BATTERIES AND 

ENERGY STORAGE

Federal Initiatives 

Supported Similar 

Technologies and 

Goals but Had Key 

Differences

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2012

GAO-12-842

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-842, a report to 

congressional requesters

August 2012

BATTERIES AND ENERGY STORAGE 

Federal Initiatives Supported Similar Technologies 

and Goals but Had Key Differences

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal interest in batteries and other 

energy storage technologies has 

increased in recent years to help 

address energy, defense, and space 

exploration challenges. The federal 

government has devoted substantial 

resources to support such technologies 

for the electric grid, electric vehicles, 

warfighting, and other uses.

GAO was asked to (1) identify the 

scope and key characteristics of 

federal battery and energy storage 

initiatives; (2) determine the extent to 

which there is potential fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication, if any, among 

these initiatives; and (3) determine the 

extent to which agencies coordinate 

these initiatives. GAO focused on fiscal 

years 2009 through 2012 because 

DOE made large investments in these 

technologies during these years. GAO 

surveyed initiatives identified in six 

agencies: DOE, DOD, NASA, NSF, 

EPA, and NIST. GAO included 

questions about the following key 

characteristics: funding obligations, 

technologies, uses, technology 

advancement activities, goals, eligible 

funding recipients, and funding 

mechanisms. GAO analyzed survey 

responses and interviewed agency 

officials to gather more information. 

GAO examined external coordination 

for all agencies and internal 

coordination in DOE and DOD 

because they had the largest 

obligations of the agencies GAO 

reviewed.

This report contains no 

recommendations. In response to the 

draft report, DOE, DOD, NASA, and 

NSF provided technical comments, 

which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate. The other agencies had 

no comments.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 39 battery and energy storage initiatives with a variety of key 

characteristics that were implemented across six agencies: the Departments of 

Energy (DOE) and Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). These initiatives obligated over $1.3 billion from fiscal 

years 2009 through 2012. Initiatives supported a variety of technologies, uses, 

advancement activities, and goals. Several types of recipients were eligible for 

funding, such as private industry, universities, and federal labs, through 

contracts, grants, and other mechanisms.

GAO found that initiatives were fragmented and had overlapping characteristics 

but did not find clear evidence of duplication. Initiatives were fragmented 

because they were involved in the same broad area of national need: to advance 

batteries and other energy storage technologies. Thirty initiatives had 

overlapping characteristics in that they supported similar technologies, uses, 

advancement activities, and goals. These initiatives also had similar types of 

eligible funding recipients. Although fragmented and overlapping initiatives create 

the risk of potential unnecessary duplication, initiatives supported agency-specific 

missions and strategic priorities that differentiated their efforts. In addition, 

agency officials involved with the initiatives reported differences in the 

technologies needed for specific uses, specific goals, and the types of recipients 

eligible for assistance.

Agencies reported several activities to coordinate with each other on their battery 

and energy storage initiatives, including initiatives that were overlapping. 

Activities were consistent with practices that GAO has previously reported can 

help enhance coordination such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities. In 

addition, DOE has taken steps to internally coordinate its battery and energy 

storage initiatives through activities that, among other things, defined common 

technology goals. DOD has also taken actions to improve its coordination of 

battery and energy storage initiatives based on a recommendation in a prior GAO 

report. 

Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2012

Agency Number of initiatives Funding obligations

DOE

a

11 $851,994,808

DOD

b

14 430,274,229

NASA

c

8 20,811,374

NSF

c

4 8,582,868

EPA 1 3,258,029

NIST 1 1,375,000

Total

c

39 $1,316,296,308

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

a

All funding obligations for fiscal year 2012 are estimated.

b

In addition to these obligations, DOE supported about $596 million in direct loans.

c

View 

Includes estimates for some obligations for fiscal years 2009 through 2011.

GAO-12-842. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Letter 1 

Background 6

Six Agencies Supported Thirty-Nine Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives with a Variety of Key Characteristics 8

Agencies’ Initiatives Were Fragmented and Had Overlapping 

Characteristics but Did Not Demonstrate Clear Instances of 

Duplication 16

Agencies Reported Coordinating Their Initiatives with Each Other 

and Internally through Several Activities 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies 40

Appendix III Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 42

Appendix IV Selected Questionnaire Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives 49

Appendix V GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal Agencies with Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives 58

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 73

Tables

Table 1: Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and 

Funding Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 10

Table 2: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Type of Technology 12

Table 3: Number of Initiatives Supporting Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Uses 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 4: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Technology 

Advancement Activity 14

Table 5: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Type of Eligible 

Recipient 15

Table 6: Number of Initiatives Using Each Funding Mechanism 16

Table 7: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies 40

Table 8: Department of Energy Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2012 42

Table 9: Department of Defense Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2012 44

Table 10: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Battery 

and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding 

Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 46

Table 11: National Science Foundation Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2012 47

Table 12: Environmental Protection Agency Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 48

Table 13: National Institute of Standards and Technology Battery 

and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding 

Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 48

Table 14: Department of Energy Selected Questionnaire Responses 

for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 49

Table 15: Department of Defense Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 51

Table 16: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Selected 

Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives 53

Table 17: National Science Foundation Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 54

Table 18: Environmental Protection Agency Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 55

Table 19: National Institute of Standards and Technology Selected 

Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives 56

Table 20: Total for All Agencies—Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives 57
Page iii GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Abbreviations

ARPA-E Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

ATVM Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing

AVPTA Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance

BEEST Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation

BES Office of Basic Energy Sciences

CAES compressed air energy storage

COTS commercial-off-the-shelf

CRS Congressional Research Service

CWG Chemical Working Group

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCOI Energy and Power Community of Interest

ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

GRIDS Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage

LPO Loan Program Office

MOU memorandum of understanding

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NSF National Science Foundation

OE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

OEPP Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

 Operational Energy Plans and Programs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OVT Office of Vehicle Technologies

PASTA Panel of Senior Technical Advisors

QTR Quadrennial Technology Review

Recovery Act 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

TARDEC Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering 

 Center

Treasury Department of the Treasury

TRL technology readiness level

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

United States. The published product 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-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 30, 2012

The Honorable Ralph Hall

Chairman

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

The Honorable Andy Harris

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

Federal interest in batteries and other energy storage technologies has 

increased in recent years to help address key energy, defense, and 

space exploration challenges. According to the Department of Energy 

(DOE), enhancing these technologies contributes to more flexible and 

efficient control of the nation’s existing electric infrastructure, or grid (e.g., 

electricity networks including power lines and customer meters). For 

example, these technologies have the potential to facilitate greater use of

intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, on 

the grid. In addition, according to DOE, batteries are also critical to 

advancing electric vehicles that are commercially viable to help reduce 

U.S. oil consumption.1 To address these challenges, DOE has devoted 

substantial resources in recent years to initiatives to support batteries and 

other energy storage technologies. For example, DOE awarded $185 

million in funds made available under the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) to 16 projects that supported 

demonstrations of batteries and other energy storage technologies on the 

electric grid. In addition, we reported in December 2010 that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has provided significant support for 

batteries and other energy storage technologies in recent years because 

virtually all DOD weapon systems and equipment rely on these 

technologies.2

 

1

In this report, the term “electric vehicles,” refers to different types of electrified vehicles 

including hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and all-electric vehicles. 

For example, we reported that DOD invested about $260 

2

These technologies are called “power sources” in DOD because some devices’ main use 

is power generation. An example of such a use is a battery supplying power for a laptop 

computer. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

million in science and technology efforts to develop and improve batteries 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2010.3

The existence of these initiatives at multiple agencies has raised 

questions about the potential for duplication, which in this context occurs 

when multiple initiatives support the same technology advancement 

activities for the same technologies and uses, provide funding to the 

same recipients using the same funding mechanisms, and have the same 

goals. As we previously reported, unnecessary duplication can potentially 

result from fragmentation and overlap among government programs.

The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) also relies on and has invested in these 

technologies to help support space exploration missions because space 

craft, space stations, and astronaut space suits require power that can be 

supplied remotely. Several other federal agencies—including the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Commerce’s National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—have also invested in 

initiatives to support research and development of these technologies.

4

Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more than 

one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of 

national need. For purposes of this report, overlap occurs when multiple 

initiatives support similar technologies, uses, technology advancement 

activities, and funding recipients, and have similar goals. We have 

previously reported that coordination across programs may help address 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.5

In this context, you asked us to review federal initiatives supporting 

batteries and other energy storage technologies—which we termed 

In this report, we define 

coordination as any joint activity by two or more organizations that is 

intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the 

organizations act alone.

 

3

Specifically, we reported that DOD invested about $138 million in science and technology 

efforts related to nonrechargeable (i.e., primary batteries) and about $122 million in efforts 

related to rechargeable (i.e., secondary batteries) during fiscal years 2006 through 2010. 

See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Improve DOD’s Oversight of 

Power Source Investments, GAO-11-113 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 30, 2010). 

4

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

5

GAO-11-318SP and GAO, Employment For People With Disabilities: Little Is Known 

about the Effectiveness of Fragmented and Overlapping Programs, GAO-12-677

(Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012). 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

“federal battery and energy storage initiatives.” Our objectives were to (1) 

identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and energy 

storage initiatives; (2) determine the extent to which there is potential 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication of these initiatives, if any; and (3) 

determine the extent to which agencies coordinate their battery and 

energy storage initiatives.

To address these three objectives, we focused our review on

rechargeable batteries6 and certain other energy storage technologies; 

we excluded nonrechargeable batteries,7 fuel cells, and nuclear energy 

storage technologies. We also focused on initiatives active8 during fiscal 

years 2009 through 2012 because, during these years, DOE offices made 

large investments in these technologies, including with funds made 

available under the Recovery Act. For example, DOE’s Advanced 

Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) supported about $97 million 

in battery and energy storage technologies during fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 with funding made available under the Recovery Act. We defined an 

initiative as a group of agency activities serving a similar purpose or 

function, such as a program or mission area. We included initiatives that 

either exclusively supported battery and energy storage technology 

projects or did so as part of a broader effort that also supported other 

types of projects.9

• To identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and 

energy storage initiatives, we first identified potentially relevant 

agencies and initiatives by reviewing two previous GAO reports that 

collected information on some federal battery and energy storage 

For example, we included DOE’s Title XVII Loan 

Guarantee Program, which supported loans to commercial-scale 

renewable energy projects, including battery, solar generation, wind 

generation, and geothermal generation projects.

 

6

Rechargeable batteries can be reenergized after their charge has been depleted. 

7

Nonrechargeable batteries are discarded after their charge has been depleted. 

8

For the purposes of this report, we defined active initiatives as those that were planned or 

funded or implemented or authorized in any of the fiscal years described. 

9

For the purposes of this report, we defined individual projects as parts of an overall 

initiative—for example, specific grant awards, agreements, in-house research activities, or 

contracts supported by an initiative. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

initiatives active in fiscal year 2010.10

 

10

In addition, we searched key 

federal databases, and interviewed agency officials. We limited our 

scope to initiatives that supported basic science, applied research, 

demonstrations, and commercialization activities for batteries and 

other energy storage technologies. Because initiatives often 

supported more than one type of technology advancement activity, 

some of the initiatives included in this report may also support 

deployment activities—efforts to facilitate or achieve widespread use 

of technologies either in the commercial market or for federal 

agencies’ use. However, in identifying agencies and initiatives, we 

excluded initiatives that focused solely on deployment activities and 

initiatives involving agency-owned assets such as fleets or facilities. 

For example, we did not include the Department of the Treasury 

(Treasury) and several federal tax credits it administered that 

indirectly supported deployment of batteries and other energy storage 

technologies during fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Treasury officials 

told us that data were generally not available on the estimated 

revenue loss directly associated with tax credits for these 

technologies because available data do not break out qualifying 

investments in fine enough detail to determine which part may have 

been for qualifying battery and energy storage devices. We confirmed 

a final list of six agencies and 39 initiatives. We then conducted a 

survey of agency officials involved in each of the 39 initiatives and 

included questions about the following key characteristics: funding 

obligations; goals and performance measures for batteries and other 

energy storage technologies; types of technologies, uses, and 

advancement activities supported; types of eligible funding recipients

and funding mechanisms used to provide assistance; and 

coordination activities. Some officials reported that funding obligations 

for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 were estimated because battery 

and energy storage projects were portions of larger projects, or 

broader initiatives, and were not specifically tracked. In addition, all 

funding obligations reported for fiscal year 2012 were estimated. We 

received survey responses from all 39 initiatives and therefore had a 

response rate of 100 percent. According to an official from DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Office of 

Vehicle Technologies (OVT), since the survey focused on research 

and development activities, they did not include in their survey 

GAO-11-113 and GAO, Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of 

Initiatives, GAO-12-260 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2012).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

response $1.5 billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act. 

