic 

stocks as an option for 

addressing potential supply 

disruptions. In this regard, we 

should work closely with Asian 

economies, especially through 

APEC.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The 

United States has worked with Asian 

countries through APEC to encourage the 

build-up of oil stocks by non-IEA members as 

a cushion against market disruptions and to 

address oil market transparency. China, India, 

Thailand, and the Philippines have announced 

stockholding plans. The IEA has held 

workshops for China, India, and Association 

of Southeast Asian Nations countries, all of 

which have indicated a desire to hold strategic 

stocks. China has plans to begin construction 

of an SPR, and India recently passed 

legislation in December 2003 authorizing 

establishment of the first part of an Indian 

SPR. DOE has hosted Chinese and Indian 

delegations to study the SPR. State and DOE 

have used APEC as another forum in which to 

urge non-IEA members to hold strategic 

stocks, and stockholding is now part of the 

APEC Energy Security Initiative, endorsed by 

APEC Leaders in Bangkok in November 

2003.

The reported status does not indicate what the status 

is on the strategic stocks for non-IEA members. See 

related recommendation 8-23.

8-33: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy 

offer to lease excess SPR 

storage facilities to countries 

(both IEA and non-IEA 

members) that might not 

otherwise build storage facilities 

or hold sufficient strategic stocks, 

consistent with statutory 

authorities.

Not implemented: In November 2001, the 

President directed the Secretary of Energy to 

fill the SPR to its 700 million barrel capacity in 

a cost-effective manner using principally 

royalty oil from federal offshore leases; the 

SPR is expected to reach its capacity during 

FY 2005. The United States and the IEA 

continue to promote and support workshops 

and other actions to encourage holding of 

strategic oil stocks in both IEA and non-IEA 

member countries.

The SPR leases facilities that are not required for 

standby operational readiness and have no adverse 

impact on the SPR mission. All of the leases specify 

that DOE can take control of the facilities if needed for 

an oil sale from the SPR.

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Appendix IV

NEP Recommendations, DOE Reported 

Status, and GAO Observations 

Page 119 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Sources: The May 2001 National Energy Policy report, the January 2005 National Energy Policy Status Report on Implementation of 

NEP Recommendations, and GAO’s observations on the reported status, along with DOE’s responses to GAO’s questions or agency 

comments on a draft of this report. 

a

See GAO, Licensing Hydropower Projects: Better Time and Cost Data Needed to Reach Informed Decisions About Process 

Reforms. GAO-01-499 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001).

8-34: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President, 

at such time that exchanged 

SPR barrels are returned to the 

SPR, should determine whether 

offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil 

deposits to the SPR should be 

resumed, thereby increasing the 

size of our reserve.

Implemented; activities ongoing: In 

November 2001, the President directed the 

Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to its 700 

million barrel capacity in a cost-effective 

manner using principally royalty oil from 

federal offshore leases. In August 2004, DOE 

awarded three new contracts to deliver crude 

oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under 

the Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) exchange program. 

The RIK program is managed by the 

Department of the Interior Minerals 

Management Service and represents a 

practical means of filling the reserve in 

keeping with the President’s objective to do so 

in a deliberate and cost-effective manner.

The status report does not provide information on the 

current status of the SPR. According to DOE, the 

SPR inventory stands at 681 million barrels of oil as of 

February 2005. The SPR is expected to reach 700 

million barrels in August 2005.

8-35: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

work closely with Congress to 

ensure that our SPR protection is 

maintained.

Implemented; activities ongoing: The SPR 

is now at its highest level and continues to 

grow as additional crude oil is received. In 

2001, the SPR contained enough oil to cover 

the loss of U.S. imports for 54 days. When the 

SPR reaches 700 million barrels in mid-2005, 

as directed by the President, the SPR will 

provide nearly 60 days of import protection. 

The Administration recommended to 

Congress in 2003 that the optimal size of the 

SPR be analyzed before determining whether 

further expansion of the SPR is warranted.

The reported status does not indicate the status of 

plans to analyze the optimal size of the SPR to 

ensure that protection is maintained. According to 

DOE, the SPR has a capacity of 727 million barrels, 

the SPR is authorized to have a capacity of 1 billion 

barrels, and the Administration is continually looking 

at the optimal size of the SPR.

8-36: The NEPD Group 

recommends that the President 

direct the Secretary of Energy to 

work with producer and 

consumer country allies and the 

IEA to craft a more 

comprehensive and timely world 

oil data reporting system.

Implemented; activities ongoing: DOE 

continues participation in the Joint Oil Data 

Initiative (JODI) to improve international oil 

market transparency. Over the past year, the 

timeliness and coverage of APEC member 

data collection has significantly improved. 

DOE is supporting the International Energy 

Forum Secretariat and the African Energy 

Information System data reporting initiatives. 

The United States has also highlighted the “oil 

data” issue as a key objective of the producerconsumer dialogue.

See related recommendations 8-14 and 8-23 on oil 

market transparency. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

NEP recommendation,

May 2001 DOE reported status, January 2005 GAO observations
Page 120 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area ApendxiV

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Energy supply

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy 

Related Programs I

$0 $0

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy 

Related Programs II

1,378,000 1,656,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy 

Related Programs III

735,000 1,373,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service: Bioenergy and Energy 

Related Programs IV

1,993,000 884,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Farm Service Agency-Commodity Credit 

Corporation’s Bioenergy Program

0 150,000,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service Research and Development: 

Bioenergy, Energy Efficiency, and Conservation 

Research

1,590,000 2,400,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses-3

 0 1,000,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses-2

0 1,000,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Rural Development Business Programs: 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

0 23,000,000

Department of Energy Clean Coal Technology (146,000,000) (47,000,000)

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Biomass And Biorefinery Systems 

Research and Development (R&D)

69,868,000 84,898,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Departmental Energy 

Management Program

0 1,445,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Facilities and Infrastructure 1,100,000 5,297,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Geothermal Technology 23,333,000 28,390,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Hydrogen Technology 24,287,000 38,113,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Hydropower 4,861,000 5,016,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Intergovernmental Activities 10,033,000 14,449,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Program Direction 17,720,000 12,615,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Renewable Program Support 0 0

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Solar energy 82,034,000 82,330,000
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 121 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Wind energy 32,085,000 41,640,000

Department of Energy Energy Supply-Zero energy buildings 0 7,572,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-National Academy of 

Sciences Program Review

0 497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Plant and Capital Projects 2,590,000 6,954,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced Metallurgical 

Research

4,980,000 5,961,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Black Liquor 13,939,000 0

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and Other Power 

Systems

111,881,000 410,340,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Cooperative Research And 

Development

7,408,000 8,186,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Energy Efficiency Science 

Initiative

 0 497,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Import/Export Authorization 2,173,000 2,981,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Natural Gas Technologies 120,279,000 47,013,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Petroleum Oil Technology 57,324,000 42,025,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Program Direction and 

Management Support

75,192,000 87,229,000

Department of Energy Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 0 17,715,000

Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Research and Development 34,864,000 114,441,000

Department of Energy Science-Fusion Energy Sciences Program 238,260,000 240,695,000

Department of the 

Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs-Operation of Indian 

Programs

2,200,000 3,300,000

Department of the 

Interior

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Coal 

Management

7,285,000 9,526,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Oil and Gas Management 57,793,000 86,100,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Workforce/Organizational Support 20,960,000 23,000,000

Department of the 

Interior

Minerals Management Service (MMS)-Indian 

Trust Responsibility

19,000,000 22,000,000

Department of the 

Interior

MMS-Royalty and Offshore Minerals 

Management

213,000,000 239,430,000

Department of the 

Interior

Office of Surface Mining (OSM)-Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation Fund

2,111,000 2,153,000

Department of the 

Interior

OSM-Regulation and Technology 95,401,000 104,209,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 122 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Department of the 

Interior

U.S. Geological Survey-Energy Resource 

Program

22,783,000 23,705,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)-New Source 

Review

0 1,200,000

National Science 

Foundation

Biological Sciences-Hydrogen and Fusion, Basic 

Research

2,910,000 920,000

National Science 

Foundation

Biological Sciences-Renewable Energy, Basic 

Research

20,000 87,000

National Science 

Foundation

Education and Human Resources-Hydrogen and 

Fusion, Basic Research

0 0

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Hydrogen and Fusion, 

Basic Research

490,000 200,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Hydrogen and Fusion, 