With these funds DOE made awards to 20 projects to support the 

establishment of advanced battery manufacturing and battery 

recycling facilities in the U.S. DOE officials provided this information 

separately in OVT’s annual energy storage research progress 

reports.11

• To determine the extent of potential fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication, if any, we analyzed survey responses for the initiatives to 

identify similarities and differences in their key characteristics. We 

then interviewed agency officials to gather more information to further 

evaluate similarities and differences.

• To determine the extent to which agencies coordinated their 

initiatives, we used survey responses and interviews to identify 

interagency coordination activities across the six agencies. We also 

examined internal coordination in DOE and DOD of initiatives within 

those agencies because they had the largest funding obligations 

among the agencies we reviewed. For DOD we followed up on 

actions, if any, DOD took to address recommendations we made in 

2010. We drew on past GAO work related to interagency 

coordination.12

We provide a more in-depth discussion of our questionnaire and methods 

in appendix I. For a copy of our questionnaire, see appendix V.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to August 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

11See, for example, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Progress Report for Energy Storage R&D, DOE/EE-0675 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012). 

12GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
 

Page 6 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Batteries and other energy storage technologies include numerous 

devices that can store energy in one form—such as chemical, 

mechanical, electrostatic, or thermal energy—and can transform the 

energy to generate electrical power at a later time. For example, batteries 

store energy in chemical form and convert it to electrical energy through 

electrochemical processes. Other types of energy storage technologies 

include capacitors and flywheels. Capacitors store energy in electrostatic 

form and release the energy as electrical power. Flywheels store energy 

in mechanical form using a spinning wheel, or tube, and then transform 

the energy to electrical power using the spinning wheel, or tube, to drive a 

generator. Appendix II provides descriptions of technologies identified 

during our review.

Batteries and other energy storage technologies can support diverse 

uses, such as the following:

• Personal-use electronics power. Internal power for small or mobile 

electronic devices such as laptop computers and cell phones.

• Stationary power storage. Energy storage for stationary electricity 

generation and distribution systems such as the national electric grid, 

or stand-alone systems for military installations.

• Vehicle propulsion. Power for propulsion of vehicles that travel on the 

ground, in the air, in and on water, or in space.

• Auxiliary power for vehicles. Power for uses other than propulsion 

such as providing electricity for navigation, communication, and other 

equipment.

• Weapon systems power. Power for weapons and their components 

necessary for their operation, such as targeting and guidance devices.

Batteries and other energy storage technologies are in various stages of 

technology advancement. For example, lithium-ion batteries are a popular 

type of battery used for powering most small or mobile consumer 

electronics. Recently, lithium-ion batteries are also being used in electric 

grids and electric vehicles because, among other factors, they are 

lightweight and have high energy and power densities compared with 

Background 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

other commercially available batteries.13

Federal agencies support innovation of battery and energy storage 

technologies through a spectrum of technology advancement activities. 

For purposes of this report, we call these activities basic research, 

applied research, demonstrations, commercialization, and deployment

activities and define these terms as follows:

However, research efforts on 

lithium-ion batteries for these other uses aim to, among other things, 

improve their safety and reduce their cost. For example, DOE supports 

research on lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles that focuses on 

developing new approaches for managing the temperature ranges in 

which the batteries can operate to help improve their safety.

14

• Basic research includes efforts to explore and define scientific or 

engineering concepts, or is conducted to investigate the nature of a 

subject without targeting any specific technology.

• Applied research includes efforts to develop new scientific or 

engineering knowledge to create new and improved technologies.

• Demonstrations include efforts to operate new or improved 

technologies to collect information on their performance and assess 

readiness for widespread use.

 

13Energy density of a battery or other energy storage technology is the ratio of energy 

stored to the mass or volume of the device. For example, energy density of a battery 

affects the distance a vehicle can travel with a given size battery. Power density is the 

amount of energy in a given device’s mass or volume that can be delivered in a given 

period of time. For example, power density of a battery affects how fast a vehicle can 

accelerate. 

14We developed definitions that could be applied broadly to make comparisons across 

agencies and that covered the full spectrum of advancement activities. Federal agencies 

use various definitions and categories for describing the stages of technology 

advancement. For example, NASA and DOE use technology readiness level (TRL) 

categories and definitions to measure and communicate technology readiness for first-ofa-kind technology applications. However, these agencies’ TRL categories and definitions 

are not the same. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides 

federal definitions for the terms basic research, applied research, and development in 

OMB Circular No. A–11, Section 84—Character Classification (Schedule C), but does not 

provide definitions for demonstrations and commercialization activities. During pretests of 

our questionnaire, agency officials were able to fit their initiatives’ activities within our 

categories and based on our definitions, which validated our use of them. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

• Commercialization includes efforts to bridge the gap between 

research and demonstration activities, and venture capital funding and 

marketing activities, through transitioning technologies to commercial 

applications.

• Deployment activities include efforts to facilitate or achieve 

widespread use of technologies either in the commercial market or for 

federal agencies’ use.

Federal agencies pursue technology advancement activities through the 

direct work of agency staff (i.e., in-house) or by providing funding 

assistance to external recipients in government laboratories, universities, 

industry, and nonprofit organizations. Government laboratories include 

facilities within a federal agency such as the Army Research Laboratory 

and Air Force Research Laboratory. Such laboratories also include 

federally funded research and development centers sponsored by federal 

agencies, such as DOE’s national laboratories, that are not federal 

entities but that were originally established by federal authority to address 

national scientific research needs.

We identified 39 battery and energy storage initiatives across six 

agencies that supported battery and energy storage technologies. In total, 

these initiatives obligated over $1.3 billion during fiscal years 2009 

through 2012 to support a variety of goals, technologies, uses, and 

advancement activities. They also provided funding to many types of 

recipients, such as federal labs and private industry, through a number of 

different funding mechanisms. We provide descriptions of each of these 

initiatives in appendix III and selected survey responses for each initiative 

in appendix IV.

We identified 39 initiatives—implemented by six agencies—that 

supported batteries and other energy storage technologies to some 

degree.15

 

15For the purposes of this report, we defined an initiative as a group of agency activities 

serving a similar purpose or function, such as a program or mission area. Given this broad 

definition, we included initiatives that did not exclusively support battery and energy 

storage technology projects but did so as part of a broader effort that also supported other 

types of projects.

As shown in table 1, over 80 percent of these initiatives (33 of 

Six Agencies 

Supported Thirty-Nine 

Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives 

with a Variety of Key 

Characteristics 

Agencies Involved, 

Initiatives, Funds 

Obligated, and Goals
 

Page 9 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

39) were implemented by three agencies: DOE (11), DOD (14), and 

NASA (8). Other initiatives were implemented by NSF, EPA, and NIST. 

Twenty-six initiatives were active during all four fiscal years we 

examined—2009 through 2012—and three initiatives were new in fiscal 

year 2012.

Overall, as shown in table 1, the six agencies reported that they obligated 

over $1.3 billion during fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to support these 

initiatives, according to our analysis of survey responses. Obligations for 

these initiatives rose from about $246 million in fiscal year 2009 to about 

$311 million in fiscal year 2012. DOE and DOD had the largest 

obligations among the six agencies.

• DOE obligated almost $852 million over the period for its 11 initiatives. 

The largest DOE initiatives were the OVT’s Vehicle Technologies

Energy Storage Research and Development initiative, which reported 

obligating $323 million from fiscal year 2009 through 2012;16

 

16DOE’s OVT also awarded $1.5 billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act to 

20 projects to support the establishment of advanced battery manufacturing and recycling 

facilities in the United States.

and the 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability’s (OE) Energy 

Storage Program, which reported obligating $241 million from fiscal 

year 2009 through 2012, including $185 million in obligations from 

funding made available under the Recovery Act. DOE’s total 

obligations also included about $30 million in credit subsidy costs 

obligated by the Loan Program Office’s (LPO) Advanced Technology 

Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program to support about $520 

million in loans that helped establish two electric vehicle battery 

manufacturing facilities, as well as about $11 million in credit subsidy 

costs obligated by the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program to 

guarantee about $76 million in loans for battery and energy storage 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

technology projects.17 Credit subsidy costs are the government’s 

estimated net long-term cost, in present value terms, of the loans.18

• DOD reported obligating about $430 million for its 14 initiatives. The 

DOD initiative with the largest obligations was the Navy and Marine 

Corps Energy Storage System Integration initiative, which obligated 

$130 million from fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The next largest 

DOD initiatives were the Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage 

Science and Technology initiative and the Army Energy Storage for 

Air and Ground Vehicles initiative, which both obligated about $80 

million between fiscal year 2009 and 2012.

Table 1: Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding Obligations, 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012

Agency Number of initiatives Funding obligations

DOE 11 $851,994,808

DOD

a

14 430,274,229

NASA 8 20,811,374

NSF 4 8,582,868

EPA 1 3,258,029

NIST 1 1,375,000

Total 39 $1,316,296,308

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

Note: Some of these totals included estimated obligations for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. All 

obligations for fiscal year 2012 were estimated by agencies.

a

In addition to these obligations, DOE supported about $596 million in federal loans for battery and 

energy storage technology projects.

 

17Officials from DOE’s LPO told us that one of the battery and energy storage projects 

with a loan guarantee commitment for a loan of $17 million withdrew from the program 

reducing the value of its loan to zero. As a result, the total amount in loans that DOE 

guaranteed for these technologies under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program was 

reduced by $17 million and the total amount of the program’s credit subsidy obligations 

were also reduced by over $830,000.

18Credit subsidy costs exclude administrative costs and any incidental effects on 

governmental receipts or outlays. Present value is the worth of the future stream of returns 

or costs in terms of money paid immediately. In calculating present value, prevailing 

interest rates provide the basis for converting future amounts into their “money now” 

equivalents. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Agencies reported that 26 of the initiatives had goals directly related to 

advancing batteries and other energy storage technologies. For example, 

DOD’s Army Energy Storage for the Soldier initiative aimed to achieve 

specific targets for increasing the energy density and reducing the weight 

of devices that soldiers carry. The other initiatives that supported batteries 

and other energy storage technologies did not have goals directly related 

to advancement of these technologies, according to their responses. For 

example, seven initiatives—from DOE, DOD, and NSF—told us that they

were focused on basic science research. Five other initiatives reported 

that they supported batteries and other energy storage technologies as 

part of a broader mission and, therefore, their goals were not specifically 

related to advancement of these technologies. For example, DOE’s 

ATVM Loan Program reported that its mission was to provide loans to 

companies making cars and components in U.S. factories that increase 

fuel economy at least 25 percent above the fuel economy levels for 2005. 

Accordingly, the program provided loans to two companies to 

manufacture battery packs for electric cars. This program also provided 

loans for a variety of other projects, such as upgrading factories and 

improving vehicle fuel efficiency for vehicles powered by internal 

combustion engines.19

The 26 initiatives that agency officials reported tracked goals directly 

related to advancing batteries and other energy storage technologies 

reported using various technical performance and cost targets. For 

example, DOE’s OE Energy Storage Program established a number of 

technical performance targets related to improving the cost, cycle life, and 

energy efficiency of batteries; flywheels; compressed air energy storage; 

and other technologies for providing stationary storage on the electric 

grid. NASA’s Flywheel Energy Storage and Momentum Control initiative 

also established technical performance targets to develop a flywheel that 

can discharge the same amount of energy for 3 hours as the best fielddeployed battery systems. In addition, DOD’s Army Energy Storage for 

the Soldier initiative set a cost target to produce a battery that matches 

the contour of a soldier’s body armor and that costs less than $400.

 

19In addition, DOE’s Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub reported not 

having battery and energy storage related goals. This initiative was established in fiscal 

year 2012. At the time of our review, DOE officials from the Office of Science’s Office of 

Basic Energy Sciences (BES) reported that the applications and award process was not 

completed. The goals for the hub will be proposed through the applications, reviewed by 

peer review, and finalized in negotiations between DOE and the successful applicant.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

As shown in table 2, agencies reported that their initiatives supported 

more than 10 technologies, with most initiatives supporting two or more 

technologies. Specifically, 21 of the 39 initiatives supported more than 

one kind of battery or other energy storage technology, and initiatives 

supported on average two technologies. Lithium-ion batteries were the 

most commonly supported technology among initiatives. Many initiatives 

also reported that they supported other types of batteries, such as metalair batteries, lithium-metal batteries, and other energy storage 

technologies, such as capacitors, flywheels, and compressed air energy 

storage (CAES). Appendix II provides descriptions of batteries and other 

energy storage technologies identified in this review.

Table 2: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Type of Technology

Technology Number of initiatives

Lithium-ion batteries 28

Metal-air batteries 19

Capacitors 17

Lithium-metal batteries 16

Basic energy storage research 14

Advanced lead-acid batteries 11

Redox flow batteries 9 

Sodium batteries 9 

CAES 4 

Flywheels 4 

Other 15 a

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

Note: Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives supported more than one type of 

technology.

a

According to questionnaire responses, other technologies supported by initiatives included, for 

example, hydraulic accumulators, superconducting magnetic energy storage, solar thermal energy 

storage, and other types of flow batteries such as zinc-bromide flow batteries.

Agencies reported that 32 of the 39 initiatives supported specific 

technology uses. Of these 32 initiatives, 24 reported that they supported 

more than one technology use category; on average, initiatives supported 

two technology use categories. As shown in table 3, the largest number of 

initiatives focused on ground-based vehicle propulsion, such as for lightduty electric vehicles and space rovers. The next largest groups of 

initiatives focused on auxiliary power for vehicles, which is power for uses 

such as starting and stopping vehicles or supporting electronics in military 

tactical vehicles, as well as on stationary power storage, including largeTechnologies, Uses, and 

Technology Advancement 

Activities
 

Page 13 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

scale systems such as the electric utility grid and small-scale systems 

such as microgrids providing power for forward operating bases.20

Table 3: Number of Initiatives Supporting Battery and Energy Storage Technology 

Uses

Technology uses Number of initiatives

Ground-based vehicle propulsion 16

Auxiliary power for vehicles 14

Stationary power storage 14

Propulsion for vehicles that are not ground-based 

(air, space, underwater)

12

Personal-use electronics power 6 

Weapon systems 6 

Other 8 a

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses.

Note: Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives supported more than one type of 

technology use.

a

Other types of technology use—as marked in questionnaire responses—include, for example, space 

applications and low-power sensors for defense applications.

Agencies’ initiatives supported one or more of the five categories of 

technology advancement activities. Specifically, for 28 of the 39 

initiatives, agency officials reported supporting more than one technology 

advancement activity. As shown in table 4, the most common type 

supported was applied research, followed by demonstrations, basic 

research, commercialization, and deployment activities. Agencies 

reported that initiatives that supported applied research focused on a 

broad range of research that included developing practical devices—such 

as a battery for an electric vehicle—to meet specific needs, designing 

energy and power system integration and management approaches, and 

developing new or improved manufacturing processes. Agencies reported 

that initiatives that supported basic research generally targeted discovery 

and development of new energy storage materials and approaches for 

device architectures.

 

20A forward operating base is an airfield or ground base used as a staging area to support 

tactical operations without establishing full support facilities. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 4: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Technology Advancement Activity

Technology advancement activity Number of initiatives 

Basic research 15

Applied research 27

Demonstrations 19

Commercialization 12

Deployment 10 a

Other 6 b

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses.

Note: Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives supported more than one type of 

advancement activity.

a

Initiatives that were surveyed did not solely support deployment but rather did so along with other 

technology advancement activities. We report these deployment activities that initiatives identified as 

part of their initiatives but these do not encompass the entirety of federal deployment activities.

b

Other types of technology advancement activities—as marked in questionnaire responses—include, 

for example, developing testing procedures.

For 33 of the 39 initiatives, agency officials reported providing funding 

assistance to external recipients. Most initiatives reported having more 

than one eligible type of external funding recipient. In addition, 18 

initiatives reported conducting in-house technology advancement 

activities. As shown in table 5, officials commonly reported that industry, 

universities, and DOD laboratories were eligible types of funding 

recipients, along with DOE national laboratories, and other federal 

laboratories. The DOE national laboratories are an important recipient for 

DOE programs because several of the national laboratories host 

multidisciplinary battery and energy research centers. For example, 

according to DOE officials, the national laboratories, among other things, 

implement one of BES’s Energy Frontier Research Centers focused on 

basic energy storage research. The national laboratories also conduct 

much of the early applied research supported by OVT’s Vehicle 

Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development initiative and 

OE’s Energy Storage Program.

Types of Recipients and 

Funding Mechanisms
 

Page 15 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 5: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Type of Eligible Recipient

Recipient type Number of initiatives 

Industry 32

Universities 30

Department of Defense laboratories 25

Department of Energy national laboratories 23

Other federal government laboratories 23 a

Other 8 b

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses.

Note: Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives had more than one type of eligible 

recipient.

a

Agencies reported other federal government labs to include research agencies such as NIST and 

NSF.

b

Other types of recipients—as marked in questionnaire responses—include, for example, nonprofit 

organizations.

For most agencies’ initiatives, officials reported using more than one type 

of funding mechanism to provide assistance. In particular, officials 

reported funding assistance was provided primarily through three types of 

mechanisms—contracts,21 grants, and cooperative agreements.22

 

21“Contract” means a mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the 

supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them. It includes all 

types of commitments that obligate the government to an expenditure of appropriated 

funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are in writing. In addition to bilateral 

instruments, contracts include (but are not limited to) awards and notices of awards; job 

orders or task letters issued under basic ordering agreements; letter contracts; orders, 

such as purchase orders, under which the contract becomes effective by written 

acceptance or performance; and bilateral contract modifications. Contracts do not include 

grants and cooperative agreements covered by 31 U.S.C. 6301, et seq. 

As 

shown in table 6, officials for 21 initiatives reported using contracts, 

officials for 18 reported using grants, and officials for 15 reported using 

cooperative agreements.

22Like grants, cooperative agreements involve the provision of financial or other support to 

accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by federal statute. 

However, cooperative agreements differ from grants in terms of agency involvement, 

supervision, and intervention in the project. Whereas grants restrict government 

involvement to the minimum necessary to achieve program objectives, under cooperative 

agreements, the government and prime recipients share responsibility for the 

management, control, direction, and performance of projects. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 6: Number of Initiatives Using Each Funding Mechanism

Funding mechanism Number of initiatives 

Contracts 21

Grants 18

Cooperative agreements 15

Interagency agreements 7 

Direct loans 2 

Other 8 a

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses.

Note: Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives used more than one type of funding 

mechanism.

a

Other types of funding mechanisms—as marked in questionnaire responses— include, for example, 

Space Act agreements. These are legal agreements other than contracts, leases, and cooperative 

agreements that NASA uses under authority granted to it in the National Aeronautics and Space Act 

of 1958 to give the agency greater flexibility in achieving its mission.

According to our analysis, initiatives were fragmented across multiple 

agencies and had overlapping characteristics, but we found no clear 

instances of duplicative initiatives. Initiatives were fragmented because 

they were implemented across six agencies and were involved in the 

same broad area of national need: to advance new and improved 

batteries and other energy storage technologies. We also found 30 

initiatives in four of the agencies had overlapping characteristics, to some 

degree, in that they supported broadly similar technologies, uses, 

technology advancement activities, and goals. These initiatives also 

generally reported that similar types of recipients were eligible to receive 

assistance. Fragmented and overlapping initiatives across these agencies 

resulted from federal efforts to both create and expand programs to 

improve these technologies for a range of agency missions. Although the 

existence of fragmented and overlapping initiatives creates the risk of 

potential unnecessary duplication, initiatives we reviewed supported 

agency-specific missions and strategic priorities that differentiated them. 

In addition, initiatives reported differences in the technologies needed for 

specific uses, specific goals, and the types of recipients they provide 

support to, and we did not find clear evidence of duplicative initiatives.

Agencies’ Initiatives 

Were Fragmented and 

Had Overlapping 

Characteristics but 

Did Not Demonstrate 

Clear Instances of 

Duplication 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

The 39 initiatives we identified were fragmented because they were 

implemented by various offices in six agencies and were involved in the 

same broad area of national need: to advance batteries and energy 

storage technologies. In addition, we identified 30 initiatives in four of the 

six agencies—DOE, DOD, NASA, and NSF—that had overlapping 

characteristics, to some degree, with at least one other initiative in that 

they supported broadly similar technologies,23

• Basic science research on energy storage. Two initiatives supported 

similar goals for basic research on energy storage. Specifically, in 

fiscal year 2012, DOE’s BES established a new initiative called the

Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub that had a goal 

to rapidly drive toward electrochemical energy storage solutions 

beyond the current limits, for uses in electric cars and the electric grid.

According to DOE officials, the planned hub will consist of a single 

large multi-year, multi-institution, and cross-disciplinary award with 

each participant expected to work in a coordinated effort. NSF also 

established a new initiative in fiscal year 2012, called the Energy for 

Sustainability Program that the agency reported had a goal to, among 

other things, support basic research on radically new battery systems 

or breakthroughs for use in electric cars. An official from NSF told us 

that awards for the Energy for Sustainability Program will be singleinvestigator grants made generally to academic researchers. 

uses, technology 

advancement activities, and goals. In addition, these initiatives generally 

reported similar types of eligible funding recipients. The following are 

several examples of such overlapping characteristics: 

• Applied research on ground-based vehicle propulsion. Three 

initiatives reported similar goals for applied research on similar 

batteries for ground-based vehicle propulsion. Specifically, DOE’s 

OVT Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research and 

Development initiative supported applied research to develop next 

generation battery and capacitor materials, cells, packs, and 

manufacturing processes to enable a large market penetration of 

electric vehicles. DOE’s ARPA-E Batteries for Electrical Energy 

Storage in Transportation (BEEST) initiative aimed to develop 

transformational advanced battery chemistries, architectures, and 

manufacturing processes that, if successful, would leapfrog next 

generation technologies and speed widespread adoption of electric 

 

23In this context, the term “technologies” includes basic energy storage science. 

Initiatives Were 

Fragmented and Had 

Overlapping

Characteristics
 

Page 18 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

vehicles. DOD’s Army Energy Storage for Air and Ground Vehicles 

initiative focused on applied research to develop battery systems and 

battery integration approaches that provide hybrid electric vehicle 

propulsion for Army tactical and other vehicles.

• Applied research for stationary storage systems. Three initiatives 

reported similar goals for applied research to improve batteries and 

other energy storage technologies for large and small-scale stationary 

power storage. Specifically, DOE’s OE Energy Storage Program 

focused on developing batteries and other energy storage 

technologies and systems that will increase the reliability, 

performance, and competitiveness of electricity generation and 

transmission in the electric grid and in stand-alone grids. DOE’s 

ARPA-E Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage 

(GRIDS) initiative aimed to develop new and transformational cost 

competitive batteries and other energy storage technologies to 

increase electric grid reliability and enable greater integration of 

energy generation from renewable sources, such as wind and solar

energy, on the electric grid. DOD’s Navy and Marine Corps Energy 

Storage Science and Technology initiative focused on developing 

battery and other energy storage devices and systems to enable the 

Navy and Marine Corps to successfully carry out current and future 

missions and to retain superiority over adversaries. The initiative’s 

research on these technologies for stationary energy storage focused 

on developing solutions for providing back-up and hotel power24 for 

naval ships, and for enabling the use of alternative energy sources, 

such as solar or wind energy, to provide continuous and reliable 

power for Marine forward operating bases and other Navy and Marine 

facilities.

• Demonstrations for stationary storage systems. Two initiatives 

reported similar goals for demonstrations of batteries and other 

energy storage technologies to improve the efficiency of stationary 

power systems and their ability to use renewable energy sources. 