Applied Research

490,000 790,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Other Energy, Basic 

Research

1,880,000 930,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Renewable Energy, 

Applied Research

900,000 1,310,000

National Science 

Foundation

Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Renewable 

Energy, Basic Research

4,540,000 30,540,000

National Science 

Foundation

Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen 

and Fusion, Basic Research

6,010,000 7,330,000

National Science 

Foundation

Office of International Science and EngineeringHydrogen and Fusion, Basic Research10,000 70,000

National Science 

Foundation

Office of International Science and EngineeringRenewable Energy, Basic Research20,000 2,000,000

National Science 

Foundation

Social, Behavioral, Economic SciencesRenewable Energy, Basic Research0 60,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

International Nuclear Safety Support 7,117,465 8,026,645

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Materials Safety-Fuel Facilities Licensing 

and Inspection

22,057,943 21,420,704

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-New Reactor Licensing 0 26,464,865

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Inspection and 

Performance Assessment

132,942,192 147,123,812

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor License Renewal 15,786,830 22,870,187

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Licensing 80,098,135 95,316,734

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 123 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-Reactor Safety Research 81,664,869 70,870,929

Subtotal $1,591,377,434 $2,391,565,876

Energy’s impact on the environment and health

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Energy Programs, Agency-wide $92,400,000 $91,900,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service Research and DevelopmentGlobal Change Research, Climate Change 

Science Program and Climate Change 

Technology Program

16,900,000 18,778,000

Department of 

Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)-National Marine Fisheries Habitat

8,000 103,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service 

Consultations

1,415,000 2,539,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-National Weather Service 0 5,962,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management

206,000 341,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research

0 1,987,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Office of Response and Restoration 5,100,000 5,700,000

Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste 351,175,000 457,010,000

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D-Environmental Restoration 9,963,000 9,652,000

Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Services 301,600,000 161,852,000

Department of Energy Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion 0 156,129,000

Department of Energy Science-Biological and Environmental Research 416,037,000 494,360,000

Department of Energy Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decomissioning Fund

336,100,000 320,563,000

Department of the 

Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service-Resource Management 9,646,000 13,148,000

Department of the 

Interior

MMS-Oil Spill Research 6,000,000 6,000,000

Department of State State-Climate Change and Sustainable 

Development

1,135,000 1,440,000

Department of 

Transportation

Office of the Secretary of Transportation-National 

Climate Change Technology

0 650,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Boutique Fuels 0 400,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 124 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Climate Change Programs-Technological 

Advances, Clean Car Program

27,200,000 21,700,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies 

Legislation

7,000,000 2,100,000

National Science 

Foundation

Office of International Science and Engineering: 

Energy Efficiency, Basic Research

0 41,000

National Science 

Foundation

Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences-Energy 

Efficiency, Basic Research

220,000 60,000

National Science 

Foundation

Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences-Other 

Energy, Basic Research

60,000 10,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety-Environmental Protection 

and Low Level Waste Management

1,129,469 4,563,957

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety-High Level Waste 

Regulation

24,804,276 30,457,514

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety-Regulation of 

Decommissioning

23,483,756 21,628,121

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety-Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation Licensing and Inspection

20,373,831 27,021,284

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Regulatory Program 6,711,537 9,696,726

Subtotal $1,658,667,869 $1,865,792,602

Low-income energy consumer assistance

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Weatherization $135,000,000 $223,537,000

Department of Health 

and Human Services

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 1,844,350,000 1,988,300,000

Subtotal $1,979,350,000 $2,211,837,000

Basic energy science research

Department of Energy Science-Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research

$122,338,000 $163,185,000

Department of Energy Science-Basic Energy Sciences 752,031,000 1,001,941,000

Subtotal $874,369,000 $1,165,126,000

Energy delivery infrastructure

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Energy Activities in Afghanistan $0 $3,100,000

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Energy Activities in Iraq 0 558,000,000

Department of Energy Electric Transmission and Distribution 37,336,000 88,384,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 125 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Lands and Realty Management 23,101,000 27,200,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Oregon and California Grant Lands 1,975,500 2,300,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures 6,671,000 7,900,000

Department of 

Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

37,331,000 63,261,000

National Science 

Foundation

Education and Human ResourcesSuperconductivity, Basic Research1,000,000 0

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Superconductivity, 

Applied Research

780,000 110,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate- Superconductivity, Basic 

Research

400,000 340,000

National Science 

Foundation

Mathematical and Physical SciencesSuperconductivity, Basic Research28,170,000 12,130,000

National Science 

Foundation

Office of International Science and EngineeringSuperconductivity, Basic Research70,000 450,000

Subtotal $136,834,500 $763,175,000

Energy conservation

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses-1

$793,000 $793,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Biomass and Biorefinery 

Systems R&D

3,700,000 24,050,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Building Technologies 58,877,000 58,327,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Distributed Energy 

Resources

44,450,000 60,054,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Energy Efficiency Science 

Initiative

11,490,000 2,440,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Federal Energy 

Management Program

20,731,000 19,299,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Fuel Cell Technologies 3,550,000 53,906,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Industrial Technologies 109,243,000 96,824,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Intergovernmental Activities 80,589,000 90,618,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Program Management 76,300,000 76,950,000

Department of Energy Energy Conservation-Vehicle Technologies 206,271,000 174,171,000

Department of 

Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-

Intelligent Traffic Systems

11,175,000 7,541,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 126 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Department of 

Transportation

FHWA-Office of Operations Energy Related 

Obligations

5,008,000 4,903,000

Department of 

Transportation

Federal Transit Administration-Fuel-Cell-Powered 

Transit Buses

5,469,596 20,896,397

Department of 

Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationCorporate Average Fuel Economy60,000 1,000,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Clean School Bus 0 5,000,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Climate Change Programs, Industry 22,000,000 26,800,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Climate Change Programs, Smart Way 

Transport Partnership Initiative

2,600,000 4,400,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Climate Change, Buildings 42,600,000 41,600,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Locomotive Idling 0 200,000

Environmental Protection 

Agency

OAR-Truck Idling 0 200,000

National Science 

Foundation

Computer and Information Science and 

Engineering-Energy Efficiency, Basic Research

7,070,000 9,560,000

National Science 

Foundation

Education and Human Resources-Renewable 

Energy, Basic Research

1,000,000 33,000

National Science 

Foundation

Education and Human Resources- Energy 

Efficiency, Basic Research

100,000 400,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Energy Efficiency, 

Applied Research

1,790,000 830,000

National Science 

Foundation

Engineering Directorate-Energy Efficiency, Basic 

Research

4,500,000 6,970,000

National Science 

Foundation

Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Energy 

Efficiency, Basic Research

4,720,000 170,000

Subtotal $724,086,596 $787,935,397

Energy assurance and physical security

Department of Energy Energy Security and Assurance Program $2,100,000 $25,990,000

Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 0 5,961,000

Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 158,400,000 171,732,000

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Materials Safety-Homeland Security 0 10,388,139

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Reactor Safety-Homeland Security 0 28,884,439

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Appendix V

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget 

Authority for Agency Programs, by Energy 

Activity Area

Page 127 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Nuclear Waste Safety-Homeland Security 0 5,043,223

Subtotal $160,500,000 $247,998,801

Energy market competition and education

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service-Federal-State 

Marketing Improvement Programs

$0 $0

Department of 

Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service-Price Paid 

by Farmers, Fuel

129,000 140,000

Department of 

Commerce

International Trade Administration-Trade 

Development, Office of Energy

628,385 1,101,713

Department of 

Commerce

National Institute of Standards and TechnologyEnergy Use And Conservation Programs27,800,000 30,100,000

Department of Energy Energy Information Administration 72,400,000 80,087,000

Department of State State-Economic and Business Affairs, Energy 779,045 865,181

U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency

Energy Related Activities 17,764,831 14,508,784

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Energy Programs-Nationwide 99,600,000 39,300,000

Subtotal $219,101,261 $166,102,678

Total $7,344,286,660 $9,599,533,354

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Estimated budget authority
Page 128 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix VI

Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for Agency 

Programs, by Energy Activity ApendxiVI

Dollars in actual amounts

Budget request

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005

Energy supply

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service-Bioenergy and 

Energy Related Programs I

$0 $0 $0

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service-Bioenergy and 

Energy Related Programs II

1,580,000 3,500,000 4,097,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service-Bioenergy and 

Energy Related Programs III

00 0

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service-Bioenergy and 

Energy Related Programs IV

1,747,000 2,005,000 1,097,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Farm Service Agency-Commodity Credit 

Corporation’s Bioenergy Program

0 150,000,000 100,000,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service Research and 

Development-Bioenergy, Energy Efficiency, 

and Conservation Research

1,590,000 7,400,000 2,400,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy 

Policy and New Uses-3

0 1,000,000 1,000,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy 

Policy and New Uses-2

 0 1,000,000 2,500,000

Department of 

Agriculture

Rural Development Business ProgramsRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 0 22,800,000 10,700,000

Department of 

Energy

Clean Coal Technology (246,000,000) 40,000,000 (140,000,000)

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Biomass and Biorefinery 

Systems Research and Development 

(R&D)

92,391,000 86,005,000 72,596,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Departmental Energy 

Management Program

 0 3,000,000 1,967,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Facilities and Infrastructure 1,100,000 5,000,000 11,480,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Geothermal Technology 29,500,000 26,500,000 25,800,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Hydrogen Technology 28,000,000 39,881,000 95,325,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Hydropower 7,000,000 7,489,000 6,000,000
Appendix VI

Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for Agency 

Programs, by Energy Activity

Page 129 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Intergovernmental Activities 7,500,000 18,807,000 16,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Program Direction 19,171,000 16,907,000 20,711,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Renewable Program 

Support

 0 0 0

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Solar Energy 117,659,000 79,625,000 80,333,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Wind Eenergy 45,600,000 44,000,000 41,600,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Supply-Zero Energy Buildings 0 8,000,000 0

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-National Academy of 

Sciences Program Review

 0 0 0

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Plant and Capital 

Projects

2,000,000 2,000,000 0

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Advanced metallurgical 

research

5,000,000 5,300,000 8,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Black Liquor 0 0 0

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Coal and Other Power 

systems

110,682,000 365,100,000 470,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Cooperative Research 

and Development

5,836,000 6,000,000 3,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Energy Efficiency 

Science Initiative

 0 0 0

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Import/Export 

Authorization

 0 2,500,000 1,799,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Natural Gas 

Technologies

105,314,000 22,590,000 26,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Petroleum Oil 

Technology

50,166,000 35,400,000 15,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Program Direction and 

Management Support

72,079,000 84,700,000 106,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 0 21,069,000 20,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Nuclear Energy Research and 

Development

30,000,000 71,500,000 96,046,000

Department of 

Energy

Science-Fusion Energy Sciences Program 222,614,000 257,310,000 264,110,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Budget request

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005
Appendix VI

Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for Agency 

Programs, by Energy Activity

Page 130 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Department of the 

Interior

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Coal 

Management

7,527,000 9,588,000 8,944,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Oil and Gas Management 55,326,000 84,936,000 85,600,000

Department of the 

Interior

Minerals Management Service (MMS)-

Indian Trust Responsibility

19,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000

Department of the 

Interior

MMS-Royalty and Offshore Minerals 

Management

213,000,000 240,000,000 250,000,000

Department of the 

Interior

U.S. Geological Survey-Energy Resource 

Program

21,898,000 25,349,000 24,474,000

Subtotal $1,027,280,000 $1,818,261,000 $1,754,579,000

Energy’s impact on the environment and health

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service Research and 

Development-Global Change 

Research,Climate Change Science 

Program, Climate Change Technology 

Program

$16,900,000 $18,778,000 $19,396,000

Department of 

Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)-National Marine 

Fisheries Habitat

8,000 103,000 585,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service 

Consultations

1,415,000 2,539,000 3,923,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-National Weather Service 0 0 6,900,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management

206,000 341,000 216,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research