Specifically, DOD’s Installation Energy Test Bed initiative in the Office 

of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 

Environment’s Environmental Security Technology Certification 

 

24Hotel power refers to power provided for all loads on a naval ship other than that to 

propel the ship through the water (propulsion). Examples of hotel loads are weapon

systems, radar systems, and loads needed for the sustainment and comfort of the people 

on board.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Program had a mission to demonstrate battery technologies for smallscale stationary power uses, such as in fixed DOD installations, that 

will enable compatibility with the electric grid, improve efficiency of an 

installation’s power network, and enable increased use of distributed 

energy generation, especially renewable energy sources.25 DOE’s OE 

Energy Storage Program supports activities to demonstrate the value 

of and evaluate the performance of batteries and other energy storage 

technologies and systems on the electric grid, including large-scale 

and distributed systems, such as community energy storage, to help 

define electric grid requirements for batteries and other energy 

storage technologies, and provide valuable knowledge for further 

development and optimization of these technologies.

In addition, 29 of the 30 broadly overlapping initiatives in DOE, DOD, 

NASA, and NSF also reported that one or more similar types of recipients 

were eligible to receive funding assistance. For example, officials from 

DOE’s OVT Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research and 

Development initiative and DOD’s Army Energy Storage for Air and 

Ground Vehicles initiative reported similar types of eligible recipients: 

industry, universities, DOD laboratories, DOE laboratories, and other 

federal laboratories.

Fragmented and overlapping initiatives have resulted from federal efforts 

to both create and expand programs across agencies to improve batteries 

and other energy storage technologies for a range of agency missions. 

Officials from DOE and DOD told us that their initiatives had broadly 

similar characteristics because energy storage technologies are generally

enabling technologies that help agencies to work toward broader agency 

technology goals. For example, DOE is focused on developing batteries 

to incorporate in electric cars and for use in the electric grid while DOD is 

focused on incorporating these technologies in military vehicles, soldier 

worn or carried equipment, and weapons. Officials from DOE, DOD, and 

NASA also told us that initiatives that have broadly similar characteristics 

can result in complementary research. For example, the DOE official who 

leads the OVT’s Hybrid and Electric Systems Team told us that DOE has 

 

25Distributed energy generation refers to a variety of small, modular power-generating 

technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels that can be combined with energy 

storage technologies to improve the quality and/or reliability of the electricity supply. They 

are “distributed” because they are placed at or near the point of energy consumption, 

unlike traditional “centralized” systems, where electricity is generated at a remotely 

located, large-scale power plant and then transmitted down power lines to the consumer.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

funded the development of a battery abuse modeling tool that predicts 

how a battery will respond when subjected to abnormally high operating 

temperatures. DOE officials told us that Army’s Tank Automotive 

Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has funded 

research to adapt the modeling tool to analyze the performance of 

batteries used in Army systems and military operational scenarios. In 

addition, officials from DOD told us that overlap can be beneficial in the 

area of basic research where there are potentially multiple approaches for 

achieving similar goals. For example, one DOD official said that there are 

many approaches to developing new energy storage materials and 

increasing the surface area of these materials at the nanoscale; and 

having multiple efforts focused on this and similar scientific challenges 

increases the chances of making these new discoveries. However, the 

existence of broadly overlapping initiatives also creates the risk of 

potential duplication.

Fragmentation and overlap are, by themselves, not an indication that 

unnecessary duplication of initiatives exists. In particular, we found that 

agencies’ battery and energy storage initiatives supported agencyspecific missions and strategic priorities that differentiated them. The 

following are agency missions and strategic priorities supported by each 

federal agency included in our review:

• DOE’s mission is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by 

addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through 

transformative science and technology solutions. DOE’s battery and 

energy storage initiatives support its mission by supporting the 

agency’s strategic plan goal to catalyze the timely, material, and 

efficient transformation of the nation’s energy system and secure U.S. 

leadership in clean energy technologies such as electric vehicle 

batteries.

• DOD has defined energy security as a strategic priority for the military 

services. Energy security involves helping to assure access to reliable 

supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient 

energy to meet operational needs. DOD’s battery and energy storage 

initiatives help support this strategic priority by delivering power for 

equipment carried or worn by soldiers, weapon systems, and military 

vehicles, as well as enabling tactical operations and fixed military 

bases to more efficiently use fossil fuels and make greater use of 

renewable energy sources.

• NASA’s mission is to drive advances in science, technology, and 

exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic 

Federal Initiatives Did Not 

Demonstrate Clear 

Instances of Duplication
 

Page 21 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

vitality, and stewardship of Earth. NASA’s battery and energy storage 

initiatives support its mission by contributing to innovation of space 

exploration technologies to help achieve its space exploration 

missions. 

• NSF’s mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the 

national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national 

defense; and for other purposes. To implement its mission, NSF 

supports research and education across all fields and disciplines of 

science and engineering and at all levels of education. NSF-funded 

fundamental research and education projects fuel innovation and 

contribute directly to addressing national challenges, such as the 

development of a clean energy economy. As a result, NSF has 

supported research on the conversion, storage, and distribution of 

diverse power sources as well as on energy materials, energy use, 

and energy efficiency. 

• EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. EPA’s 

energy storage initiative helps support its mission by supporting 

improved fuel economy and reduced vehicle air pollution emissions.

• NIST’s mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and 

technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our 

quality of life. NIST has a single project related to battery and energy 

storage, which supports this mission by developing new tools and 

measurement systems needed to characterize the nanoscale 

properties of materials and devices relevant to energy storage.

We also found that agency officials involved in the initiatives reported 

differences in the technologies needed for specific uses, their initiatives’ 

specific goals, and the types of recipients eligible for assistance; further 

differentiating their respective initiatives. Examples are as follows: 

• Differences in technologies for specific uses. Agency officials involved 

in broadly overlapping initiatives reported that, although the initiatives 

may support similar technologies, there were meaningful differences 

in them because specific uses have unique operational requirements. 

For example, both DOE’s OE Energy Storage Program and DOD’s 

Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and Technology 

initiative supported applied research on similar types of batteries for 

stationary power storage. However, DOE’s initiative focused on 

addressing operational requirements of batteries for use in the 

commercial electric grid, and DOD’s Navy and Marine Corps initiative 

focused on the operational requirements unique to Navy and Marine 

Corps-specific uses such as back-up and hotel power on naval ships. 

For example, officials from DOE’s OE told us the operational 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

requirements for using batteries on the commercial electric grid 

include, among other factors, low cost and long cycle life, which is the 

amount of time that a battery can operate at a specified level of 

performance. In contrast, DOD officials from the Navy and the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

told us that batteries for providing back-up and auxiliary power for 

naval ships at sea must be light and compact enough to be easily 

transported, be rugged enough to fully operate after absorbing 

battlefield shocks, and be capable of operating under extreme 

temperature ranges such those present inside a naval ship.

• Differences in specific goals. Agency officials involved in broadly 

overlapping initiatives generally reported differences in their initiatives’ 

specific goals. For example, both DOE’s OVT Vehicle Technologies 

Energy Storage Research and Development initiative and DOE’s 

ARPA-E BEEST focused on improving battery technologies to help 

expand markets for electric vehicles. However, officials from OVT 

reported that their initiative primarily focused on developing next 

generation lithium-ion batteries to meet, among other goals, energy 

storage, safety, and cost metrics to enable a plug-in hybrid electric car 

with an all-electric driving range of 40 miles to compete commercially 

with conventional gas-powered cars. In contrast, officials from ARPAE reported that the BEEST initiative focused on developing ultra-high 

energy density, low-cost, transformational battery technologies 

beyond next generation lithium-ion batteries—such as metal-air and 

lithium-metal batteries—to enable an electric car that can travel 100 

miles or more without needing to recharge to compete commercially 

with conventional gas-powered cars.

• Differences in types of recipients. Broadly overlapping initiatives 

reported differences in the types of recipients that were eligible to 

receive funding assistance. For example, both DOE’s Batteries and 

Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub and NSF’s Energy for 

Sustainability Program reported that universities and industry were 

eligible to receive funding assistance. However, DOE officials 

reported that the hub had a broader number of eligible types of 

recipients. Specifically, DOE will award the hub funding to a lead 

entity that may be a DOE national laboratory, industry, university, or 

not-for-profit research institution. In addition, DOE officials also 

reported that DOD and other federal laboratories may participate in 

the hub despite not being eligible to lead it. The lead entity will be 

responsible for involving partners based in universities, private 

industry, nonprofits, and DOE’s national laboratories and ensuring the 

hub has a broad focus on cross-disciplinary energy science, 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

engineering, economics, and public policy. According to NSF officials, 

the agency typically supports single investigator research projects and 

makes its awards to university-based researchers who may receive 

additional support from industry partners in the form of funding or inkind assistance, or even internship opportunities if the researcher is a 

graduate student. 

While we did not find clear instances of duplicative initiatives, it is possible 

that there are duplicative activities among the initiatives that could be 

consolidated or resolved through enhanced coordination across agencies 

and at the initiative level. Also, it is possible that there are instances in 

which recipients receive funding from more than one federal source or 

that initiatives may fund some activities that would have otherwise sought 

and received private funding. Because it was beyond the scope of this 

work to look at the vast number of activities and individual awards that are 

encompassed in the initiatives we evaluated, we were unable to rule out 

the existence of any such duplication of activities or funding. Agency 

officials from most initiatives (30 of the 39) did report in survey responses 

that they include questions on their funding applications about other 

sources of federal funding that an applicant may be receiving for the 

same project. Officials from several of these agencies reported that they 

use this information to help avoid multiple funding of the same activity. 

For example, officials from NSF reported that potential awardees are 

required to provide detailed descriptions of their related work supported 

by federal funds. The scope and budget of the NSF award is adjusted if 

necessary to avoid multiple funding for any activity.

Agencies reported several activities to coordinate with each other on their 

battery and energy storage initiatives, including nearly all initiatives that 

we identified as overlapping. In addition, DOE has taken steps to 

internally coordinate its electric vehicle battery and electric grid storage 

initiatives through several activities that, among other things, involved 

defining common technology goals. DOD has taken several actions to 

improve its coordination of battery and energy storage initiatives based on 

a recommendation in one of our prior reports. Agencies’ actions were 

consistent with key practices we have previously identified that can help 

enhance and sustain federal agency coordination.26

 

26

As we have 

GAO-06-15. 

Agencies Reported 

Coordinating Their 

Initiatives with Each 

Other and Internally 

through Several 

Activities
 

Page 24 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

previously reported, a lack of coordination can waste scarce funds and 

limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.

All six agencies reported coordinating with other each other on their 

battery and energy storage initiatives through a variety of activities. In 

addition, agency officials from nearly all initiatives that we identified as 

having overlapping characteristics (in that they supported similar 

technology advancement activities, technologies, uses, and goals) 

reported coordinating with other battery and energy storage initiatives. 

We have previously reported that coordination across programs may help 

address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.27 We grouped the 

various coordination activities that agency officials reported into five 

categories on the basis of our analysis. We found agency activities that 

were consistent with key practices we have previously identified that can 

help enhance and sustain federal agency coordination, including 

monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on results and agreeing on roles 

and responsibilities.28

• Participating in working groups. Agency officials reported participating 

in several working groups. In particular, agency officials from DOE, 

DOD, and NASA identified the Chemical Working Group (CWG) of the 

Interagency Advanced Power Group as a key means for sharing 

information on energy storage science and technology advancement. 

The CWG provides an annual forum for agency program officials to 

present information on the progress and results of their ongoing 

projects to each other. The main participants in the CWG are DOE’s 

ARPA-E, BES, Hydrogen Fuel Cells Program Office, and OVT; DOD’s 

Air Force, Army, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), and Navy; and NASA. Several of these offices implemented 

initiatives we identified previously as overlapping, such as ARPA-E’s 

GRIDS initiative and the Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage 

Science and Technology initiative. In December 2010, we reported 

that the CWG meetings have been effective in identifying instances of 

project duplication in the past.

The categories of actions taken by agencies and 

examples of specific activities were as follows:

29

 

27

According to the chairs of the CWG, 

GAO-11-318SP and GAO-12-677. 

28GAO-06-15. 

29GAO-11-113. 

Agencies Coordinated with 

Each Other through 

Several Activities
 

Page 25 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

these meetings also create an opportunity for information exchange 

among agencies or their offices that has led to technology transfer.

For example, these officials said that interactions fostered by the 

working group led to the transfer of knowledge developed by NASA 

on zinc-air battery technology to the Army and Marine Corps for use in 

their own projects. In addition to the CWG, agencies identified a 

number of other working groups, such as the NASA Power Steering 

Committee, the NASA Battery Working Group, the DOD Power 

Sources Technical Working Group, and the DOD Energy and Power 

Community of Interest. We have previously reported that federal 

agencies engaged in collaborative efforts should report on their 

activities to help key decision makers within the agencies, as well as 

clients and stakeholders, to obtain feedback for improving both policy 

and operational effectiveness.

• Implementing interagency memorandums. Agency officials identified 

several interagency memorandums. As a case in point, DOE and 

DOD signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in July 2010 to 

establish a framework for cooperation and partnership on energy 

issues. Under this MOU, DOE and DOD offices have implemented 

several joint programs and projects. For example, DOE’s OVT and the 

Army’s TARDEC established the Advanced Vehicle Power 

Technology Alliance (AVPTA) to coordinate their ground vehicle 

power research, including research on batteries for hybrid electric 

propulsion systems. In addition, ARPA-E and a number of DOD 

offices, including the Army Research Laboratory, TARDEC, Air Force 

Research Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, and Naval Surface 

Warfare Centers, as well as the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP) and the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering established the Hybrid Energy Storage Module Integrated 

Project Team to develop coordinated funding announcements to 

support research on a variety of energy storage technologies for 

military and civilian uses. Further, DOE’s OE Energy Storage Program 

and the Army’s Ft. Leonard Wood jointly funded a microgrid energy 

storage demonstration project. Several of these DOE and DOD offices 

were involved in implementing overlapping initiatives that we 

identified. For example, we identified DOE’s OVT Vehicle 

Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development initiative as 

having overlapping characteristics with DOD’s Army Energy Storage 

for Air and Ground Vehicles initiative, which includes energy storage 

research and development activities supported by TARDEC. We have 

previously reported that collaborating agencies should work together 

to define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities. In 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

doing so, agencies can clarify which of them does what and organize 

their joint and individual efforts.

Coordinating directly through agency staff. Agencies also reported a 

number of activities that involved agency staff coordinating directly 

across initiatives. For example, DOE officials from BES reported that 

they engage in program manager discussions with other agencies, 

such as NSF and DOD, to help monitor their initiatives’ activities and 

provide clear distinctions between DOE supported research and that 

funded by other agencies. As we noted previously, DOE’s BES 

Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub had overlapping 

characteristics with NSF’s Energy for Sustainability Program. In 

addition, Air Force officials from the Batteries for Space-Based 

Vehicles initiative, which primarily supports batteries for satellites, 

reported that they have conducted joint technology planning activities 

for space power and energy storage research needs with DOD’s 

National Reconnaissance Office, which operates and maintains U.S. 

intelligence satellites. Agency officials also reported assisting each 

other with project selection and review to, among other things, reduce 

the risk of potential duplication of projects. For example, DARPA 

officials reported that officials from ARPA-E participated in DARPA’s 

project selection panels for its Revolutionary Portable Energy Storage 

for the Warfighter initiative, and NASA officials with the Space Power 

Systems Project reported that they participate in DOE OVT’s annual 

merit review and peer evaluation meetings. We have reported that 

federal agencies engaged in collaborative efforts need to create the 

means to monitor and evaluate their efforts to enable them to identify 

areas for improvement.

• Sponsoring and participating in conferences and workshops. 

Agencies reported sponsoring and participating in conferences and 

workshops with other agencies. For example, officials from DOE’s 

BES reported that they sponsored a workshop that included officials 

from other agencies and that aimed to define common outcomes for 

DOE’s basic research needs for electrical energy storage. Likewise, 

officials from the Air Force Special Purpose Power initiative reported 

participating in DOD’s biannual Power Sources Conference, which 

coordinates current developments in power sources and energy 

storage development and allows the opportunity to report on the 

results of initiatives. We have previously reported that collaboration 

can help agencies to define and articulate the common federal 

outcome.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

• Checking applications for potentially duplicative federal funding. As 

we mentioned previously, officials from most initiatives reported that 

they include questions on their funding applications about other 

sources of federal funding that an applicant may be receiving for the 

same project. Officials from several of these agencies reported that

they use this information to help avoid multiple funding of the same 

activity.

DOE has taken steps to internally coordinate its electric vehicle battery 

and electric grid storage initiatives through several actions. We found that 

these involved defining common technology goals; establishing 

strategies; and monitoring, evaluating, and reporting results. Specific 

steps are as follows:

• In September 2011, DOE completed an agencywide technology 

research and development plan, called its Quadrennial Technology 

Review (QTR), to guide its energy technology programs through 2015 

under six strategies.30 The QTR identified batteries and other energy 

storage technologies as critical elements in two of the strategies: 

vehicle electrification and electric grid modernization. DOE’s vehicle 

electrification strategy is focused on developing technologies for lightduty electric vehicles to help significantly reduce oil consumption. 

These technologies include advanced rechargeable batteries and 

other components of electric vehicle systems.31 DOE’s grid 

modernization strategy is focused on developing technologies to help 

maintain reliable and secure electricity infrastructure that can meet 

expected growth in the demand for electricity in the future and 

integrate renewable energy technologies. In addition to energy 

storage, grid modernization includes advanced modeling of power 

distribution needs, and “smart grid” technologies that use computerbased remote control and automation devices such as sensors to 

improve monitoring and control of power flows.

 

30Department of Energy, Report on the First Quadrennial Technology Review

(Washington, D.C.: September 2011). 

31Other components of electric vehicle systems include, for example, electric power train 

and power electronics. 

DOE Has Taken Steps to 

Coordinate Its Electric 

Vehicle Battery and Grid 

Storage Initiatives
 

Page 28 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

• DOE has also recently established two working groups, called 

integrated technical teams—one focused on electric vehicle batteries 

and the other on grid modernization. The technical teams provide staff 

from different DOE offices a mechanism to help monitor, evaluate, 

and report on their activities and results. For example, through the

technical teams, participating offices review their funding 

announcements and conduct portfolio progress reviews of each 

other’s ongoing work to avoid duplication between their initiatives. In 

addition, these teams have worked together to define common 

technology goals for DOE’s battery and energy storage initiatives.

• Electric Vehicle Battery Technical Team. This team includes 

officials from OVT, ARPA-E, and BES. The technical team set 

three common goals for DOE’s electric vehicle battery technology 

advancement efforts: (1) the battery should not cost more than 

$0.01 per mile driven over the life of the battery; (2) the battery 

should get at least 10 miles of range per minute of charging time; 

and (3) should be safe, constructed of earth-abundant materials,

and be recyclable.

• Grid Modernization Technical Team. This team includes officials 

from the OE Energy Storage Program, ARPA-E, and BES. Among 

other actions, the offices on the team established joint strategies. 

Specifically, they cosponsored strategic planning workshops to 

determine agencywide priorities for applied research on batteries 

and other energy storage technologies for the electric grid, as well 

as specific performance targets for these technologies.32 DOE has 

also established a goal of reducing the cost of energy storage on 

the grid by 30 percent by 2015, which the technical team is 

working together to achieve.

In addition to the technical teams, DOE offices reported other activities to 

coordinate directly with each other to help avoid duplicating efforts. For 

example, ARPA-E has formed a Panel of Senior Technical Advisors 

(PASTA) to coordinate with other DOE offices to leverage resources and 

ensure that ARPA-E provides unique value. As we reported in January 

2012, PASTA is a group of DOE managers that meet periodically to 

 

32Sarah Lichtner, Ross Brindle, and Lindsay Pack, Electric Power Industry Needs for GridScale Storage Applications, special report prepared at the request of the Department of 

Energy, December 2010. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

discuss current and future DOE research efforts.33 PASTA includes 

managers from ARPA-E and, among others, the Office of Science, EERE, 

and OE.

DOD officials told us that DOD has taken the following actions to improve 

its coordination of battery and energy storage initiatives, both with other 

agencies and, internally, among its offices and the services:

• A DOD official from OEPP told us that DOD has taken two actions to 

improve coordination with other agencies on battery and energy 

storage initiatives in response to a past GAO recommendation. In 

2010, we reported that DOD’s coordination on power sources science 

and technology, which includes batteries and other energy storage 

technologies, was generally effective. However, we concluded that the 

agency may be missing opportunities to leverage resources and avoid 

offices initiating similar research projects because participation in 

some coordination activities was voluntary and could be more 

complete.34

• A DOD official from OEPP told us that DOD’s Assistant 

Secretaries of Defense for Research and Engineering and for 

OEPP have assigned the DOD Energy and Power Community of 

Interest (EPCOI) the responsibility for ensuring interagency 

coordination mechanisms on power sources science and 

technology. The EPCOI working group involves officials from the 

Army, Air Force, and Navy to coordinate DOD energy and power 

science and technology activities, including batteries and other 

energy storage technologies.

We recommended that DOD determine methods to 

strengthen participation in interagency coordination mechanisms. To 

address our recommendation:

• As described earlier in this report, DOD and DOE offices have 

implemented several joint programs and projects as a result of the 

July 2010 MOU between the agencies to coordinate on energy 

issues. 

 

33GAO, Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could 

Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding, GAO-12-112 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 13, 2012). 

34GAO-11-113. 

DOD Has Taken Steps to 

Improve Its Coordination 

of Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives
 

Page 30 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

• DOD officials told us that DOD has taken two actions to improve its 

coordination of battery and energy storage initiatives among its offices 

and the services. First, officials from DOD’s OEPP told us that DOD 

has created an operational energy35 strategy that DOD issued in May 

2011, as well as an implementation plan for this strategy that DOD 

issued in March 2012. These plans established departmentwide 

priorities for reducing demand for operational energy through, in part, 

investment in new technologies and equipment such as lighter 

batteries.36 DOD officials told us that the strategy will help coordinate 

DOD’s battery and energy storage initiatives because it provides an 

agencywide road map for incorporating operational energy priorities, 

such as energy storage science and technology investments, in 

DOD’s programs. Second, DOD has also tasked OEPP to certify that 

the budget submissions of DOD offices and the services reflect these 

priorities.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOE, DOD, 

NASA, NSF, EPA, and NIST. DOE, DOD, NASA, and NSF provided 

technical and clarifying comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The other agencies we reviewed had no comments.

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

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of 

Defense, Energy, and Commerce; the Administrators of the EPA and 

NASA; the Directors of NIST and NSF; the appropriate congressional 

committees; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

 

35Operational energy is defined as the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining 

military forces and weapons platforms for military operations. The term includes energy 

used by tactical power systems and generators and weapons platforms.

36Department of Defense, Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy, 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2011) and Operational Energy Strategy: Implementation Plan

(Washington, D.C.: March 2012).

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 31 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

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

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix VI.

Frank Rusco

Director

Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Our objectives were to (1) identify the scope and key characteristics of 

federal battery and energy storage initiatives; (2) determine the extent to 

which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication of these 

initiatives, if any; and (3) determine the extent to which agencies 

coordinate their battery and energy storage initiatives.

To inform our overall review and help us understand the range of 

batteries and other energy storage technologies, their uses, and the 

increased interest in these technologies in recent years, we collected 

background information from several sources. Specifically, we reviewed a 

2010 GAO report that identified Department of Defense (DOD) 

investments in power sources, including batteries and other energy 

storage technologies.1

To identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and 

energy storage initiatives, we first decided to focus our review on 

rechargeable (i.e., secondary) batteries and other technologies but 

excluded nonrechargeable (i.e., primary) batteries, fuel cells, and nuclear 

energy storage technologies. In addition, we focused on initiatives that 

were active

We also consulted analysts from the 

Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) Office of Inspector General who have subject-matter expertise on 

federal battery and energy storage initiatives. We also interviewed 

officials from DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 

(ARPA-E), Loan Programs Office, Office of Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s 

Office of Vehicle Technologies (OVT), and Office of Science’s Office of 

Basic Energy Sciences to learn about their ongoing and planned 

initiatives, as well as officials from the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s Office of Energy Policy and Innovation regarding recent 

electricity market regulatory developments relevant to batteries and other 

energy storage technologies.