 0 2,000,000 17,556,000

Department of 

Commerce

NOAA-Office of Response and Restoration 5,100,000 5,700,000 5,700,000

Department of 

Energy

Civilian Radioactive Waste 370,000,000 590,802,000 880,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Fossil Energy R&D-Environmental 

Restoration

10,000,000 9,715,000 6,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Non-Defense Environmental Services 330,934,000 172,970,000 291,296,000

Department of 

Energy

Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion 0 167,581,000 151,850,000

Department of 

Energy

Science-Biological and Environmental 

Research

411,170,000 504,215,000 501,590,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Budget request

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005
Appendix VI

Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for Agency 

Programs, by Energy Activity

Page 131 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Department of 

Energy

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning Fund

240,198,000 298,489,000 500,200,000

Department of the 

Interior

MMS-Oil Spill Research 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)-Multipollutant Legislation,Clear Skies 

Legislation

7,000,000 2,200,000 8,500,000

Subtotal $1,398,931,000 $1,781,433,000 $2,400,712,000

Low-income energy consumer assistance

Department of 

Health and Human 

Services

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 

Program

$1,400,000,000 $1,700,000,000 $2,001,000,000

Subtotal $1,400,000,000 $1,700,000,000 $2,001,000,000

Basic energy science research

Department of 

Energy

Science-Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research

$198,875,000 $169,625,000 $204,340,000

Department of 

Energy

Science-Basic Energy Sciences 888,084,000 1,019,600,000 1,063,530,000

Subtotal $1,086,959,000 $1,189,225,000 $1,267,870,000

Energy delivery infrastructure

Department of 

Energy

Electric Transmission and Distribution $41,000,000 $76,506,000 $90,880,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Lands and Realty Management 23,214,000 27,121,000 27,900,000

Department of the 

Interior

BLM-Service Charges, Deposits, and 

Forfeitures

4,000,000 1,115,000 14,500,000

Department of 

Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration-Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

38,187,000 64,510,000 70,073,000

Subtotal $106,401,000 $169,252,000 $203,353,000

Energy conservation

Department of 

Agriculture

Office of Chief Economist-Office of Energy 

Policy and New Uses-1

$793,000 $793,000 $793,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Biomass and 

Biorefinery Systems R&D

4,000,000 23,939,000 8,420,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Building 

Technologies

88,163,000 52,563,000 56,586,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Distributed Energy 

Resources

31,300,000 54,784,000 52,867,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Budget request

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005
Appendix VI

Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2003, and 2005 for Agency 

Programs, by Energy Activity

Page 132 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates.

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Energy Efficiency 

Science Initiative

 0 0 0

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Federal Energy 

Management Program

28,968,000 23,425,000 17,683,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Fuel Cell 

Technologies

41,380,000 57,500,000 77,500,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Industrial 

Technologies

114,300,000 91,477,000 57,762,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Program 

Management

80,504,000 74,954,000 86,731,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Conservation-Vehicle Technologies 190,200,000 153,563,000 155,139,000

Department of 

Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration-Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy

60,000 1,250,000 1,283,000

Subtotal $579,668,000 $534,248,000 $514,764,000

Energy assurance and physical security

Department of 

Energy

Energy Security and Assurance Program $0 $4,275,000 $10,600,000

Department of 

Energy

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 0 8,000,000 5,000,000

Department of 

Energy

Strategic Petroleum Reserve 164,000,000 188,754,000 172,100,000

Subtotal $164,000,000 $201,029,000 $187,700,000

Energy market competition and education

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service-FederalState Marketing Improvement Programs$0 $0 $0

Department of 

Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics ServicePrice Paid by Farmers, Fuel 0 0 0

Department of 

Commerce

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology-Energy Use and Conservation 

Programs

27,800,000 30,100,000 4,700,000

Department of 

Energy

Energy Information Administration 72,644,000 80,111,000 85,000,000

Subtotal $100,444,000 $110,211,000 $89,700,000

Total $5,863,683,000 $7,503,659,000 $8,419,678,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in actual amounts

Budget request

Energy activity 

area/Agency Program Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2005
Page 133 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy

Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Energy ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Energy

Page 134 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Energy

(360415) Page 135 GAO-05-379 Major Federal Energy Programs and Policy
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

Public Affairs 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