2

 

1

in any year during fiscal years 2009 through 2012 because, 

during these years, DOE offices made substantial investments in these 

technologies, including with funds made available under the 2009 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). For example, 

DOE’s ARPA-E supported about $97 million in battery and energy 

GAO-11-113. 

2

For the purposes of this report, we defined active initiatives as those that were planned or 

funded or implemented or authorized in any of the fiscal years described. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

storage technologies during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 with funding 

made available under the Recovery Act. We then developed several 

definitions to help us identify initiatives. For example, we defined an 

initiative as a group of agency activities serving a similar purpose or 

function, such as a program or mission area. For the purposes of the 

review, we also developed definitions for technology advancement 

activities: basic science, applied research, demonstrations, 

commercialization, and deployment activities.3

We next took steps to identify the agencies and initiatives that supported 

these technologies and were in our scope. To do this, we first compiled a 

preliminary list of agencies and initiatives based on two previous GAO 

reports that collected information on some federal battery and energy 

We limited our review to 

initiatives that supported basic science, applied research, demonstrations, 

and commercialization activities for batteries and other energy storage 

technologies. Because initiatives often supported more than one type of 

technology advancement activity, some of the initiatives included in this 

report may also support deployment activities. However, we excluded any 

initiatives that focused solely on deployment and initiatives that involved 

agency-owned assets such as fleets or facilities. For example, we did not 

include the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and several federal tax 

credits it administered that indirectly supported deployment of battery and 

energy storage technologies during fiscal years 2009 through 2012. 

Treasury officials told us data were generally not available on the 

estimated revenue loss directly associated with batteries and other 

energy storage technologies because available data do not break out 

qualifying investments in fine enough detail to determine which part may 

have been for qualifying battery and energy storage devices.

 

3

We developed definitions that could be applied broadly to make comparisons across 

agencies and that covered the full spectrum of advancement activities. Federal agencies 

use various definitions and categories for describing the stages of technology 

advancement. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

and DOE use technology readiness level (TRL) categories and definitions to measure and 

communicate technology readiness for first-of-a-kind technology applications. However, 

these agencies’ TRL categories and definitions are not the same. In addition, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) provides federal definitions for the terms basic research, 

applied research, and development in OMB Circular No. A–11, Section 84—Character 

Classification (Schedule C) but does not provide definitions for demonstrations and 

commercialization activities. During pretests of our questionnaire, agency officials were 

able to fit their initiatives’ activities within our categories and based on our definitions, 

which validated our use of them. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

storage initiatives active in fiscal year 2010.4

We then developed a questionnaire to collect information from officials 

involved in the 39 initiatives we identified at the six agencies on the 

initiatives’ key characteristics. We asked each agency to confirm the 

names and contact information for the officials most knowledgeable about 

each initiative, and thus the most appropriate person to complete the 

questionnaire. Specifically, we developed questions that asked about the 

types of technology advancement activities supported, technologies and 

uses supported, whether staff conducted in-house activities or provided 

assistance to external recipients, types of eligible recipients, and types of 

funding mechanisms used to provide assistance. We also asked about 

the initiative’s mission and overarching goals, its goals, if any, directly 

In addition, as mentioned 

previously, we interviewed DOE officials and also reviewed DOE 

documents. We also searched several databases and websites, including 

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, National Technical 

Information Service, Article First, ECO, Worldcat, and the Congressional 

Research Service for materials published in the last 10 years that might 

identify relevant agencies and initiatives. We shared a preliminary list of 

initiatives with agency officials, along with information about our scope 

and definitions for key terms—such as batteries and energy storage

technologies, active initiatives, and technology advancement activities—

and asked officials to confirm the initiatives on our list and also which 

initiatives should be added. If agency officials indicated they wanted to 

remove an initiative from or consolidate initiatives on our list, we asked for 

additional information. For example, we removed from our list an initiative 

in the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration that we learned focused on developing safety measures 

regarding the batteries in commercially available electric vehicles and not 

on technology advancement activities. In addition, DOD officials told us 

they wanted to consolidate their programs and projects into distinct 

initiatives for each of the military services for the purpose of our review 

because their programs and projects cut across multiple offices. Through 

interviews and other correspondence with agency officials, we confirmed 

a final list of six agencies and 39 federal battery and energy storage 

initiatives. We may not have identified and included every battery and 

energy storage initiative in the agencies we reviewed; however, given our 

methodology, we believe we have identified most, if not all.

 

4

GAO-11-113 and GAO-12-260. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

related to battery and energy storage technologies, performance 

measures, as well as technical cost and technical performance targets 

that the initiative may have. We asked about obligations for fiscal years 

2009 through 2012. Finally, we also asked whether staff from the initiative 

formally coordinated with other battery and energy storage initiatives 

within their agency or with other federal agencies and to describe 

examples of any coordination activities. To minimize errors arising from 

the differences in how questions might be interpreted and to reduce 

variability in responses that should be qualitatively the same, we worked 

with an independent GAO questionnaire specialist and conducted 

pretests of draft questionnaires with officials we had identified from four 

different initiatives at four different agencies during February and March 

2012. We conducted the pretests to check that (1) the questions were 

clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the 

questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, (4) the 

information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the questionnaire was 

comprehensive and unbiased. A second independent GAO questionnaire 

specialist also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its 

administration. On the basis of feedback from these pretests and 

independent review, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve its 

clarity.5

After completing the pretests, we administered the questionnaire. We 

sent questionnaires to the appropriate agency officials in an attached 

Microsoft Word form. We received questionnaire responses for each 

initiative and, thus, had a response rate of 100 percent. After analyzing 

the responses, we conducted follow-up e-mail exchanges or telephone 

discussions with agency officials when responses were unclear or 

conflicting, such as when both “Yes” and “No” boxes were checked or 

boxes were left completely unchecked. When necessary, we used the 

clarifying information provided by agency officials to update answers to 

questions to improve the accuracy and completeness of the data. Some 

officials reported that the funding obligations data had to be estimated 

because the initiative did not track its obligations for battery and energy 

storage-specific activities. In addition, all funding obligations reported for

 

5

For example, to help agency officials precisely understand our technology scope, we 

explained in the introduction to our questionnaire that our definition of batteries and other 

energy storage technologies encompassed full systems, as well as subsystems, 

components, and power management approaches for these technologies—for example, 

battery components, battery cells and packs, and battery power management systems.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

fiscal year 2012 were estimated. For these cases, we conducted followup interviews and reviewed relevant supplemental documentation to 

understand how the officials arrived at estimates and to assess the 

reliability of these estimates for our purposes. Overall, we determined 

agencies’ estimates to be sufficiently reliable for purposes of our report. 

As a result of our follow-up discussions with agency officials to clarify 

responses, we determined in consultation with the agencies that one 

DOD and one NASA initiative did not meet our original definitions of a 

battery and energy storage initiative. Thus, we removed these initiatives 

from our final list, which changed from 41 to 39 initiatives. According to an 

official from DOE’s OVT, since the survey focused on research and 

development activities, they did not include in their survey response $1.5 

billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act. With these funds 

DOE made awards to 20 projects to support the establishment of 

advanced battery manufacturing and battery recycling facilities in the U.S. 

DOE officials provided this information separately in OVT’s annual energy 

storage research progress reports.6

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the 

questionnaire. Because this effort was not a sample questionnaire, it has 

no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any 

questionnaire may introduce errors, commonly referred to as 

nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in interpreting a particular 

question, sources of information available to respondents, or entering 

data into a database or analyzing them can introduce unwanted variability 

into the questionnaire results. We took steps in developing the 

questionnaire and collecting and analyzing the data to minimize such 

nonsampling errors. For example, social science questionnaire specialists 

designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff that had 

subject-matter expertise. As previously mentioned, we pretested the draft 

questionnaire to ensure that the questions were clearly stated and easy to 

understand. When we analyzed the data using computer programs, an 

independent analyst checked the results from all the computer programs. 

Finally, we verified the accuracy of a small sample of keypunched records 

by comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and we 

corrected the errors we found. Less than 0.5 percent of the data items we 

A copy of our questionnaire is 

presented in appendix V.

 

6

See, for example, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Progress Report for Energy Storage R&D, DOE/EE-0675 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

checked had random keypunch errors that would not have been corrected 

during data processing. While we did not verify all responses, on the 

basis of our application of recognized questionnaire design practices and 

follow-up procedures, we determined that the data used in this report 

were of sufficient quality for our purposes.

To determine the extent to which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, 

or duplication of these initiatives, if any, we developed definitions for 

these terms based on definitions established in prior GAO reports. 

Specifically, for the purposes of this report, fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication, were defined as follows:

• Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more 

than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad 

area of national need.

• Overlap occurs when multiple initiatives support similar technologies, 

uses, technology advancement activities, and funding recipients, and 

have similar goals.

• Duplication occurs when multiple initiatives support the same 

technology advancement activities for the same technologies and 

uses, provide funding to the same recipients using the same funding 

mechanisms, and have the same goals.

To analyze potential fragmentation, we used agencies’ questionnaire 

responses to confirm the number of federal agencies that supported 

battery and energy storage initiatives. We compared this information with 

our GAO definition for fragmentation. To analyze potential overlap and 

duplication, we analyzed the key characteristics provided by agencies for 

each initiative in their questionnaire responses. Specifically, we compared 

each initiative with each of the other 38 initiatives to determine whether 

agency officials reported that the initiatives supported at least one similar 

technology advancement activity, type of battery and other energy 

storage technology, and category of use. If the initiatives did not share 

one of these three characteristics, they were considered not to have 

potential overlap. For two initiatives that reported similar responses for all

three characteristics, we compared additional information from 

questionnaire responses regarding the initiatives’ missions, goals, 

performance measures, technical cost metrics and technical performance 

metrics (if any were reported), to determine whether the initiatives also 

had similar missions or goals. If so, we determined the initiatives were

potentially overlapping. To complete the analysis, two GAO 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

scientists/engineers independently performed these comparisons and 

compared their findings. They discussed their independent findings to 

come to a joint decision as to whether initiatives were potentially 

overlapping or not. If an initiative was determined to be potentially 

overlapping, then we considered it to hold potential for duplication as well. 

For initiatives that we identified as potentially overlapping, we held 

interviews with agency officials to gather more information to verify that 

they were in fact similar. We did not interview officials involved in every 

initiative that we identified as potentially overlapping but focused on 

selected ones in DOE, DOD, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

primarily. We also reviewed questionnaire responses regarding each 

battery and energy storage initiative’s mission and overarching goals to 

identify how the initiative supported the agency’s overall mission.

To determine the extent to which agencies coordinate their initiatives, we 

used questionnaire responses and interviews to identify interagency 

coordination activities across the six agencies. For determining the extent 

of internal coordination, we examined internal coordination in DOE and 

DOD of initiatives within those agencies because they had the largest 

number of initiatives and amount of funding obligations among the 

agencies we reviewed. We also followed up with DOD on actions, if any, 

it took to address recommendations we made in 2010. We did not assess 

internal coordination in NASA, NSF, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

because total funding obligations for these initiatives were substantially 

smaller than for DOE and DOD. For example, NASA’s total obligations 

were about $21 million, and DOE’s were about $852 million for fiscal 

years 2009 through 2012. For the purposes of this report, we defined 

coordination as any joint activity by two or more organizations that is 

intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the 

organizations act alone. We drew on past GAO work related to 

interagency coordination to help us identify agency coordination

activities.7

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to August 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

 

7

GAO-06-15. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Batteries and Other Energy 

Storage Technologies

Page 40 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Agencies reported supporting a number of batteries and other energy 

storage technologies through their initiatives. Table 7 provides 

descriptions of technologies identified during our review.

Table 7: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies 

Rechargeable batteries

Advanced lead-acid batteries These are improved versions of the 100 year old battery used to provide power for starting vehicle 

engines. These batteries use lead as the anode, lead dioxide as the cathode, and a sulfuric acid 

electrolyte. Advanced lead-acid batteries are considered suitable for stationary storage uses. They 

are commercially available but also are being researched to, among other goals, improve the 

amount of time they can be usefully discharged and recharged.

Flow batteries Flow batteries—such as vanadium redox and zinc-bromide—store energy in electrolyte solutions 

that are contained in external tanks. They are candidates for use in stationary storage systems. 

Some flow batteries are commercially available or being demonstrated. Most types are also being 

researched. 

a

Lithium-ion batteries These are batteries in which lithium ions move from the cathode to the anode during the 

discharging and charging processes. These batteries are the most popular type of rechargeable 

battery for use in personal electronics and increasingly for electric vehicles and stationary storage 

systems. Research efforts aim to improve their energy capacity, safety, and reduce their cost.

Lithium-metal batteries These are batteries that use lithium as the anode. They hold the potential for providing greater 

energy stored per unit weight compared with lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are currently 

being researched primarily for electric vehicles, although they have other potential uses. Research 

aims to, among other goals, develop new materials and battery cell designs. 

Metal-air batteries These are batteries that use oxygen as the cathode and a metal anode such as magnesium, iron, 

or lithium. They hold potential for providing higher energy density and lower costs than lithium-ion 

batteries. These batteries are currently being researched for electric vehicles and stationary 

storage uses. Research aims to, among other goals, improve their ability to recharge. 

Sodium batteries Batteries that use sodium, or sodium compounds as electrodes. They are primarily considered 

suited for use in stationary storage systems. Some sodium batteries are commercially available, 

but others are being researched. Currently, research aims to, among other goals, develop new 

materials and battery cell designs. 

Other energy storage technologies

Capacitors These are devices that store energy in an electrostatic charge that can withstand hundreds of 

thousands of charge and discharge cycles without degrading. Capacitors have been used for 

small, primarily consumer electronic devices and are increasingly being developed for high-power 

weaponry and commercial electric vehicles. Currently, research aims to, among other goals, 

increase their energy density.

Compressed air energy storage 

(CAES) 

This is a storage system that involves injecting compressed air into a geological formation such as 

an underground cavern within a salt dome. To recover the power, the air is released and used to 

help drive a turbine generator. CAES provides bulk energy storage for stationary power systems. 

Currently, CAES is a mature technology; however, research exists to, among other things, develop 

new turbine technologies. 

Flywheels These are devices that store electricity in the form of mechanical energy in a spinning wheel or 

tube. To recover power, the flywheel drives a generator. Flywheels provide high power and quick 

release of energy over short durations. Flywheels are commercially available; however, research is 

being done to, among other goals, find new and improved device materials. 

Appendix II: Batteries and Other Energy 

Storage Technologies
Appendix II: Batteries and Other Energy 

Storage Technologies

Page 41 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Hydraulic accumulator energy 

storage

These are devices that store energy in the form of pressurized pumped fluid. Accumulators are 

being demonstrated and researched for use in hybrid vehicles that combine a hydraulic pumppowered motor with a gas-powered motor to provide vehicle propulsion. 

b

Solar thermal energy storage These are systems that store heat from solar energy collection in a medium such as molten salt 

and release it to drive a turbine electricity generator. The technology is currently commercial in 

small amounts and limited by the need for suitable geography. There is ongoing research to 

develop thermal energy storage materials and storage methods.

b

Superconducting magnetic 

energy storage

These are devices that store energy in the form of a magnetic field. These devices are used for 

stationary storage systems because they provide short bursts of energy very rapidly to help 

support power grid electricity reliability. They are commercially available but are also being 

researched to develop systems with lower costs.

b

Sources: GAO analysis of CRS, DOE, and EPA documents.

a

Agency officials reported that their initiatives supported flow batteries other than redox flow batteries 

by using the “other batteries” field provided in our questionnaire. See appendix IV for selected 

questionnaire responses for the initiatives we reviewed. We reported initiatives’ support for these 

batteries under “other” technologies (column 11).

b

Agency officials reported that their initiative supported this type of energy storage technology using 

the “other technologies” field provided in our questionnaire. See appendix IV for selected 

questionnaire responses for the initiatives we reviewed. We reported initiatives’ support for this 

technology under “other” technologies (column 11).
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 42 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

We identified 39 initiatives across six agencies that supported batteries 

and other energy storage technologies through basic research, applied 

research, demonstrations, commercialization, and deployment activities. 

Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide descriptions of the initiatives in 

each agency by implementing office.

Table 8: Department of Energy Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development: This initiative, implemented by the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Office of Vehicle Technologies (OVT), advances 

battery technologies to enable a large market penetration of hybrid and electric vehicles through applied 

materials research and battery development activities with national labs, universities, and industry.

$323,043,000

Office of Electricity Energy Storage Program: This program, implemented by the Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), is designed to develop and demonstrate new and advanced energy 

storage technologies that will enable the stability and surety of the future electric utility grid as it transforms 

into a smart grid. The program focuses on technology development that improves the affordability and 

performance of energy storage and enables a robust suite of competitive options for various grid services.

a

241,234,515 

Core Research - Materials Science and Engineering: This initiative, implemented by the Office of 

Science’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), encompasses research activities that support basic 

science research to provide the knowledge base for the discovery and design of new materials for the 

generation, storage, and use of energy and for mitigation of the environmental impacts of energy use.

23,170,874 

Energy Frontier Research Centers: This initiative, implemented by BES, supports basic and advanced 

discovery research to accelerate advanced energy technologies, including renewable energy technologies, 

by combining the talents and creativity of the nation’s scientific workforce with a powerful new generation 

of tools for penetrating, understanding, and manipulating matter on the atomic and molecular scales.

69,500,000

Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub: This initiative, implemented by BES, is focused 

on transforming electrochemical energy storage beyond the current limits, including the exploration of new 

materials, architectures, systems, and novel approaches for transportation and utility-scale storage, by 

supporting cross-disciplinary research and development.

20,000,000

Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportationb: This initiative, implemented by the 36,344,516

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), seeks to develop a new generation of ultra-high 

energy density, low-cost battery technologies for long electric range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and allelectric vehicles. 

Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storageb: This initiative, implemented by ARPA-E, 27,687,068

seeks to develop new technologies to enable the widespread deployment of cost-effective, grid-scale 

energy storage technologies to balance the short-duration variability in renewable generation.

ARPA-E Initial Funding Opportunity Announcement—Energy Storage Technologiesb: This initiative 33,052,915 

was ARPA-E’s first funding announcement and primarily aimed at prospective applicants who already had 

a relatively well-formed research and development plan for a transformational concept or new technology, 

including energy storage technologies, that could make a significant contribution toward attainment of the 

administration’s Energy and Environment Agenda, if and when successfully deployed.

Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 43 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

High Energy Advanced Thermal Storageb: This initiative, implemented by ARPA-E, seeks to develop 37,268,245 

revolutionary cost-effective thermal energy storage technologies in three focus areas: (1) high-temperature 

storage systems to deliver solar electricity more efficiently around the clock and allow nuclear and fossil 

baseload resources the flexibility to meet peak demand; (2) fuel produced from the sun’s heat; and (3) 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems that use thermal storage to dramatically improve the 

driving range of electric vehicles.

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program: This program, implemented by the 

Loan Programs Office (LPO), provides direct loans to companies making cars and components in U.S. 

factories that increase fuel economy at least 25 percent above 2005 fuel economy levels.

29,627,800

Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program

d

c

: This program, implemented by LPO, provides loan guarantees, 11,065,875

under Section 1703, to innovative clean technologies that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants. Under 

Section 1705 (now sunsetted), the program provided loan guarantees to certain clean energy projects, 

including those employing more mature technologies, that began construction prior to September 30, 2011.

Total

d

$851,994,808 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

DOE’s OVT also awarded $1.5 billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act to 20 projects 

to support the establishment of advanced battery manufacturing and recycling facilities in the United 

States.

b

ARPA-E’s authorizing legislation, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote 

Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2007, (Pub. L. No. 110-69 

(2007)) was reauthorized on January 4, 2011, and funding for the program was authorized through 

fiscal year 2013.

c

The Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program is in Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (Pub. L. No. 

109-58 (2005)). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added Section 1705 to Title 

XVII. The Section 1705 initiative had a sunset date of September 30, 2011.

d

These obligations represent the credit subsidy costs associated with about $596 million in federal 

loans supported by DOE for battery and energy storage projects. Specifically, the Advanced 

Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program made about $520 million in loans and the Title 

XVII Loan Guarantee Program guaranteed about $76 million in loans. Loans supported by the Title 

XVII Loan Guarantee Program were made by the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank. Credit 

subsidy costs are the estimated net long-term cost to the government, in present value terms, of the 

loans over the entire period the loans are outstanding. Present value is the worth of the future stream 

of returns or costs in terms of money paid immediately. In calculating present value, prevailing 

interest rates provide the basis for converting future amounts into their “money now” equivalents. 

Credit subsidy costs exclude administrative costs and any incidental effects on governmental receipts 

or outlays. Officials from DOE’s LPO told us that one of the battery and energy storage projects under 

the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program with a loan guarantee commitment for a loan of $17 million 

withdrew from the program reducing the value of its loan to zero. As a result, the total amount in loans 

that DOE guaranteed for these technologies under the program was reduced by $17 million, and the 

total amount of the program’s credit subsidy obligations were also reduced by over $830,000.
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 44 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 9: Department of Defense Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Army Energy Storage for the Soldier: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, aims to provide the warfighter with an 

ergonomic, lightweight, high energy density, soldier-worn battery that can serve as a central power source 

for all worn and carried power consumers. 

$16,000,000

Army Energy Storage for Basing: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, examines technologies to manage, distribute and 

store energy in bases of all sizes (from tactical contingency bases to large fixed installations). These 

sources require some level of energy storage, especially in the development of microgrids and other 

architectures for power management.

a

13,100,000

Army Energy Storage for Air and Ground Vehicles: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, conducts research and 

development to enable hybridization, auxiliary power units, and other nonprime power applications.

a

80,058,000

Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and Technology: This initiative, implemented by the 

Office of Naval Research, Sea Warfare Department (ONR 33), supports fundamental and early applied 

research to identify and develop novel materials and device architectures with improved power and 

energy densities over current state-of-the-art technology to address Navy/Marine Corps-unique 

requirements. The initiative supports applied research and prototype development to develop, 

demonstrate, and transition practical devices and systems that exploit novel energy storage materials, 

devices, and designs in practical embodiments to Navy/Marine Corps acquisition programs for further 

maturation and fielding. 

a

80,091,000a

Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage System Integration: This initiative, implemented by the Naval 

Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and U.S. Marine Corps, conducts applied 

research, demonstration, and deployment activities to enable and develop systems, technologies, 

processes, and materials to allow large format lithium-ion batteries to be carried, installed, charged, 

maintained, and utilized aboard surface ships and submarines, enable operational missions supporting 

the warfighter, and enhance mission coverage and capability. 

130,000,000

Air Force Basic Research Activities in Battery and Storage Technologies: This initiative, 

implemented by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, conducts 

basic research programs focused on advancement and understanding of batteries and storage 

technologies.

a

9,173,000

Air Force Wide Temperature Capacitor Research and Development: This initiative, implemented by 

the Air Force Research Laboratory-Propulsion Directorate, focuses on the development of wide 

temperature capacitor dielectric materials, modeling and simulation of capacitor architectures and 

geometries, and the development of specialized testing capabilities for both dielectric materials and 

packaged capacitors. 

4,515,000

Air Force Batteries for Aircraft and Directed Energy Weapons: This initiative, implemented by the Air 

Force Research Laboratory-Propulsion Directorate, under the Integrated Vehicle Energy Technology 

program, aims to develop electrochemical energy storage systems to provide safe, lightweight electrical 

power for aircraft and directed energy weapons. 

24,436,646

Air Force Zinc-Bromide Flow Battery: This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research 

Laboratory-Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, was funded only in fiscal year 2010 and supported

testing and evaluation of zinc-bromide flow batteries for use when connected to a microgrid and solar 

generation system to support the military mission and provide power in the event of grid outage. 

3,337,050
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 45 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Air Force Special Purpose Power: This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research LaboratoryPropulsion Directorate, supports development of novel power systems and technologies for specialized 

Air Force applications. Specific applications include: airman portable power systems and unmanned aerial 

vehicle power/propulsion systems. 

11,663,000

Air Force Advanced Materials for Energy Storage Applications: This initiative, implemented by the Air 

Force Research Laboratory-Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, supports fundamental, as well as 

applied research and development efforts to develop a variety of high-performance materials and 

manufacturing technologies necessary to increase the performance of next generation energy storage 

devices, such as batteries and capacitors, for a variety of military applications. 

22,590,000

Air Force Batteries for Space-Based Vehicles: This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research 

Laboratory-Space Vehicles Directorate, aims to develop energy storage systems (batteries and 

ultracapacitors) to meet the needs of DOD space-based assets, to include high specific energy and 

power, long cycle life, and improved depth of discharge. 

a

7,669,579

DARPA Revolutionary Portable Energy Storage for the Warfighter: This initiative, implemented by the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), aimed to solve high-risk, DOD mission-critical 

portable power and energy challenges that are unique to DOD, not adequately addressed by the 

commercial market, and lie beyond the capabilities, scope, and risk level of other DOD organizations.

14,662,444

ESTCP Installation Energy Test Bed: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Environmental Security Technology Certification 

Program (ESTCP), demonstrates renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy management, and energy 

storage technologies. Energy storage technologies are demonstrated in the context of microgrids that will 

enable grid-compatible operation, improve efficiency of an installation’s power network, and enable 

increased use of distributed generation, especially renewable energy sources. 

12,978,510

Total

a

$430,274,229

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated. For example, Army officials told us that 

it was hard to break out obligations for rechargeable batteries from obligations for all batteries—

including nonrechargeable batteries— supported under its initiatives. Therefore, Army officials’ 

reported obligations were an overestimate of the actual amount obligated for rechargeable batteries.
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 46 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 10: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding 

Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Prognostics Algorithm Development: This initiative, implemented by Ames Research Center, 

investigates algorithms to estimate the state of health, and remaining life of components, and applies it to 

batteries, including lithium-ion batteries. The key goal of this initiative is to develop and mature the 

science of prognostics for systems health management in aerospace applications. 

$500,000a

Night Rover Challenge: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist’s Centennial 

Challenges Program, is a $1.5 million prize purse competition to develop an energy storage system that 

can store at least 500 watt-hours per kilogram. 

1,500,000 

Silicon Nano-Wire Anode: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist, seeks to 

adapt proven, breakthrough battery technology relying on nanostructured silicon anodes (silicon nanowire 

technology) to the extreme environments of space applications. 

1,200,000 

Space Power Systems Project: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist, 

Game Changing Development Program, seeks to improve the performance of secondary lithium-ion 

battery cells to meet the energy storage requirements of human space missions by developing advanced 

battery components that safely provide substantially higher specific energy and energy density than is 

currently available.

13,422,620

Flywheel Energy Storage and Momentum Control: This initiative, implemented by Glenn Research 

Center, conducts applied research to develop and demonstrate unique NASA cross-cutting flywheel 

technology for space and terrestrial applications and commercialize the technology through direct 

partnership with industry and intellectual property licensing.

3,008,754a

Aerospace Lithium-Ion Cell Qualification Program: This initiative, implemented by Goddard Space 

Flight Center, performs cell characterization tests followed by simulated life cycling regimes at both low 

Earth orbit and geosynchronous Earth orbit of large prismatic lithium-ion cells from several vendors to 

qualify them for aerospace use. 

80,000

Lithium-Ion COTS Battery Surveillance: This program, implemented by Johnson Space Center, 

involves a surveillance of state-of-the-art commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) lithium-ion battery cells. 

Lithium-ion cells are purchased and undergo a stringent set of performance and safety tests to determine 

their suitability for space applications in a human-rated environment. The information collected enables 

quick design, buildup, and test at the battery level (as cell level data is already existent through this 

program). This initiative also included studies of polymer lithium-ion cells and in-depth study of issues 

encountered in the battery industry with respect to safety.

850,000 

NASA Space Act Agreement with Underwriters Laboratories: This initiative, implemented by Johnson 

Space Center, aims to obtain a standard for simulating internal shorts in lithium-ion batteries for various 

applications.

250,000 

Total $20,811,374

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated.
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 47 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 11: National Science Foundation Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Subtotal 

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Energy for Sustainability: This initiative, implemented by the Directorate for Engineering, supports 

fundamental research and education that will enable innovative processes for the sustainable production 

of electricity and transportation fuels. One research interest area is on high-energy density and highpower density batteries suitable for transportation applications. 

Information not available

Energy, Power, and Adaptive Systems: This initiative, implemented by the Directorate for Engineering, 

supports the design and study of intelligent and adaptive engineering networks with an emphasis on 

electric power electronics, networks, and grids. The initiative also supports laboratory and curriculum 

development to integrate research and education.

a

$2,582,868 

Sustainable Energy Pathways: This initiative, implemented by the Directorate for Engineering, is part of 

a broader agency initiative that supports innovative, interdisciplinary, basic research in science, 

engineering, and education by teams of researchers for developing systems approaches to sustainable 

energy pathways based on a comprehensive understanding of the scientific, technical, environmental, 

economic, and societal issues.

Information not available

Renewable Energy Storage: This initiative, implemented by the Emerging Frontiers in Research and 

Innovation Office, supported basic research projects that invested in, and could potentially transform, the 

field of renewable energy storage. 

b

6,000,000

Total $8,582,868

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

NSF officials reported that information on obligations for battery-related research awards was not 

available at the time of our review because the initiative’s review/award process was still under way. 

They told us that funding for the Energy for Sustainability Program was about $13 million for fiscal 

year 2012. The program covers a variety of topics ranging from solar, wind, biofuels, and battery 

research. Officials told us that, based on the quality of the received proposals, and other factors, they 

anticipate there will be some battery-related research awards made during fiscal year 2012.

b

NSF officials from this initiative reported that information on obligations in the area of batteries and 

energy storage technologies will not be known until awards are made.
Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Initiatives

Page 48 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 12: Environmental Protection Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Total

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

High-Pressure Accumulator Energy Storage for Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicles: This initiative, 

implemented by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s Clean Automotive Technology Program, 

aims to develop a safe, low-cost, light weight, high-efficiency energy storage system for use in hydraulic 

hybrid passenger vehicles and heavy commercial trucks.

$3,258,029

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Table 13: National Institute of Standards and Technology Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding

Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012

Name of initiative and description

Total

(actual and estimated)

obligations fiscal years

2009 through 2012

Development of Measurement Methods and Devices to Characterize Electrochemical Energy 

Storage and Conversion Devices at the Nanoscale: This single project, within the Center for 

Nanoscale Science and Technology, supports basic research to develop new tools and measurement 

systems to characterize the chemical and physical transformations that occur at the nanoscale in 

electrochemical energy storage devices. 

$1,375,000a

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 49 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

We identified 39 initiatives across six agencies that supported batteries 

and other energy storage technologies through basic research, applied 

research, demonstrations, commercialization, and deployment activities. 

We developed a questionnaire about the initiatives and submitted it to the 

agencies. Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 provide selected 

questionnaire responses for the initiatives in each agency. We are 

reporting responses that elaborate on our report findings.

Table 14: Department of Energy Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other 

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics 

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

OVT Vehicle 

Technologies 

Energy Storage 

Research and 

Development

       

OE Energy 

Storage 

Program 

           

BES Core 

Research - 

Materials 

Science and 

Engineering

  

BES Energy 

Frontier 

Research 

Centers

  

BES Batteries

and Energy 

Storage Energy 

Innovation Hub

            

Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 50 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other 

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics 

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ARPA-E 

Batteries for 

Electrical 

Energy Storage 

in 

Transportation

        

ARPA-E GridScale Rampable 

Intermittent 

Dispatchable 

Storage

        

ARPA-E Initial 

Funding 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

– Energy 

Storage 

Technologies

       

ARPA-E High 

Energy 

Advanced 

Thermal 

Storage

    

LPO Advanced 

Technology 

Vehicles

Manufacturing

Loan Program 

         

LPO Title XVII 

Loan Guarantee 

Program 

            

Total 6 3 5 3 3 7 5 8 6 5 7 2 6 0 0 6 0 2 3 6 1 6 1 3 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 51 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 15: Department of Defense Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other 

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Army Energy 

Storage for the 

Soldier

          

Army Energy 

Storage for 

Basing 

    

Army Energy 

Storage for Air 

and Ground 

Vehicles

         

Navy and Marine 

Corps Energy 

Storage Science 

and Technology

              

Navy and Marine 

Corps Energy 

Storage System 

Integration

               

Air Force Basic 

Research 

Activities in 

Battery and 

Storage 

Technologies

 

Air Force Wide 

Temperature 

Capacitor 

Research and 

Development

      
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 52 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other 

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Air Force 

Batteries for 

Aircraft and 

Directed Energy 

Weapons

         

Air Force ZincBromide Flow 

Battery 

     

Air Force Special 

Purpose Power       

Air Force 

Advanced 

Materials for 

Energy Storage 

Applications

           

Air Force 

Batteries for 

Space-Based 

Vehicles

     

DARPA 

Revolutionary 

Portable Energy 

Storage for the 

Warfighter

              

ESTCP 

Installation 

Energy Test Bed

     

Total 4 8 9 0 0 11 7 8 2 3 4 7 5 8 4 5 6 2 6 11 10 2 5 1

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 53 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 16: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels 

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Prognostics 

Algorithm 

Development

      

Night Rover 

Challenge  

Silicon Nano-Wire 

Anode     

Space Power 

Systems Project      

Flywheel Energy 

Storage and 

Momentum 

Control

     

Aerospace 

Lithium-Ion Cell 

Qualification 

Program 

    

Lithium-Ion COTS 

Battery 

Surveillance

         

NASA Space Act 

Agreement with 

Underwriters 

Laboratories

          

Total 0 0 1 0 1 6 2 1 0 0 0 4 3 4 2 1 0 3 1 8 7 3 3 2 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 54 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 17: National Science Foundation Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Energy for 

Sustainability      

Energy, Power, 

and Adaptive 

Systems 

         

Sustainable 

Energy Pathways  

Renewable 

Energy Storage        

Total 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 55 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 18: Environmental Protection Agency Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

High-Pressure 

Accumulator 

Energy Storage for 

Hydraulic Hybrid 

Vehicles

        

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 56 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 19: National Institute of Standards and Technology Selected Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors 

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Development of 

Measurement 

Methods and 

Devices to 

Characterize 

Electrochemical 

Energy Storage 

and Conversion 

Devices at the 

Nanoscale 

 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire 

Responses for Federal Battery and Energy 

Storage Technology Initiatives

Page 57 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Table 20: Total for All Agencies—Selected Questionnaire Responses for Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives

Key

1. Advanced lead-acid

2. Basic energy storage research

3. Capacitors

4. Compressed air energy storage

5. Flywheels

6. Lithium-ion batteries

7. Lithium-metal batteries

8. Metal-air batteries

9. Redox flow batteries

10. Sodium batteries

11. Other

12. Auxiliary power for vehicles

13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion 

14. Other vehicle propulsion

15. Personal electronics

16. Stationary power storage

17. Weapon systems 

18. Other

19. Basic research

20. Applied research 

21. Demonstrations

22. Commercialization

23. Deployment

24. Other

Technologies Uses

Technology 

advancement activities

Agency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

DOE 6 3 5 3 3 7 5 8 6 5 7 2 6 0 0 6 0 2 3 6 1 6 1 3 

DOD 4 8 9 0 0 11 7 8 2 3 4 7 5 8 4 5 6 2 6 11 10 2 5 1 

NASA 0 0 1 0 1 6 2 1 0 0 0 4 3 4 2 1 0 3 1 8 7 3 3 2 

NSF 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 

EPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 

NIST 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 11 14 17 4 4 28 16 19 9 9 15 14 16 12 6 14 6 8 15 27 19 12 10 6

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 58 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives 
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 59 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 60 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 61 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 62 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 63 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 64 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 65 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 66 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 67 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 68 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 69 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 70 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 71 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix V: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal 

Agencies with Battery and Energy Storage 

Initiatives

Page 72 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 73 GAO-12-842 Batteries and Energy Storage

Frank Rusco (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Tim Minelli (Assistant Director), 

Hilary Benedict, Frederick K. Childers, Tanya Doriss, R. Scott Fletcher, 

Brian M. Friedman, Cindy Gilbert, Perry Lusk, Cynthia Norris, Jerome 

Sandau, Kathryn Smith, Maria Stattel, Barbara Timmerman, and Eugene 

Wisnoski made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361332)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.